So you would almost have thought it didn't happen, but there was a major US Supreme Court decision about the problems that arise when the judiciary is too indebted to political contributors - or, perhaps more importantly locally, "other electoral assistance". For folks who have not followed the case, basically a large West Virginia coal company attempted to force a competitor out of business by buying all the land around its competitor and blocking road access to their holdings. Courts ruled the action illegal and awarded a $50 million judgement to smaller competitor. Massey then spent $3 million dollars to help elect West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin. Benjamin later voted unsurprisingly to reverse the $50 million judgment against Massey. His election to the bench turned out to an investment with a $47 million direct profit to Massey Coal.

By 5-4 the Supreme court "liberals" voted against the Supreme Court conservatives, that Benjamin should have recused himself from the case - which seemingly any sane, neutral observer who believes in an independent judiciary would concur with - and the case will return to the WV Supremes minus Benjamin. Massey's owner, Don Blankenship, spent more than 3 times all of Benjamin's other contributors combined to elect Benjamin. Its not an exageration to say Benjamin's seat on the court was basically bought and paid for by one single coal company as means to eliminate one of its business rivals.

The Inky has pretty good coverage of the decision.

Explaining the majority position:

"Though not a bribe or criminal influence, Justice Benjamin would nevertheless feel a debt of gratitude to Blankenship for his extraordinary efforts to get him elected," Kennedy wrote.

So what does this mean for PA where every judge is elected by partisan politics and election costs for judges continue to escalate and escalate. The SCOTUS conservatives opposed the decision because they felt drawing a line for "too much" influence on judicial elections opens the door for any number cases that are maybe not as egregious as Caperton vs. Massey Coal but where elected judges have a political conflict of interest.

"This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.

"It is an old cliche, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease," Roberts said.

In a sense, Roberts is right - not to say the courts should just bend over and surrender themselves to un-Constitutional manipulation by whatever corporate interest can spend the most money to elect judges - but that the case does open up the question of how much influence is too much.

Here in PA we have very, very serious accusations of judicial influence on the State Supreme Court on gaming law by gaming interests, including from a local uber-lawyer and very, very prominent investor in the Sugar House Casino by the name Richard Sprague. Those accusations come from folks as "fringe" and "radical" as the League of Women Voters. In Philadelphia, the Bureau of Revision of Taxes faces accusations of ingrained corruption based on recent investigative journalism so dire that the Mayor and President of City Council recently called on the entire board that heads the BRT to step down. According to the original Inquirer coverage, that corruption derives from how that board is appointed - essentially that the local Democratic and Republican Party chairs give a list to a board of elected judges who then appoint the BRT board based on the party list. The majority of employees in the BRT in turn is also hired in a similar manner, from a list generated by party heads, that goes to the BRT board who then hires and fires on who has party pull, not experience or job performance.

Obviously we have some issues with conflicts of interest with our judiciary both at a state and local level that need some straightening out in the context of Caperton vs. Massey.

One of the most interesting side notes about this decision is that of all people, the Inquirer's senior business correspondent, chose to editorialize to underline Caperton's implications for the problems in PA's courts. And that columnist in turn quoted a former Commonwealth Court Judge swinging hard for judicial reform.

"Under this decision, when a level of financial or political support for a judicial candidate reaches a level that it reasonably creates an appearance of bias, that judge must recuse." Step aside.

"Litigants should not have to worry that a judge's decision might in some respect be motivated by political considerations, rather than by an impartial application of the law to the evidence."

The court didn't say how much political money is too much. So judges will have to be extra careful, and "not become involved in cases involving parties or lawyers who have significant financial or other involvement in the election process involving that judge."

"This should take the incentive out of providing major support or opposition for judicial candidates upon an attempt to gain advantage in litigation.

"I hope that the Caperton decision ultimately will remove the opposition to Pennsylvania and other states abolishing partisan elections as the method of selecting judges.

So I know this a forum where smart people who care about undue corporate influence on the law but also people about passionate partisan politics offer their opinions.

Where do we go from here in terms of judicial conflict of interest here in PA in the wake of Caperton?