Public Financing

"(Public Financing) makes all the difference. I've run in two elections, one with campaign finance reform and one without. I'll take 'with' any time, any day, any where."  

—Judge Wanda Bryant, N.C. Court of Appeals

Elected judges must "dial for dollars," from parties who appear before them in court. Public financing reduces that pressure, and thus boosts public confidence in elected judges.

Eligible candidates receive a pool of public money to conduct their campaigns. To qualify, candidates must  obtain smaller contributions from a specified number of supporters, and  abide by strict fundraising and spending limits. 
 
North Carolina became the first state, in 2002, to provide full public financing for judicial campaigns. An in-depth study concluded in 2009 that North Carolina's plan "has reduced the influence of private contributors and helps insulate judges from politics.” New Mexico adopted a public funding plan for judicial elections in 2007, and in 2009, Wisconsin became the third state to adopt public financing for appellate court elections.

Public financing promotes a diverse candidate pool, by reducing the economic burden of mounting a campaign. And it further boosts  confidence by enabling candidates to spend time with all voters, regardless of their ability to make contributions.

The threat of special-interest spending to the integrity of elected state courts was escalated by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010, and public financing is among reforms available to assure the public that  justice is not for sale.

Money & Elections Resources