Justice for Sale? Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisionmaking

Cann, Damon M.

doi:10.1177/153244000700700303

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, regardless of whether the contributions are modeled as endogenous, the estimates suggest that they are significantly associated with judicial decision making. Indeed, throughout the analyses of Table 4 and consistent prior research (e.g., Cann 2007;Kang & Shepherd 2011), the results imply that contributions are endogenous to judicial decision making and that they correspond to judicial votes in the anticipated direction. The estimated effect of advertising, however, differs in the other analyses of Table 4.…”

Section: Columns [1] and [2] Ofsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Most research on judicial campaign contributions deals with the possibility of reverse causality (i.e., that judges attract contributions from like‐minded groups) by controlling for judicial ideology rather than explicitly modeling the potential endogeneity. An exception is Cann (:289), who uses an instrumental variables approach to analyze the effect of contributions from lawyers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judicial Elections, Public Opinion, and Decisions on Lower‐Salience Issues

Canes‐Wrone¹,

Clark²,

Semet³

2018

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship finds that in states with judicial elections, public opinion affects judges’ decisions on hot‐button campaign issues such as the death penalty or marijuana legalization. Yet the literature leaves open the question of how public opinion affects judicial decisions on less salient issues, which not only dominate the dockets of state supreme courts but also encompass areas of major legal and policy significance. We consider one such issue that infrequently emerges in judicial campaigns, environmental law. Specifically, we collect an original dataset of over 5,000 judicial votes on nearly 1,000 cases heard in 40 state supreme courts from 1990–2014. We find that for the dataset as a whole, there is not a significant effect of public opinion on judicial decisions in any of the major judicial selection systems. However, in the few states in which environmental issues have been the subject of campaign attack ads, we find evidence of such a relationship during the years following the ads. These results contribute to a growing literature that suggests elections can reduce judicial independence from public opinion.

show abstract

Section: Columns [1] and [2] Ofsupporting

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Elections, Public Opinion, and Decisions on Lower‐Salience Issues

Canes‐Wrone¹,

Clark²,

Semet³

2018

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Judges approaching consideration for reappointment exhibit similar behavior (Shepherd 2009 (Cann 2007). Subtle effects of campaign contributions are apt to go unnoticed, however.…”

Section: Electoral Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Their results suggest that it may be difficult for judges to ignore partisan efforts that enable them to retain their positions (Shepherd & Kang 2011). Similarly, Cann (2007) found that in Georgia, an attorney's campaign contributions influence judicial decisionmaking in the attorney's cases before that judge.…”

Section: Electoral Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Rachlinski¹,

Wistrich²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 AbstractDo judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

show abstract

“…Along these lines, there are a few studies looking at attorney contributions, but the evidence is mixed. Cann's (2002;2007) studies of the Wisconsin (nonpartisan) and Georgia (nonpartisan) Supreme Courts yield contradictory results. He finds a relationship between attorney contributions and favorable decisions in Georgia, but not Wisconsin.…”

Section: Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

Rebe

2016

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the causal connection between attorney contributions and judicial decisions in elective states. The results show that contributions are a significant predictor of appellant success in state supreme courts when judges receive contributions from the attorneys for the appellant. However, this relationship is contingent on the competitiveness of the judicial seat. The analysis shows that judges who received a low percentage of the vote in the previous election are more likely to vote with contributors than judges who received a high percentage. This evidence bolsters the argument that contributions directly affect decision making when judges feel electoral pressure. The results also support the proposition that elected judges are more likely to vote with donors in states with nonpartisan ballots. While the contribution amounts are higher in partisan states, the judges in the nonpartisan sample are more closely aligned with their contributors when it comes to decision making.

show abstract

Justice for Sale? Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisionmaking

Cited by 38 publications

References 20 publications

Judicial Elections, Public Opinion, and Decisions on Lower‐Salience Issues

Judicial Elections, Public Opinion, and Decisions on Lower‐Salience Issues

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About