HARRISBURG Judicial seat hopefuls raise $2M, much from lawyers' contributions

Some law firms gave money to both Supreme Court candidates
By PETER JACKSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
HARRISBURG -- The race between Joan Orie Melvin and Max Baer for an open seat on the state Supreme Court is clearly a big-money enterprise, at least by judicial campaign standards, with the two candidates having raised more than $2 million between them, heading into Tuesday's election.
As usual, lawyers have put up a sizable portion of the money. Attorneys and law firms that identified themselves as such in state campaign-finance reports posted on the Internet have contributed more than $150,000 to Melvin, a Superior Court judge, and more than $340,000 to Baer, an Allegheny County judge.
Among critics of electing -- rather than appointing -- the state's judges, the conventional wisdom is that such payments taint the judicial process and at least create the perception that judges take lawyers' generosity into account when they rule on cases.
Lawyers who contribute to judicial candidates dismiss that viewpoint as paranoid and say they are simply participating in the process, expecting nothing except courts run by competent judges.
Generosity
That goes double for lawyers and firms that give money to both candidates. Some of those donors have been quite generous.
Thomas R. Kline, a founding partner at Kline & amp; Specter, a Philadelphia firm that specializes in representing victims of catastrophic injuries and medical malpractice, gave $10,000 to Baer and $5,000 to Melvin, according to the candidates' reports. His partner, Shanin Specter, gave Melvin another $5,000.
The Reed Smith law firm in Pittsburgh gave Melvin $7,500 and Baer $5,000.
Melvin reported receiving $8,000 and Baer reported $5,000 from Saul Ewing, a Philadelphia-based firm whose managing partner said its political giving is guided by an informal process -- similar to the one it uses in making charitable donations -- that generally reflects the preferences of its partners and its clients.
While Saul Ewing does not expect anything in return, Steve Aichele said, "we have to justify to our partners that it's for the good of the firm as a whole."
Relaxed restrictions
Lynn Marks, a lawyer who heads Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, echoed other court-watchers in saying that donors who contribute to two competing judicial candidates are simply "covering their bases."
Marks, whose group for years has lobbied unsuccessfully for changes providing for appellate judges in Pennsylvania to be appointed, said she has heard lawyers complain that they "got burned" by judges whose opponents they supported financially.
Nathaniel Persily, who teaches law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, noted that interest groups routinely contribute to both sides in congressional and other political campaigns.
"It's quite typical to play both sides of the fence," he said. "It merely is a more effective way of getting what you want."
Last year's Supreme Court ruling that relaxed restrictions on judicial candidates' freedom to discuss political issues represented another step toward treating judicial campaigns -- in states that elect judges -- more like campaigns for the executive and legislative branches of government, Persily said.
The trend also has spawned more activism in the judicial campaigns by special interests and may hobble states' attempts to regulate spending in those campaigns, he said.
XPeter Jackson is the Capitol correspondent for The Associated Press in Harrisburg.