You are probably familiar with the expression, "Money is power." This expression colors our perception of the way things work in all areas of our society, including our perception of the way things work in politics and in the judicial system. The perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decisions is one of the most difficult issues facing the judiciary today.

I have been a West Virginia Supreme Court justice since 1996, and previously served as a trial judge for many years. I have never seen firsthand evidence that any judge made a decision based on a campaign contribution. That’s the reality. But it’s the perception that counts. It’s the perception that erodes public trust and confidence in our judiciary.

Recognizing this, the United States Supreme Court in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al., No. 98-963 (January 24, 2000) upheld 6-3 the rights of states to place limits on individuals’ campaign contributions. The Nixon decision also safeguarded for now the 1976 decision of Buckley v. Valeo which limited individuals’ contributions to candidates for federal office to $1,000. Following the federal example in Buckley, about two-thirds of all states limit campaign contributions. West Virginia limits individual contributions to a candidate at $1,000 per election.

Challengers to the Missouri statute at issue in Nixon argued that campaign limits muzzle free speech by prohibiting individuals from putting their money where their mouths are to support their chosen candidates. They also argued that Missouri should increase the limits because of inflation since the 1976 Buckley decision.

Writing for the Nixon majority, Justice David Souter explained that the interest of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption outweighs these concerns. "Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune can jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance," Justice Souter wrote.

Because I am a fierce proponent of both the reality and the perception of judicial independence, Justice Souter’s words ring true.

Judicial independence separates America from other countries and makes her great. For example, Russia and Mexico both have huge oil reserves, vast natural resources, and literate and hard-working people. But both are still third world countries. One of the fundamental reasons is that both lack an independent judiciary, which deters outside investment and strangles economic development.

Although I cannot imagine our country becoming like Russia or Mexico, I am aware of the ugly fact that as the amount of money spent on judicial campaigns increases, the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary will decrease. We are a great nation because in our courts we have the rule of law, not the rule of men. Cases are decided on their merits, not on who the litigants or lawyers are, nor who donated money. We must not let it appear otherwise to the public.