What’s the price of justice? Over the last decade, state supreme court candidates raised over $200 million for their elections, two-and-a-half times the $83 million they raised during 1990-1999, according to newly released report. The need to raise ever-increasing amounts of money prompted former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to warn of a real and growing “crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary” in her foreword to “The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000-2009.”

With big contributors appearing before the judges they helped elect -- the top 5 “super spenders” in 29 elections spent an average of $473,000 each -- it is no surprise that nearly half of state judges polled in 2001 agree that campaign donations influence judicial decisions. Three-quarters of American share their concerns.

We only know part of the money story. Millions of dollars have flowed into judicial elections “in ways crafted to avoid financial disclosure even as they seek to sway judicial contests,” according to the report. Challenges to campaign disclosure laws, the use of shell entities to funnel funds, and the recent decision in Citizens United to allow unlimited corporate expenditures all work to obscure the full picture.

The report’s authors -- Adam Skaggs and Jonathan Blitzer at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, James Sample of Hofstra University School of Law, Charlie Hall at Justice at Stake Campaign, and Linda Casey at National Institute on Money in State Politics -- have constructed an an incredible reference document that does a superior job of putting spending on state judicial elections in context. Don't miss their index of state supreme court TV advertisements and state-by-state contribution and expenditure profiles.

Although not part of the report, more on state-by-state and candidate-by-candidate contributions is available for download at TransparencyData.com, a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and the Center for Responsive Politics. On the site you can search by contributor, recipient, year, and many other factors to learn about the state of judicial elections in your state. Sample search results are available on the left.

Full disclosure: the Sunlight Foundation works with the three organizations that sponsored this report.

NPR launched a new series, Dollar Politics, today to look at the influence of money in the debate over three legislative items: financial regulation, energy policy, and health care. Today's report focuses on health care, looking at the role of lobbyists in the effort to pass, or not, a health care reform bill.

Of particular interest in the piece is the packing of committee hearings by these lobbyists. One lobbyist is quoted explaining why lobbyists show up to the hearings, "[They] have friendships with various members of Congress or staff and hope to be seen. It's a reminder that their interests are at play." They may hope to be seen by senators and congressmen, but not in the way NPR had in mind. Dollar Politics turned the camera around on the lobbyists and put their pictures on line. NPR is seeking help in identifying potential lobbyists and you can see the pictures and send them information here.

This is a very important project and I hope to be following it (or waking up to these stories, as I did today) as they track influence around these important issues. Listen to the full report below:

NPR Dollar Politics - Health Care

As reported by Government Technology:

Arizona just launched a new Web site, Arizona's Openness and Saving Strategies Project.  From the site:

These are tight times, and Arizona’s budget is no exception. That’s why we need to find every good idea we can, and put those ideas to work to help state government agencies save money. This site contains news about Arizona’s budget, as well as examples of savings strategies that have already been implemented in Arizona and are working now. State employees can also use this site to find cost-saving measures in use at other agencies. Just as importantly, you will find ways to Submit Your Own Ideas to help our state cut back even further.

This new project opens up the buget process so state agencies can collaborate with each other and citizens can share their ideas for saving money with officals.  It also has budget related news and gives information on how the state budget is produced.

With this project Arizona is really exploring new ways to deal with its budget deficit.  Not to mention that inviting the community at large to participate in fixing their state financial problems empowers citizens to really invest in their state and not just hope politicians will fix it.   I wish Congress would think about more ways like this to involve the wisdom of the masses to help solve problems.  It would be very democratic of them.

Sunlight grantee MAPLight.org shows the impact of campaign contributions on legislative votes via technology. And by making these connections transparent they are giving citizens the ability to better judge members of Congress.

MAPLight.org's latest tool tracks the flood of special-interest money that swamps congressional committees when they are considering a particular piece of legislation. Their new “Committee Tool” reveals campaign contributions received by each committee member from special interest groups for key bills which are before every congressional committee.

Below are two examples of how MAPLight.org's Committee Tool can reveal what's really going on in committee deliberations and debates.  The first looks at H.R. 5244, Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, which has been stuck in the House Committee on Financial Services since February. The bill would protect credit card holders from banks arbitrarily raising interest rates among other things. By using the MAPLight.org's program you can see how banks and other financial interests who are opposed to the bill have given over $341,000 to the committee chair and $465,000 to the committee's ranking member. Conversely, proponents of the bill gave the two members $10,000 and $2,000 respectively. Little wonder the bill is stuck in committee.

The second example deals with H.R. 5632, a bill that would prohibit importation of radioactive waste, and its tenure in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce where it's been stuck since March. The nuclear plant construction, equipment and services industry are opposed to the bill, and have given the committee chair over $45,000. Environmental and other interests in favor of the bill have given just under $3,800 to the chair. Here's wishing the bill luck.

As MAPLight.org says, they just provide the facts about campaign contributions…they leave it up to citizens to draw their own conclusions. Thanks to MAPLight.org, the process is much more transparent.