” How else can we explain that people will contribute a billion dollars to elect someone to a job that pays much less than a million dollars per year?Claiming that it is because of politcal beliefs would be naive.”

The is a perfectly rational reason that does not necessarily involve corruption.

Yes, those putting the money up are looking for particular results.

However, perhaps they are backing candidates that already agree with them, rather than getting candidates to change their opinions because of the money.

There are actually good reasons for the money people to act the way I describe.

If you are paying someone to hold to a specific position, you always run the risk of someone else coming along and out bidding you. The corrupt are not known for being loyal.

Only the other hand, if you find a true believer and put your money into getting the true believer elected, there is very little chance of a double cross.

Yoiur first argument seems to support my position. I agree that we have higher standards for judges. I would presume them to be less corrupt than your every day run of the mill politician. Therefore, judges as a class are less succeptable to corruption?

I note, without comment, that the conservative diatribe against judges usually starts “they are unelected.”

That said, I believe that competitive elections based on the size of a compaign chests are invitations to corruption, period. How else can we explain that people will contribute a billion dollars to elect someone to a job that pays much less than a million dollars per year?Claiming that it is because of politcal beliefs would be naive.

Quid pro quo is alive and well in our country. Pay to play. Call it what you want.

This is a good example of 1) how elite opinion drives American policy from the top down (for better or for worse) and 2) how the lawyer class is full of crap when it talks about how brave it is.

Competitive election of judges is an invitation to corruption. California’s compromise is better: *infrequent* up-or-down retention elections, but if a judge is voted out, his replacement is named by the chief executive and confirmed by the State senate. Governors can, and often do, appoint honest judges without political debts.

What about free speech? Are we supposed to believe that money corrupts judges, but does not corrupt politicians? Moreover, do donations by trial lawyers have any more corrupting influence over judges than donations made by corporate litigants?

I believe that you are as corrupt as the judges that you attack. If you would forgo massive amounts of money from PACs and ignore the lobbyists who the PACs’ contributors’ support, perhaps I would feel different.

All this money in politics, from the left and the right, is corrosive. Free speech be damed.