Worries that campaign contributions affect judicial rulings
Heflin explains that running for office in Alabama puts judges in a predicament: they need campaign contributions to win their seat, but those contributions present a potential conflict of interest if the contributor might appear before the judge in the future. Heflin knew who many of his contributors were despite efforts to mask their identities. He worries that contributions might have a subconscious effect on his decision-making.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Howell Heflin, July 9, 1974. Interview A-0010. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JACK BASS:
-
When you ran for chief justice, was the campaign different for that
office from what it would be for another office?
- HOWELL HEFLIN:
-
Well, yes and no. You've got the problem of trying to run from it from an
ethical viewpoint. And you've got the problem of financial
contributions. To run a campaign you've got to look at it from. . . it's
in the same sense of a political campaign. You've got to have the mass
media and advertising. And you've got to go around, see the people and
everything else. But you have the problem of what do you do?
[unclear] where you come into office in effect
indebted to your supporters. And this is the thing, from a judicial
position, that ought to be avoided to every degree. It ought not to be
present. My campaign. . . the idea that they worked out in the beginning
is that there would be a group that would raise money and I would not
know how much money was raised or who the contributors were. This was
the idea. . . shield me. . . this was lawyers from throughout the state.
. . would shield me from being able to know who made
contributions and prevent me from feeling I had any subconscious
obligation to support people. Well, that's good in theory. Lawyers would
send me checks. Hell, I'd know who sent it and that sort of thing. And
then, of course, in my home area where I ran, citizens and other people
raised money. Just a friendly or local pride in a native son running,
that sort of thing. The end result was is this, that I ended up knowing
about half of the people that made contributions to my campaign and
about half of them that did not. Under that situation. . . really, when
it got down to it, I ended up with about 90% of the lawyers supporting
me in the race. So it may well. . . . I have not had any qualms about
deciding cases against people who supported me. I may have the idea well
I don't know, this fellow who's on the other side, he may have made a
much larger contribution than the other. But I tried to come in and
divorce completely the idea of who supported me or who didn't.
Moneywise, I think it's in a, such a state of confusion that I would not
know who did or did not. In my own judgment, I would know about 50%. You
do know-and this is an evil of the elected
system-you do know the man that [unclear] you,
that worked, that did the leg work, that campaigned for you in this
county and that county, and that sort of thing. So I think ours may have
been a little unique in that method. I don't know of any other
place-now you just ended up in New York for the position of
the chief judge of the New York court of appeals, which is the
equivalent of the supreme court of New York, a campaign where unofficial
reports say that each candidate in that race, his supporters spent over
one million dollars. Well, that's not healthy for a judicial system. I
was down in New Orleans right after an election. I went down and made a
speech to a meeting of all the judges. They elect their members of the
supreme court by districts. And they had the two being elected from the
New Orleans districts. And I understood there that
those candidates, that their supporters must have spent
$200,000 in behalf of each of the candidates. There was one
candidate, fellow who was elected, named [unclear] who
was the former law partner of mayor Landry, Boone Landry, the mayor of
New Orleans. He was running against a fellow named Leon Sarpy who was
largely a bar association and more of a large firm candidate. And at the
same time they had Garrison running against a fellow named
[unclear]. I don't think in that race as much money on each
side was spent, but probably was a substantial amount in that
Marcus-Garrison race. Garrison was defeated. But I mean it points out
the evils of the elective system. Of course there are evils of the
appointed system and I'm not getting off into a debate between that, but
you're asking me about judicial politics. And your question was to me
about my election. But it creeps in. I mean in all candor you can't say
that it doesn't. But you try to divorce it as you can and as far as I
know I don't think I've made any vote or any decision that was based on
any political situation that I know of. I mean I've tried to be honest
in my voting and not to letwho were my
supporters and who were opposing me enter into it. Consciously I have.
You never know subconsciously whether things enter into your mind or
not. I mean you put it away, try to divorce it, but it's an ill of the
system.