In a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote, the Supreme Court ruled that state and local judges receiving huge campaign donations from political interest groups must recuse themselves:

Judges must disqualify themselves in some cases involving their top campaign contributors, the U.S. Supreme Court said, ruling for the first time that judicial elections can create a risk of bias that violates the Constitution.

The case, Caperton v. Massey, involves a fraud case against Massey Energy, in which a jury awarded $50 million to the small coal companies that they drove out of business.

Massey’s CEO, Don L. Blankenship then spent $3 million to defeat a state supreme court justice, and replace him with a more pliable fellow, one Brent Benjamin, who then refused to recuse himself.

Of interest here is that Blankenship only donated $1000 to Benjamin’s campaign, the rest he independently spent on ads against the incumbent, Warren McGraw, so this does not just apply to campaign donations, but independent expenditures too, at least in a case where the donations are “extraordinary” and “extreme”.

In this case, the donations were so outrageous that John Grisham made a novel out of them.

Of course $3 million for a state supreme court justice in West Virginia fits that bill, it probably would in California too, but for a local Justice of the Peace position, that number would be much lower, probably sub 6 figures, and the courts now have to hash that out.

Of course the simple solution for any is recusal, which would be done when there is the mere appearance of impropriety.

Unsurprisingly, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas came out in favor of corruption.