Will contributions lead to judicial favors for Meijer?

Will a long record of campaign contributions to justices of the Michigan Supreme Court have any influence in Meijer’s ongoing court battle with Acme Township over illegal campaign finance violations?

The long legal saga fought by Meijer and Acme Township, located in Grand Traverse County, began in 2004 when the Michigan-based retailer was trying to get township approval for a 2.4-million-square-foot development that included a new Meijer store. A flurry of lawsuits has gone back and forth between the department store giant and members of the township board.

One of those lawsuits, filed by Acme Township planning commissioner Robert Carstens, accuses Meijer of intentionally harming him and other township officials with a frivolous lawsuit and illegal campaign activity, including surreptitiously financing a citizens group that tried to have planning commission members recalled on behalf of the retail giant. The state of Michigan has already fined Meijer $190,000, the maximum penalty allowed by law, for spending more than $100,000 to illegally influence township elections in 2005 and 2007.

Meijer has been attempting to squash the Carstens lawsuit but so far has been unsuccessful. Grand Traverse Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers denied its attempt to have the suit dismissed, and in August, Meijer filed an emergency appeal with the state court of appeals in Grand Rapids. A three-judge panel from the 3rd Circuit Court upheld Rodgers’ ruling last week, prompting an emergency appeal by Meijer to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Meijer has a long track record of making significant campaign contributions to four of the seven justices on the state’s high court. Over the last 10 years, three members of the Meijer family — Hendrick, Fred and Douglas — and Meijer chief executive Mark Murray have contributed $2,000 to Justice Maura Corrigan, $1,500 to Justice Stephen Markman, $1,500 to Chief Justice Cliff Taylor and only $100 to Justice Robert Young.

They’ve also made significant contributions to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC, which has donated enormous amounts of money to those same justices over the last 10 years — $49,000 to Justice Corrigan, $39,500 to Chief Justice Taylor, $15,000 to Justice Young, and $30,000 to Justice Markman.

Do such donations lead to favorable outcomes when contributors come before the court? Many observers believe they do. In 2002, a major lawsuit involving Daimler Chrysler came before the state’s high court. Daimler Chrysler executives and employees had donated nearly $100,000 to the same four justices noted above in the two previous election cycles, and the court ended up throwing out a verdict that would have cost the company more than $30 million.

Studies of other state supreme courts have found a clear correlation between campaign contributions and favorable outcomes in cases. A study of the Louisiana Supreme Court published earlier this year found that justices were as much as 300 percent more likely to vote in favor of a contributor than they were in cases where neither side had given money to their campaigns. A 2006 study of the Ohio Supreme Court found that most justices voted for the side of major donors to their campaigns more than 70 percent of the time.

Will Meijer’s contributions to the Michigan Supreme Court justices help the company win the appeal in this case? It’s too early to tell. The high court will rule by Sept. 16 whether it will grant a stay of the lower court order and hear the emergency appeal. Stay tuned to the Michigan Messenger as we keep an eye on this developing story.