LANSING — In the wake of last fall’s battle for Cliff Taylor’s seat on the Michigan Supreme Court, which saw millions of dollars spent by the candidates, the parties and political action committees, Cooley Law School hosted a symposium last week that focused on the corrupting influence of money in judicial elections in the 39 states that elect judges.

The theme of Wednesday’s event was made all the more prescient by a current Supreme Court case, Caperton v. Massey, which deals with an energy company that spent $3 million to get a justice elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Once in office, the justice refused to recuse himself from hearing an appeal that was pending before the court involving the energy company, casting the deciding vote in favor of his campaign contributor.

In Michigan, last year’s Supreme Court race between Cliff Taylor and Diane Hathaway caused great concern because of the amount of money raised and spent during the course of the campaign. Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, noted that total campaign spending reached $7.3 million, making it the most expensive judicial campaign in state history. The two campaigns combined to raise and spend $2.5 million, while the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Democratic Party and the Michigan Republican Party spent $3.75 million. Despite being outspent by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 in television advertising, Hathaway surprised nearly everyone by winning an easy victory over Taylor, 51 percent to 39 percent.

Robinson noted that a recent poll commissioned by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network found that Michigan voters overwhelmingly recognized the conflicts of interest that arise from judicial candidates having to raise money from people who may later have cases before the court. Sixth-three percent agreed that campaign contributions affect the decisions a judge makes, while 85 percent agreed that a judge should recuse themselves from a case where either party had contributed more than $50,000 to their campaign.

Ninety-six percent agreed that the source of every contribution made to a judicial campaign should be open and transparent, something that is not currently the case in Michigan. Robinson showed video of several television ads shown in the last election on behalf of Taylor and Hathaway, ads that made very clear which candidate you were supposed to vote for by claiming that Taylor fell asleep on the bench, for example, or that Hathaway lets violent criminals roam the streets.

“Did any of you draw a clear inference of support or opposition to a candidate in any of those ads?” he asked. “That’s actually the language of Michigan’s campaign finance act, that’s what defines a campaign expenditure. But there has been a declaratory ruling from the Department of State that such advertisements as these don’t qualify as campaign expenditures because we don’t draw a clear enough inference, I guess.”

Robinson noted that more than 60 percent of the money spent in that election on ads was untraceable because the spending was done by the two parties and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which do not have to reveal the source of financing for “issues” ads.

Robinson agreed with Judge James Wynn, an appeals court judge in North Carolina who led the fight for public financing of judicial campaigns in that state, that it is highly unlikely that a state like Michigan that has a system of electing judges for office will change to a system of appointed judges. The focus, both argued, should be on building safeguards into the judicial election system that insulates judges from the influence of money as much as possible.

Two main changes were discussed: Public financing of judicial campaigns and rules that require judges to recuse themselves from cases that involve someone who donated a significant amount of money to their campaign.

Wynn detailed the public financing system he helped develop in North Carolina, which is funded through a $50 fee for every license to practice law in the state and an optional check box on state tax returns for people to donate $3 to the public financing pool. Any candidate who can get at least 350 eligible voters to donate at least $10 to their campaign qualifies for public financing, and if they are up against an opponent who has opted out of that system and raised their own funds, the public financing pool matches the opponent’s spending in order to level the playing field.

“It is not the perfect system,” said Wynn. “There is no such thing. It is not a system that will probably work everywhere. But ultimately as you seek to try and find solutions to the challenges that face elected judges, this is definitely one of the plans I think you should consider.”

On the option of requiring judges to recuse themselves from cases involving a campaign contributors, Robinson noted that just this week the Michigan Supreme Court made public three draft proposals on new ethics rules governing such recusals. Those proposals are now available for public comment, after which the court will decide which new rules to adopt. Robinson said he has not yet had time to examine the proposed rule changes but he hopes that they will opt for strict guidelines that will help restore public trust in the integrity of the judicial process.