Judges and the Compan(ies) they Keep: An Analysis of Judicial Campaign Contributions Situated within an Original Problem-Solving Framework

Abstract

This dissertation addresses the problem of citizens’ dissatisfaction with a sitting judge, stemming from the #FreeMeekMill controversy. It introduces an original analytical problem-solving model, Transformative Framework to solve this problem and proposes that citizens form a political action committee (PAC) to remove the judge at the center of this controversy. In addition to its problem-solving focus, this project informs the judicial campaign contribution literature by examining whether trial courts are susceptible to the “new style” judicial elections, characterized by high levels of spending from special interests. It is the first statewide, judge-level analysis of interest group participation in trial judge elections. Judicial campaign contributions are discussed so that residents, who are encouraged here to form their own interest group, are made aware of the current judicial fundraising landscape before launching their own fundraising efforts. Results demonstrate that interest groups are not major contributors to trial judges’ campaigns and that the “new style” of campaigning has yet to reach local judicial elections. This suggests that if residents were to mobilize effectively, it should not be as expensive to unseat a Pennsylvania trial judge as it would be to unseat a state supreme court judge. It also suggests that interest groups are not as influential in local court elections so grassroots fundraising may suffice to unseat an unpopular judge. Future research will examine the effectiveness of Transformative Framework as a problem-solving model in real-life settings and the role of trial judges’ campaign contributions on decision-making.