The Roberts stakes
THERE'S NOTHING like a good political campaign to gin up the fundraising operations of Washington's special-interest groups. This isn't a federal election year, but the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court is proving to be a pretty good substitute, with both supporters and opponents planning to spend a total of at least $50 million. Quite apart from whether Roberts is the right choice for the court, it is disheartening to see campaign trappings infect what should be a principled debate.
Thirty-eight states select their high court judges through popular vote, but federal judges have always been held to a higher standard. This is a good thing. According to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, $24 million was spent on state supreme court campaigns in 2004, provoking ''a perfect storm of hardball TV ads, millions in campaign contributions, and bare-knuckled special-interest politics." Two candidates for one southern Illinois judicial seat alone spent $9.3 million, a record.
Nothing like that has been spent to influence Senate votes on the Roberts nomination yet. The Brennan Center estimates that $2.4 million has been spent on television ads since Roberts was nominated on July 19, with supporters of Roberts outspending opponents by eight to one. But that could change when confirmation hearings begin on Sept. 6.
Although there is only one candidate, the Supreme Court campaign parallels a traditional presidential election in several ways. For one thing, there are ''swing states" that are attracting the most attention and cash. This time, the swing states include those with moderate Republican senators who might be persuaded to vote against their party line, including the seven who helped defeat the ''nuclear option" threatened against the Senate filibuster back in May. Targeted by Roberts supporters, meanwhile, are the 21 states that voted for Bush in last year's presidential election but have a Democratic senator facing a reelection campaign next year.
So far, the television ads have tended to focus on establishing a positive impression of the candidate. That, too, is typical; ''negative campaigning" usually arrives at the last minute. As the abortion rights group NARAL discovered to its dismay, negative ads often provoke a backlash, especially if they are shrill and misleading.
It isn't just television ads that make up the campaign. The conservative group Progress for America has launched a direct-mail and grassroots effort for Roberts. A group of friends and surrogates, including former attorney general Edwin Meese, have been making the rounds of talk shows and editorial boards. They argue that the Senate should follow the precedent set when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. She was treated with courtesy and not forced to reveal her views of specific issues, writes Meese in a letter, even though she was ''a radical activist" and ''far outside the mainstream of American law."
The stakes could hardly be higher in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. That is precisely why the Roberts confirmation debate ought to transcend the tactics of ''bare-knuckled special-interest politics."
