Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
By refusing to take action Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote the end to one of the most celebrated and controversial legal cases in the history of Madison County.
The Supreme Court sided with Philip Morris USA, refusing to disturb an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict out of Madison County over the company's "light" cigarettes. The court issued its order without comment. . . .
The case became part of a contentious Illinois Supreme Court campaign in 2004. Tort reform groups, including the Illinois Civil Justice League, pointed to Byron's ruling as symptomatic of what they said was bias toward plaintiffs and their attorneys in the Madison County court system. The Republican candidate, Lloyd Karmeier, who was supported by the ICJL, won election to the Supreme Court.
Philip Morris appealed Byron's ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Last year, Karmeier was part of the 4-2 majority on the Supreme Court who overturned Byron's verdict, effectively ruling that the Federal Trade Commission had permitted Philip Morris USA to use the term "light" in its packaging and advertising.
Tillery appealed the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling to the nation's highest court, which declined Monday to hear arguments in the case.
Jump to full article »
But some victory. The state Supreme Court justice who cast the deciding vote in the case, a former lower court judge named Lloyd Karmeier, received millions of dollars in campaign support in 2004 that Philip Morris and other tobacco interests tendered for the very purpose of trying to reverse the enormous "light" cigarette award. They got what they paid for.
Judicial ethics rules exempt campaign contributions from their otherwise strict approach of requiring judges to disqualify themselves whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But given the history, Justice Karmeier's failure to voluntarily recuse himself was a disgrace.
The Philip Morris case, it should be noted, was not the first time that Justice Karmeier, a Republican, ruled for big contributors in a high-profile case. . . .
Legislative and executive officials represent their various constituencies. Judges, in contrast, are supposed to represent only the ideal of justice. A judge deciding a case shouldn't be worrying how ruling a certain way might affect campaign fundraising, or whether it might invite a blitz of negative TV ads in the next election.
It is time -- long past time, really -- to drain the influence money from America's system of justice.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an editorial today that begins: "BIG BUSINESS won a nice return on a $4.3 million investment in Tuesday's election. It now has a friendly justice on the Illinois Supreme Court." and wonders "might the new justice be tempted to do favors for the interests that lavished millions on his campaign? Given Judge Karmeier's record in the lower courts, we believe he will proceed with integrity. But you couldn't blame a citizen for wondering if it's payback time." . . .
The American system works because people have faith in the fairness of the courts. At this point, the people of Southern Illinois may have more faith in their laundry detergent than in their judges. And who could blame them?
Big money is at stake in these seemingly small-time elections. In Illinois, where one court recently handed down a $10.1 billion damage award against tobacco giant Philip Morris, the Magg-Karmeier race has become a surrogate for the furious national debate over tort reform. In fact, both candidates complain that they do not have control over some of their more fanatical supporters. "This is not a political race, but we're being forced into the politics of it," says Karmeier, the pro-business Republican.
The force driving many of these changes is the same one that has played such a corrosive role in America's broader political culture: special interest groups. Increasingly, they have come to view the judiciary as something to be gamed and captured -- just like Congress or the State House. The political patronage that once existed in Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago is being replaced by a new form of interest-group patronage. The list of organizations that have jumped into America's judicial wars is long and growing. . . .
On Aug. 24, the Illinois State Bar Assn. said it will begin monitoring the Karmeier and Maag campaigns in an effort to bring civility to the race. A prominent new recruit to the state judicial election-reform bandwagon is Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who told BusinessWeek that he worries that "the extreme amount of big money in this year's judicial elections will only reduce public trust in the courts."
From the Chicago Tribune: Lawyers for Philip Morris USA contributed $16,800 to help elect a judge who cast a deciding vote in Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court decision favoring the tobacco giant.
The judge also received $1.2 million in campaign money from a group that filed an amicus brief supporting the cigarette-maker.
Yet no one suggested that Judge Lloyd Karmeier recuse himself from a closely watched case in which he voted with three others to strike down a $10.1 billion judgment, handing a huge victory to Philip Morris.
"Benched: the Corporate Takeover of the Judiciary" chronicles the most expensive Supreme Court Race in history - the 2004 race for State Supreme Court in Illinois where over ten million dollars was spent.
"Benched" explores the underlying issue of the race - the battle over "tort reform." Critics charge that the insurance industry unfairly targeted doctors in Madison County, Illinois, raising their malpractice insurance premiums to pressure the doctors to lobby their patients and the community for "tort reform", including caps on medical malpractice awards that will only benefit the insurance industry and harm consumers. The doctors contend that they are being driven out of business by "frivolous lawsuits" while victims of medical malpractice and lawyers argue caps on law suits will deny them justice and that claims of an out of control civil justice system are corporate propaganda.
In the end, the documentary reveals the true beneficiary of this campaign for tort reform - Big Tobacco companies. Critics charge that the Philip Morris tobacco company played a role in financing the tort reform movement to get their chosen candidate, Lloyd Karmeier elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in order to have a pending 10.1 Billion dollar judgment voided by the Court.
In December, 2005, Justice Lloyd Karmeier cast the tie-breaking vote reversing the 10.1 Billion Dollar judgement against Philip Morris.
Common Cause is shining the light on the need for public financing of judicial campaigns. Common Cause, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) and Citizen Action Illinois are asking for an investigation of Illinois State Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who has made favorable decisions regarding corporate donors.
Today, Common Cause, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) and Citizen Action/Illinois filed a request for an investigation of Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier concerning his participation in and decisive vote in two cases constituting the first and second largest class action judgments in the history of Illinois. According to the request for investigation, Justice Karmeier can be viewed as giving big business a nice return on their 2004 donations to his election campaign raising serious issues of judicial impropriety or at least the appearance thereof. Unlike the growing list of elected non- judicial officials accused of accepting corporate contributions and then directly benefiting the donors, whose conduct may have to await indictment, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice or any other justice or judge has an affirmative obligation to recuse himself or herself from a case in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The complaint filed with the State of Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board alleged that Justice Karmeier accepted millions of dollars in donations for his 2004 election campaign and then cast the deciding vote which supported the position of the donors in two pending cases decided in 2005. The three complainants urged an investigation into Justice Karmeier's conduct in Michael Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Price v. Philip Morris Incorporated.
A lobbying group that filed a brief defending Philip Morris USA in a massive Illinois lawsuit contributed more than $1 million last year to state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who helped decide that suit in the tobacco giant's favor last week.
Philip Morris' hired legal team donated an additional $16,800 to Karmeier, state records show.
Meanwhile, the St. Louis-area lead attorney for the losing side had donated more than $100,000 to groups opposing Karmeier's election.
There is nothing illegal about the donations, as Illinois law doesn't limit the source or size of campaign contributions to judges or anyone else. However, campaign reform advocates say the circumstances still raise concern.
"This is a very good example of why both sides were so interested in this race," said Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "Our judicial system is in the middle of a high-stakes shootout. It makes it very difficult for anyone who gets to the bench to insulate themselves from their contributors."
In 2003, a Madison County court there levied a massive $10.1 billion judgment -- the largest award in Illinois history -- against tobacco giant Phillip Morris in a class-action suit brought by smokers. . . .
More than 90 percent of Maag's money has come from the state's Democratic Party, which is heavily financed by trial lawyers, according to an informal Illinois Campaign for Political Reform analysis. Karmeier has received about $750,000 from the state's Republican Party and about $700,000 from the Illinois Civil Justice League, a political action committee that receives much of its funding from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Canary said.
"It's business interests on one side, and it's trial lawyers and their associates on the other," said Jesse Rutledge, communications director for the Justice at Stake Campaign, a Washington-based coalition of 40 groups advocating for an impartial judiciary.
This single judicial election has spawned record spending -- about $3 million so far -- on television ads by the candidates, state parties and interest groups.
Against the backdrop of an Illinois judicial election in 2004, filmmaker Ewing explores the issue of tort reform, with its focus on limiting awards for plaintiffs, and the interests and influences of groups on both sides of the question. Ewing features the contentious campaign for Illinois Supreme Court between Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat Gordon Maag. The film asserts that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing the interests of tobacco and insurance companies, poured millions of advertising dollars into Karmeier's campaign. Karmeier ultimately wins the election and later casts a tie-breaking vote in the appeal of a judgment against Philip Morris, saving the tobacco giant from a $10 billion fraud claim on behalf of smokers of light cigarettes. . . . The film suggests that the tort reform movement is a cover for the financial interests of big business, particularly tobacco and insurance companies. Benched raises serious questions about judicial elections.
Both Smith and a spokesman for the Maag campaign suspect that big tobacco companies -- including Philip Morris -- and the insurance companies are behind the donations to the national groups, but neither has any proof of their involvement.
Dawn Schneider, a spokeswoman for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, dismissed allegations that the company has funnelled money to Karmeier's campaign, but acknowledged that "we have and continue to provide support to both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association, and these organizations are among many that we partner with to advance mutual business interests."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce made the campaign contributions through its advocacy arm, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. Sean McBride, a spokesman for the institute, said Philip Morris did not contribute to that fund because the institute will not accept money from tobacco companies. However he would not disclose which companies did make donations.
Public interest groups see conflict of interest Three public interest groups on Tuesday called for the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board to investigate Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier's participation in and casting of a decisive vote on the two largest class action judgments in Illinois history.
According to the petition for investigation, the groups claim that Karmeier's vote to overturn the $1.05 billion St. Clair County verdict against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance and the $10 billion Madison County verdict against Philip Morris could be viewed as a nice return on their donations to his 2004 election campaign for the Supreme Court. . . .
Common Cause, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) and Citizen Action/Illinois (CAI) filed the request Tuesday morning stating that an Illinois Supreme Court Justice or any other justice or judge has an obligation to recuse himself or herself from a case in which the judge's impartiality may be questioned.
"The heart of the matter in this case is the appearance that a decision was purchased," said Todd Dietterle, chairman of the board of Illinois Common Cause.
"The residents of this state are entitled to know why Justice Karmeier acted as he did. Beyond the immediate need for review, this case screams out the need to change how we select judges in Illinois." . . .
the request alleges that Karmeier also received millions of dollars from groups affiliated with Philip Morris USA, its parent company Altria, and Philip Morris' lawyers, its amici and their lawyers while the Price v Philip Morris case was pending appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. . . .
Plaintiffs in the Philip Morris case did not formally ask Karmeier to recuse himself, but the petitioners claim he had an obligation to do so to avoid the appearance of impropriety which is not dependent on a motion by the litigant.
Enough, already.
That appeared to be the message of the Illinois Supreme Court, when it issued a two-paragraph supervisory order yesterday directing a Madison County judge to drop efforts to reopen a light cigarettes class action that originally resulted in a $10.1 billion verdict, the largest ever in the state.
The court directed Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to vacate his order certifying questions for an interlocutory appeal to an intermediate court, the Madison St. Clair Record reports. . . .
controversy followed the case into the state supreme court after disclosures that a group supporting Philip Morris in an amicus brief contributed more than $1 million to the election campaign of state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who cast a deciding vote in the tobacco company's favor in the original ruling.