Abstract

This analysis examines oral arguments in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, a case heard by the Supreme Court on March 3, 2009. In a 5-4 decision handed down June 8, 2009, the Court ruled for Caperton. The case examines ethical questions based on a 1991 Supreme Court acknowledgment of ‘a fundamental tension between the ideal character of the judicial office and of the real world of electoral politics’” (The Economist, 6). This tension is described in a Brief Amicus Curiae, The Center for Political Accountability and Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School: “The escalation of judicial campaign spending traps business leaders into a classic ‘prisoner’s dilemma.’ For ethical and financial reasons, most corporations would prefer to avoid spending money . . . for a seat on a court where it has a matter pending . . . In today’s election environment, however, a corporation must consider the likelihood that its opponent in high-stakes litigation may actively support one or more of the judges that will hear its case.” Competing visions of judicial impartiality are examined in this analysis.