Fracking-Friendly Ohio Justices Backed by Oil and Gas Industry, Analysis Shows
Number-crunching backs up judge's dissenting opinion: 'What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive.'
Two of the justices behind last week's pro-industry fracking decision in Ohio were the beneficiaries of that same industry's largesse, in the form of sizable campaign contributions, a Columbus Dispatch computer analysis has shown.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith French authored the majority opinion in the 4-3 ruling that said state law trumped local ordinances intended to regulate permitting and location of fracking wells and related development. She received $8,000 from Ohio's oil and gas industry, according to Dispatch journalists Darrel Rowland and Jim Siegel. Another concurring justice got $7,200 from oil and gas drillers.
The Dispatch analysis found that, overall, the fossil fuel industry poured close to $1.5 million into the campaign coffers of legislators and other state officials in 2013-14, lending credence to what Justice William O'Neill wrote in his dissenting opinion: "What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive."
"O'Neill is one of the only public figures on Capitol Square who can criticize the influence of campaign contributions and not come off sounding like a hypocrite," Rowland and Siegel write. "He raised only about $5,000 in his 2012 campaign, all from his own pocket. He did not take a single outside campaign contribution."
Referencing the justice's remark, Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for Common Cause-Ohio, told the newspaper: "What I liked about Justice O'Neill's opinion was his willingness to point out the elephant in the room. In this case, the elephant got almost $1.5 million."
Before the 2014 midterm elections, the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice exposed how special interest groups dramatically increased TV ad spending to influence state Supreme Court races in several states, including Ohio.
"Special interest groups have realized that it doesn't take much money to reshape an entire state court compared to high-cost elections for statewide political offices," Brennan Center counsel Alicia Bannon said last fall. "At the same time, judges are forced to keep pace with deep-pocketed out of state groups instead of ruling on cases. It's a lose-lose for judges and voters alike."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Two of the justices behind last week's pro-industry fracking decision in Ohio were the beneficiaries of that same industry's largesse, in the form of sizable campaign contributions, a Columbus Dispatch computer analysis has shown.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith French authored the majority opinion in the 4-3 ruling that said state law trumped local ordinances intended to regulate permitting and location of fracking wells and related development. She received $8,000 from Ohio's oil and gas industry, according to Dispatch journalists Darrel Rowland and Jim Siegel. Another concurring justice got $7,200 from oil and gas drillers.
The Dispatch analysis found that, overall, the fossil fuel industry poured close to $1.5 million into the campaign coffers of legislators and other state officials in 2013-14, lending credence to what Justice William O'Neill wrote in his dissenting opinion: "What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive."
"O'Neill is one of the only public figures on Capitol Square who can criticize the influence of campaign contributions and not come off sounding like a hypocrite," Rowland and Siegel write. "He raised only about $5,000 in his 2012 campaign, all from his own pocket. He did not take a single outside campaign contribution."
Referencing the justice's remark, Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for Common Cause-Ohio, told the newspaper: "What I liked about Justice O'Neill's opinion was his willingness to point out the elephant in the room. In this case, the elephant got almost $1.5 million."
Before the 2014 midterm elections, the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice exposed how special interest groups dramatically increased TV ad spending to influence state Supreme Court races in several states, including Ohio.
"Special interest groups have realized that it doesn't take much money to reshape an entire state court compared to high-cost elections for statewide political offices," Brennan Center counsel Alicia Bannon said last fall. "At the same time, judges are forced to keep pace with deep-pocketed out of state groups instead of ruling on cases. It's a lose-lose for judges and voters alike."
Two of the justices behind last week's pro-industry fracking decision in Ohio were the beneficiaries of that same industry's largesse, in the form of sizable campaign contributions, a Columbus Dispatch computer analysis has shown.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith French authored the majority opinion in the 4-3 ruling that said state law trumped local ordinances intended to regulate permitting and location of fracking wells and related development. She received $8,000 from Ohio's oil and gas industry, according to Dispatch journalists Darrel Rowland and Jim Siegel. Another concurring justice got $7,200 from oil and gas drillers.
The Dispatch analysis found that, overall, the fossil fuel industry poured close to $1.5 million into the campaign coffers of legislators and other state officials in 2013-14, lending credence to what Justice William O'Neill wrote in his dissenting opinion: "What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive."
"O'Neill is one of the only public figures on Capitol Square who can criticize the influence of campaign contributions and not come off sounding like a hypocrite," Rowland and Siegel write. "He raised only about $5,000 in his 2012 campaign, all from his own pocket. He did not take a single outside campaign contribution."
Referencing the justice's remark, Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for Common Cause-Ohio, told the newspaper: "What I liked about Justice O'Neill's opinion was his willingness to point out the elephant in the room. In this case, the elephant got almost $1.5 million."
Before the 2014 midterm elections, the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice exposed how special interest groups dramatically increased TV ad spending to influence state Supreme Court races in several states, including Ohio.
"Special interest groups have realized that it doesn't take much money to reshape an entire state court compared to high-cost elections for statewide political offices," Brennan Center counsel Alicia Bannon said last fall. "At the same time, judges are forced to keep pace with deep-pocketed out of state groups instead of ruling on cases. It's a lose-lose for judges and voters alike."