Dark money in judicial elections can hide who is trying to influence the courts that decide questions of civil rights, public safety, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. When voters cannot see who is paying for judicial campaigns, confidence in independent courts erodes. American Justice Watch explains why fair judicial selection and meaningful accountability are essential to protecting equal justice.
The problem is not limited to a single state or election. Corporate and special-interest spending can shape campaigns, pressure judges, and obscure conflicts of interest long after votes are counted. Learn more about our fair-courts advocacy and get fair courts updates as we track threats to judicial independence across the country.
As one former State Supreme Court Justice explained how he lost his seat, he described “$3 million in untraceable money from corporate interests that supported his opponent. The money, he said, paid for a blizzard of ads that distorted his record with racially tinged images and painted him as a friend of murderers.” — American Bar Association
As of 2019, “Special-interest groups, many with donors the public never knows about, continued to play an outsized role in the financing of elections for state Supreme Courts across the country… More than $39.7 million was spent on four dozen contests for seats on the top courts in 21 states last year, and 27 percent of the money was contributed by advocacy organizations allowed by state and federal laws to keep secret the identities of their benefactors. … By comparison, in no election during the past two decades have these so-called ‘dark money’ organizations accounted for more than 19 percent of all spending in races for Congress. The lack of donor transparency has the obvious potential to obscure all sorts of conflicts of interest for the justices on state Supreme Courts, who have the final say annually on litigation directing billions of dollars into corporate coffers and consumers’ wallets.” — The Fulcrum
“Judicial decisions by elected judges follow the interests of their campaign donors: business groups, political parties, and left- and right-leaning interest groups, among others. …evidence that fundraising pressures influence justices’ decision-making, whether consciously or unconsciously, creating a form of judicial bias. …Once elected, sitting judges face pressure to favor their donors’ preferences in their decisions because they have to worry about their next election and their campaign finance needs. Even judges who are not particularly predisposed to decide in favor of donors might still do so to maintain their financial support.” — State Court Report from Michael S. Kang, formerly of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, description of his book with Joanna M. Shepherd, Vice Dean and Thomas Simmons Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law
State supreme court elections are drawing unprecedented attention and spending. In 2026, 32 states will hold elections for 65 seats on their highest courts, and races in states including Wisconsin, North Carolina, Montana, Michigan, and Texas may shape the direction of state law. State Court Report notes that recent judicial campaigns have increasingly resembled high-cost partisan contests, intensifying concerns about donor influence, transparency, and judicial independence.
“Since 2000, the Brennan Center’s bi-annual reports, ‘The New Politics of Judicial Elections,’ have documented the alarming rise of money in judicial elections, the dramatic upsurge in special interest group involvement, and the tendency of judicial campaigns to become ‘noisier, nastier and costlier.’” – The Brennan Center