Polls have shown that, as campaign donations from special interests escalate, the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elected officials declines. A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning a federal ban on political campaign spending by corporations threatens that public trust as well.

In Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, the Court ruled the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides corporations free speech protections for independent expenditures on political campaigns. The decision overturned a century old statute, and created new challenges for political reform efforts in the Midwest and across the country.

Fortunately, Joyce grantees will continue to press the need for open and fair electoral practices, building on their success in a series of recent campaign finance reforms around the region.

For example, both Michigan and Wisconsin took aggressive steps to redress troubling trends in elections for state Supreme Court judges. During the past decade, the once-staid culture of judicial campaigns has been transformed by an explosion of fundraising and negative ads—the same tactics that have degraded our legislative elections—which have raised doubts about whether the courts truly are independent and above politics.

In December, Wisconsin became only the third state, joining North Carolina and New Mexico, to adopt a system of voluntary public financing for Supreme Court elections. The reform, which was advocated by the Justice At Stake Campaign (JAS) with support from Joyce’s Wisconsin grantees, will eliminate the need for judicial candidates to solicit contributions for parties that may eventually come before them in court. That will help to mitigate declining public perceptions of the justice system. For instance, polls conducted by JAS and the Midwest Democracy Network have consistently shown that 75 percent of voters believe donors to judicial campaigns benefit from preferential treatment in court.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court instituted more stringent requirements for judges to recuse themselves from cases involving their campaign donors. The entire state Supreme Court must now review instances where an individual justice declines to recuse him or herself upon request. This measure came in the wake of Caperton v. Massey, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year requiring a West Virginia judge to withdraw from a case he helped to decide in favor of a man who contributed $3 million to his campaign fund.

"American courts are supposed to be insulated from the influence of money and politics, not infiltrated by them,” said Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenberg. “But in 2009, courts and decision-makers began to recognize that we need to contain the influx of special interest money in our judicial elections if we are to preserve the public legitimacy of our courts. We hope that in 2010, other states follow the leadership the Midwest has taken on this issue."

But, the courts weren’t the only realm where important new campaign finance rules were established. In Illinois, a state with an infamous culture of pay-to-play politics, lawmakers adopted the first-ever limits on individual, corporate, and group donations to political campaigns. The legislation was backed by CHANGE Illinois, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and other Joyce grantees. The bill was signed exactly one year after a former sitting governor was arrested on charges of political corruption stemming from fundraising illegalities.

"Out of one of the darkest moments in our state’s political history, we have seen the dawn of a new era of campaign finance reform in Illinois," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "There is still work to be done, but for the first time ever, elected officials will face the limits on the money they can accept from special interest—and that is a clear victory for the public interest."

Find out more about the Joyce Foundation’s Money and Politics program by clicking here.