In Supreme Court election, lawyerly largesse looms large

Listen to this article

When it comes to winning elections, Michelle MacDonald’s best hope is that money isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

In the only statewide contest on the ballot other than the presidential race, MacDonald, who is challenging incumbent Supreme Court Justice Natalie Hudson, entered the final week with a crushing financial disadvantage.

According to her final pre-election campaign finance report, MacDonald had raised an anemic $210 in individual donations in 2016 (up $60 from her September filing) and spent around $2,203. Her largest listed expense: $871, which was spent on T-shirts.

By contract, Hudson, the veteran appeals court judge who was appointed to the high court by Gov. Mark Dayton last year, reported raking in a healthy $61,000 in contributions, with the bulk — $43,890 — coming from individual donors.

Her donor base consists mostly of lawyers, including some of the most prominent names in Minnesota legal circles.

Among the donors listed are two retired members of the Minnesota Supreme Court (Justices Kathleen Blatz and Alan Page, who kicked in $250 and $300, respectively), some legal academics (Eric Janus, the former dean at William Mitchell, and David Schultz, a professor at Hamline) and scads of law firm partners (a cohort that includes Lewis Remele of Bassford Remele, Donald Lewis of Nilan Johnson Lewis, Bruce Mooty of Gray Plant Mooty, and Charles Nauen, of Lockridge Grindal Nauen).

Hudson also benefited from sizeable contributions from the political action committees of the state’s big law firms.  Dorsey and Robins Kaplan both kicked in $2,500, while Faegre Baker Daniels and Gray Plant Mooty ponied up $1,500.

If MacDonald loses, as many expect, she will be able to point to those financial imbalances as one cause, although that’s hardly the candidate’s only obstacle.  In addition to a spate of tough headlines over her involvement in a messy child custody fight which resulted in her client’s criminal conviction for deprivation of parental rights, MacDonald is the subject of a pending disciplinary petition from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Still, given the widespread dearth of knowledge about judicial candidates, MacDonald’s shoestring campaign and battered reputation may not mean much.

In 2014, when MacDonald made her first bid for the high court, she received 46 percent of the vote, which made her the top vote getter among all GOP-endorsed candidates running for office in Minnesota that year.

The strong finish came in spite of MacDonald’s messy, public fight with top officials of the state Republican Party (which did not endorse her this year) and a mid-campaign drunken-driving trial (in which she beat the DWI charge but was convicted of test refusal).

In an effort to boost public awareness about judicial contests, the Minnesota State Bar Association this yeare launched a website — www.votemnjudges.org — that aims to provide voters with more information about the candidates.

Although the MSBA does not endorse candidates, its site prominently features the result of a poll of members, in which 93 percent of respondents picked Hudson over MacDonald as their preferred candidate.

As in the past, judicial races account for minuscule percentage of overall spending by lawyers and law firm PACs in state political races

With all no constitutional offices on the ballot this year, most of the lawyerly largesse has been directed at the Legislature, where all 201 seats are up for grabs. While some of those contributions have gone to candidate committees, the bulk has been poured into the coffers of the state’s two major political parties and their associated funds.

This year, Faegre Baker Daniels’ PAC is the biggest giver among Minnesota law firms.

According to Faegre’s final pre-election campaign finance report, the firm’s political contributions totaled around $188,000, with a little over $150,000 going directly to the parties. In a relatively bipartisan display, Faegre shelled out $40,000 to the DFL Senate Caucus, $35,000 to the DFL House Caucus, $39,600 to the Republican House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) and $25,000 to the GOP’s Senate Victory Fund.

The Minneapolis firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen was the second-biggest giver among law firm PACs, with total contributions of $112,000. Approximately $105,000 of that went to political party funds. Lockridge tilted Democratic, shelling out $30,000 to the DFL Senate Caucus, $22,000 to the DFL House Caucus, $19,250 to the DFL State Central Committee. It also contributed $25,500 to the HRCC and $8,300 to the GOP’s Senate Victory Fund.

The Dorsey Political Fund reported making a little over $61,000 in contributions. The GOP’s house and senate committees received $14,500 of those donations, while their DFL counterparts collected $15,250. Dorsey also kicked in $1,000 donations to the campaigns of two incumbent Hennepin County judges who face challengers, Paul Scoggin and Carolina Lamas.

The contributions from Robins Kaplan PAC were deep blue. All of the firm’s $17,000 in contributions to political parties went to DFL entities. Most of its $9,200 in direct contributions to candidate committees also went to Democrats. The one notable exception: the firm gave $1,000 to both candidates in the hotly contested race in Senate District 44, the west metro seat where GOPer Paul Anderson and DFLer Deb Calvert are vying to replace Terri Bonoff.

What’s the national perspective?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2014 election cycle, about 70 percent of lawyer and law firm contributions in federal races went to Democrats.

In presidential races, the partisan imbalance is even more pronounced. In the 2012 presidential race, according to the Center, Barack Obama raked in $27 million in lawyer and law firm money, which was nearly twice the $14 million that Mitt Romney collected.

In this year’s presidential contest, it’s even more lopsided, with Hillary Clinton’s haul of $31 million in lawyer donations dwarfing Donald Trump’s $883,000.