To be fair, another judge might have decided the case the same way, but the issue was clear—was the appearance of a conflict of interest so great that in order to preserve a truly “fair” hearing the judge should have refrained from deciding the case? Financial contributions, according to the Supreme Court, are expressions of political speech, and so are protected by the First Amendment. So whose rights should prevail? The corporate executive that gave three million dollars to have his candidate elected, or the parties who believed that that amount of money couldn’t help but taint the judicial process?

The Supreme Court held that the due process clause could place limits on the use of money to influence judicial elections. They didn’t say that the money couldn’t be spent, only that if the judge receiving that contribution had a pending matter in any way related to the source of those contributions that they should refrain from hearing that case. While this case appears to have nothing to do with race or racial disparities, it has everything to do with class, power, moneyed interests and the increasing corruption of our democratic process. So score one for the people, all the people, but especially people of color who are still struggling to make democracy work and will never be able to make if the price tag is three million dollar.