Northwestern Univ

=Trump supporters throwing the term “coup” around, French emphasizes, aren’t even using it correctly.“A coup is an unlawful, often violent seizure of power,” French explains. “Impeachment is a constitutional process that can’t succeed without the affirmative votes of, first, a majority of the House, and then, a supermajority of the Senate — and every person voting is a person who won an election, also according to constitutional process. Impeachment isn’t the dissipation of constitutional government, it’s the exercise of constitutional authority.”
Another talking point on the “Trumpist right,” French points out, is the claim that under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trump has the right to confront the whistleblower — a claim that is ludicrous, he says, because the Sixth Amendment deals with criminal prosecutions, not an impeachment in Congress. And French laments that even Steven Calabresi, a conservative legal scholar who teaches law at Northwestern University, has referenced the Sixth Amendment to defend Trump.
“The scope and reach of the Sixth Amendment has been extensively litigated, and it most assuredly does not apply to the House’s impeachment inquiry,” French emphasizes. “One can certainly make a good-faith argument that maintaining the whistleblower’s anonymity is unfair, but to argue that it violates the Sixth Amendment is simply and plainly wrong.”=<h1 class="entry-title">Pro-business organizations sponsor expense-paid seminars for federal judges</h1>

    <div class="left">
     <div class="byline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="by-author"><span class="sep">By</span> <span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="http://thelensnola.org/author/centerforpublicintegrity/" title="View all posts by Center for Public Integrity" rel="author">Chris Young, Reity O'Brien and Andrea Fuller</a></span><span class="nickname">, Center for Public Integrity</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<time class="entry-date updated dtstamp pubdate" datetime="2013-03-28T14:33:16+00:00">March 28, 2013 2:33pm</time><span class="small_comments">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></font></div>
    </div>
    <div class="right">
     <div class="post-social clearfix">

<a href="http://thelensnola.org/2013/03/28/pro-business-organizations-sponsor-expense-paid-seminars-for-federal-judges/#" class="button_link" title="print this article" rel="nofollow">PRINT</a>

</div> </div>

</div>

Conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a

prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100

expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4

1/2-year period, according to a Center for Public Integrity

investigation.

Among the seminar titles were “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism,”

“Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law” and “Terrorism, Climate

& Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Leading the list of sponsors of the 109 seminars identified by the

Center were the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, The

Searle Freedom Trust, also a supporter of conservative causes,

ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and

State Farm Insurance Cos. Each were sponsors of 54 seminars.

Other top sponsors included the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley

Foundation (51), Dow Chemical Co. (47), AT&T Inc. (45) and the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce (46), according to the Center’s analysis.

<aside class="module pull-quote right half">Critics complain that

many of the privately funded conferences serve state and federal judges

a steady dose of free-market, anti-regulation lectures that could

influence judges’ rulings from the bench.</aside>

Sponsors pick up the cost of judges’ expenses, which often include

air fare, hotel stays and meals. The seminars in the Center’s

investigation took place from July 2008 through 2012.

The Center identified 185 federal district and appeals court judges

who reported attending one or more of the seminars over the period,

according to disclosure forms, or about 11 percent of the more than

1,700 federal judges in the United States.

Among the participants: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiqO0-aFUe2AdDljNTVaUEViaU5qbHM4Zk1EY3ZORGc#gid=0">U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana</a>.

One of the two seminars he attended in 2009, “Criminalization of

Corporate Conduct,” was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute

and other business interests. Barbier is now presiding over the BP oil

spill trial.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jerry A. Brown, who serves in the Eastern District of Louisiana, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiqO0-aFUe2AdDljNTVaUEViaU5qbHM4Zk1EY3ZORGc#gid=0">also attended two seminars</a>: “Economics Institute for Judges” in 2009 and “Antitrust Law and Economics Institute for Judges” in 2012.

Two schools — George Mason University, located in Virginia just

outside Washington, D.C., and Northwestern University based in Evanston,

Ill., — hosted more than two-thirds of the seminars.

Roughly three-fourths of the more than 800 sponsors listed in

documents were individuals, including a number of judges who took trips,

raising the possibility that they may have offset the cost of the

sponsorships with their donations. Most of the remaining underwriters

were companies and foundations.

Determining exactly how much was paid by which sponsor is difficult

to determine — amounts are not required to be reported under the

disclosure rules.

Judicial conferences are billed as educational retreats intended to

improve judges’ understanding of the law and economics. Judges and

seminar hosts say the conferences, which feature lectures and panel

discussions, provide helpful information that refines their legal

expertise.

But they’ve long drawn scrutiny for how they are funded and organized.

Since the 1990s, critics have complained that many of the privately

funded conferences serve state and federal judges a steady dose of

free-market, anti-regulation lectures that could influence judges’

rulings from the bench.

Those concerns quieted in 2007, when the Judicial Conference of the

United States, a group of senior circuit judges who oversee the U.S.

Courts, implemented a policy requiring judges and seminar hosts to

disclose information about the conferences.

<h4>Well-traveled jurists</h4>

The most-traveled judges, according to reports filed online by the

judges, were U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern

District of Iowa and Chief Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Northern

District of Alabama Bankruptcy Court. Each reported attending nine

seminars.

Wolle is a “senior status” judge, meaning he is semi-retired. He did not respond to requests for comment.

The next-most-traveled judges were:

<ul><li>U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of

California and Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of

Appeals 9th Circuit, covering the Western states, who each took eight

trips;</li><li>E. Grady Jolly, a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit

which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and U.S. Bankruptcy

Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the District of New Jersey, who each took six

trips;</li><li>U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of

Texas, Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Shields of the Southern District

of Iowa and senior-status U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of the

Eastern District of New York, each of whom took five trips.</li></ul>

O’Scannlain declined to comment for this story. In an email, Kaplan

wrote that the “seminars offer a valuable opportunity for new judicial

appointees to enhance their knowledge and skills in complex areas of the

law,” including economics.

Wolle, Real and O’Scannlain are all listed as seminar sponsors, though records do not indicate how much they contributed.

The Center identified instances where judges who attended seminars

underwritten by certain firms and trade groups later issued rulings in

the funders’ favor.

<h4>EPA loses case</h4>

In April 2009, for example, Jolly traveled to Northwestern University

to attend the “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” seminar sponsored

by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13

other funders.

Last August, Jolly wrote the majority 2-1 opinion declaring that the

Environmental Protection Agency broke the law when it rejected a Texas

emissions cap generally supported by the fossil fuels industry.

<aside class="module pull-quote left half">“It looks as if [corporations] are buying influence, even if it’s not true.” — Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor</aside>

Jolly, who did not respond to requests for comment, sided with two of

the petitioners in the suit — the American Petroleum Institute and the

U.S. Chamber.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor who specializes in

judicial ethics, is skeptical that rulings are directly influenced by

corporate sponsors of seminars, but noted, “in a cynic’s view that would

smack of corruption.”

“Even if it has no effect in terms of the decisions judges make, the

perception of influence matters a great deal,” he says. “It looks as if

[corporations] are buying influence, even if it’s not true.”

Another attendee of the 2009 “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct”

seminar was Barbier, the Eastern District of Louisiana jurist presiding

over a high-profile BP civil trial, which is being held without a jury

in New Orleans.

Barbier is in charge of considering whether BP owes billions of

dollars in fines for gross negligence leading to the 2010 Deepwater

Horizon oil platform explosion and spill. The disaster killed 11 people

and contaminated a large swath of the Gulf Coast.

In 2011, Barbier dismissed a wrongful-death claim in a suit brought

against ExxonMobil and Chevron USA by the widow of a worker who was

exposed to radioactive materials found on the companies’ equipment.

Barbier’s ruling in favor of the oil companies came two years after

he attended the corporate conduct seminar, funded in part by ExxonMobil

and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents. The judge

did not respond to requests for comment.

<h3>Politics investigations in your inbox: <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/email-subscribe" target="_blank">Sign up for The Center for Public Integrity’s Watchdog email</a></h3>

<h3>Related: <a title="Key Findings" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12384/key-findings">Key Findings</a></h3>

</hgroup>

</header>

</div>

</section>

</div>

</aside>

<h3>Related story: <a title="Judicial seminar backed by ex-president of Bolivia" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12366/judicial-seminar-backed-ex-president-bolivia">Judicial seminar backed by ex-president of Bolivia</a></h3>

</hgroup>

</header>

</div>

</section>

</div>

</aside>

<h3>Related: <a title="Free 'Consider the Source' e-book" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12401/free-consider-source-e-book">Free ‘Consider the Source’ e-book</a></h3>

</hgroup>

</header>

</div>

</section>

</div>

</aside>

<h4>Corporate U?</h4>

George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center hosted 45

seminars while Northwestern University’s Judicial Education Program

hosted 29. A total of 136 federal judges reported attending conferences

conducted by the schools during the 4 1/2-year period analyzed by the

Center for Public Integrity.

The remaining top five conference hosts, including The Sedona

Conference and the Foundation for Research on Economics and the

Environment (FREE), collectively organized 28 conferences.

The Koch Foundation and The Searle Freedom Trust supported most of

the conferences organized by George Mason and Northwestern. The energy

industry was a sponsor in roughly three-fourths of the conferences

hosted by Northwestern.

Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major supporters of

conservative causes, and their foundations have given millions to George

Mason University. As the Center <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/01/31/12105/koch-brothers-pour-more-cash-think-tanks-alec">recently reported</a>,

the George Mason University Foundation received $4.4 million in 2011

from the Charles Koch Foundation, making up 15 percent of its revenue

that year.

The school is the top recipient of Koch foundation money since 1985.

George Mason also houses several free market and libertarian research

centers, including the Institute for Humane Studies, which received $3.7

million from the Koch foundations, and the Mercatus Center, whose board

of directors includes Charles Koch.

Officials from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation did not return phone calls seeking comment for this report.

The Judicial Conference disclosure policy doesn’t require seminar

hosts to reveal how much donors contribute to conferences. But

corporate-giving reports and nonprofit tax records shed some light on

the costs.

<h4>Oil industry support</h4>

In 2011, for example, ExxonMobil <a href="http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/gcr_contributions_pubpolicy11.pdf">reported</a> giving

$20,000 to George Mason specifically for its judicial training program.

The oil company gave an additional $30,000 to the university’s Law

& Economics Center, which hosts the conferences. Between 2003 and

2007, the ExxonMobil Foundation gave the think tank $150,000.

ExxonMobil officials did not respond to requests for comment.

<aside class="module pull-quote right half">“It’s the funders

that create the problem … The money comes from interests that have

matters before the courts, and they’d like to have those matters settled

in their favor.” — Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor

who specializes in legal ethics</aside>

Another seminar funder, Donors Trust, gave George Mason’s Law &

Economics Center nearly $450,000 in general support in 2010. As the

Center <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states">reported</a>,

Donors Trust helps conservative foundations and individuals give money

anonymously to nonprofits that may take controversial positions.

A representative of Donors Trust declined to comment for this story.

<a href="http://www.searlefreedomtrust.org/">The Searle Freedom Trust</a>,

a foundation advocating “economic liberty” that regularly donates to

conservative groups like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise

Institute, contributed a combined $400,000 to George Mason’s judicial

education programs in 2010 and 2011.

The school conducted conferences on antitrust law as well as

“Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law,” both funded by AT&T,

BB&T, BP America, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, FedEx Corp. and

others.

“The Moral Foundations of Capitalism” was funded by the same group,

and was the most popular George Mason conference, drawing at least 10

federal judges.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says the company has no record of ever

directly contributing to the seminars but he did say BP gave the law

school and the Law & Economics Center more than $37,000 between 2001

and 2008.

Seminars at Northwestern are hosted by the school’s Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth. The think tank, <a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/searlecenter/">according to its website</a>, was founded in 2006 thanks to a “generous grant” from Daniel C. Searle, the late pharmaceutical industry executive.

In 2009, the foundation <a href="http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/367/367244615/367244615_200912_990PF.pdf">gave $200,000</a> to Northwestern’s Searle Center for its judicial education program.

Another Northwestern seminar funder, The Lynde and Harry Bradley

Foundation — a major supporter of conservative organizations, including

the Heritage Foundation — gave $210,000 to the Searle Center between

2008 and 2010.

Records show corporate sponsorship at Northwestern was highest from

2008 through 2010, when a man named Henry Butler — now in charge of

George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center — ran the Searle

Center.

Daniel Rodriguez, dean of Northwestern University’s School of Law,

says corporate sponsorships at the school “ended the moment Butler

left.” Rodriguez, who became the dean of Northwestern’s law school last

year, says the school recently decided to terminate the programs. He

says he’s against corporate sponsorship of judicial seminars.

“These programs should be free from any real or perceived conflict of interest,” he says.

<h3>Related: <a title="Find a judge" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12349/find-judge">Find a judge</a></h3>

</hgroup>

</header>

</div>

</section>

</div>

</aside>

<h3>Related story: <a title="Judges often ignore trip disclosure rules" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12330/judges-often-ignore-trip-disclosure-rules">Judges often ignore trip disclosure rules</a></h3>

<h3>Related: <a title="Methodology" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12387/methodology">Methodology</a></h3>

</hgroup>

</header>

</div>

</section>

</div>

</aside>

</hgroup></aside>

<h4>Some history</h4>

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, <a href="http://communityrights.org/NothingForFREE/NFFmain.php">advocacy groups</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Aw_FXhRqk">media outlets</a> raised

concerns about judges attending privately funded conferences conducted

in vacation destinations like Arizona, Montana and Florida.

Critics claimed that the undisclosed trips created conflicts of

interest and cast doubt on the ability of judges to decide cases without

bias.

Seminars hosted by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) attracted the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/april98/judges9.htm">most attention</a>.

FREE, a Montana-based think tank championing “free-market environmentalism,” drew criticism for its <a href="http://communityrights.org/TaintedJustice/factsheet.php">ideologically conservative</a> seminars.

In 2011, for example, FREE hosted “Terrorism, Climate & Central

Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Critics complained that judges spent their free time golfing, fishing

and horseback riding at the conference’s Montana resort location. They

worried that judges were being wined, dined and entertained by FREE’s

funders, which included Koch Industries and Texaco Inc. (now part of

Chevron Corp.).

Media scrutiny prompted members of Congress in 2000 to introduce <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/s2990/text">legislation</a> that

would prohibit judges from accepting “anything of value in connection

with a seminar.” The bill, which died in committee, was opposed by the

Judicial Conference, which claimed it restricted judges’ free speech

rights.

<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s787/text">Similar legislation</a> failed again in 2003.

In 2007, the Judicial Conference implemented a <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/SeminarDisclosure/judbrappc906c.pdf">policy</a> designed to provide “greater transparency” by setting up disclosure requirements for both judges and seminar hosts.

“Instead of banning anything,” says Geyh, the policy “was a way to

mollify those who recognized the perception problem without causing the

ones who treat [the conferences] as a First Amendment issue to go

ballistic.”

<h4>Buying influence?</h4>

</hgroup>

Even with the new policy, the seminars still have critics.

“These seminars are taking place because large corporate interests

are hoping to influence the outcome of cases involving themselves or

likeminded entities,” says Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for

Justice, a liberal organization that first raised concerns about

judicial education conferences in a <a href="http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/resources2/Justice-for-Sale.pdf">1993 report</a> titled “Justice for Sale.”

Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial

Center, an education and research agency for the federal courts, says

it’s possible that funders could be truly dedicated to improving judges’

understanding of the law.

But, he says, “You’ve got to be pretty naïve to believe that.”

“It’s the funders that create the problem,” says Stephen Gillers, a

New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “The

money comes from interests that have matters before the courts, and

they’d like to have those matters settled in their favor.”

<aside class="module pull-quote left half">“I’m not going to be

snowed by anybody’s presentation.” — Chief Judge Thomas B. Bennett of

the Northern District of Alabama Bankruptcy Court</aside>

Many of the seminars are conservative in nature, especially those

hosted by George Mason. But there are a few exceptions. A June 2010

conference sponsored by the Open Society Institute, a foundation founded

by liberal investor George Soros, focused mainly on human rights

law. (The Center for Public Integrity and The Lens have received funding

from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.)

Events hosted by the Sedona Conference, a nonprofit whose seminars

address legal issues like antitrust law and intellectual property, have

been funded primarily by law firms.

<h4>Speaking from the right</h4>

</hgroup>

According to The Center for Public Integrity’s analysis, the person who spoke at more judicial conferences than any other was <a href="http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/faculty/cv/BUTLER_CV-20111114.pdf">Butler</a>,

a professor and prominent conservative formerly of Northwestern and now

executive director of George Mason’s Law & Economics Center.

He has taught judicial seminar courses with titles like “Economic

Thinking” and “Economics of Insurance.” A former Republican candidate

for Congress — he lost a 1992 bid — Butler was a “Koch Distinguished

Professor of Law and Economics” at the University of Kansas.

Butler’s resume cites his “professional affiliations” with the

conservative Federalist Society and the Mont Pelerin Society, which

decries society’s loss of freedoms “fostered by a decline of belief in

private property and the competitive market.”

Butler declined to be interviewed for this story. In response to

emailed questions about George Mason’s judicial seminars, he wrote, “You

seem to have a well-established theme to your story, accordingly we

don’t see any advantage in collaborating with you.”

Daniel Polsby, dean of the George Mason University School of Law,

also declined to answer questions for this story other than to say via

email: “We’re very proud of the activities and programs of the Law &

Economics Center.”

Another frequent seminar instructor is Terry L. Anderson, president of the <a href="http://perc.org/about-us">Property and Environment Research Center</a>, a conservative think tank “dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.”

Anderson, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, has

regularly led “Free Market Environmentalism” lectures at conferences

hosted by both George Mason and Northwestern.

<h4>Green energy’s ‘false promise’</h4>

</hgroup>

In January 2011, Anderson was one of four lecturers who spoke at

George Mason’s “Advanced Institute on Environmental Economics”

conference, which was funded in part by ExxonMobil, BP America and Shell

Oil.

The other three speakers were <a href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Andrew_Morriss_CV.pdf">Andrew Morriss</a>, co-author of the book “The False Promise of Green Energy”; <a href="http://www.montana.edu/econ/fleck/cv11192011.pdf">Robert K. Fleck</a>,

an economics professor who has received thousands of dollars in

research grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and <a href="http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/jjresume_august2010.pdf">Jason Johnston</a>, a former fellow with the Koch-funded, Anderson-led Property and Environment Research Center and a <a href="http://www.cato.org/doc-download/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2008/9/v31n3-1.pdf">critic</a> of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don’t express views” during lectures, says Anderson. He says his

talks are based strictly on economic analysis. “None of my lectures are

aimed at changing any judge’s opinion” about a case before them in

court.

George Mason law professor Todd J. <a href="http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/zywicki_todd">Zywicki</a>, another regular judicial program speaker, has taught judges about issues like mortgage markets and consumer credit.

He is a senior scholar at the school’s conservative <a href="http://mercatus.org/content/about">Mercatus Center</a>,

and has ties to the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, and

the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is “dedicated to advancing

the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual

liberty.” Zywicki did not respond to a request for comment.

George Mason “is known to stage conferences that have a conservative economic perspective,” says Gillers, the NYU law professor.

One frequent attendee of George Mason’s judicial seminars, Judge

Bennett of Alabama bankruptcy court, told the Center “I’m not going to

be snowed by anybody’s presentation.” He said he finds the seminars

“infinitely invaluable.”

“You can accumulate information much more quickly than if you sit in your office and read stuff,” he says.

Bennett dismisses criticism of George Mason’s judicial conferences —

even though he acknowledges that they often feature conservative voices.

“I believe they put on a fairly balanced program,” he says, noting

that he doesn’t pay attention to who funds the conferences. “I’ve been

to George Mason seminars where they’ve had people who are not

conservative. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.”

<h4>Stacked panels?</h4>

</hgroup>

Northwestern’s 2009 seminar titled “Criminalization of Corporate

Conduct” included a speaker panel that was very corporate-friendly —

something George Mason’s Henry Butler openly acknowledged during his

presentation summing up the day’s events.

Butler noted “a question can be raised” about the panels’ balance and

“do we have enough people here that are representing the prosecutor’s

perspective.” (His remarks are posted on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp16oL9VNtY">YouTube</a>.) “And I certainly can plead guilty to that accusation.”

“On the other hand,” he continued, “I have to explain to you that

we’ve had difficulty in the past getting the U.S. attorneys to

participate in these programs.”

The December 2010 “Climate Change Litigation” session hosted by

George Mason’s Law & Economics Center was sponsored in part by BP

America, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil, and featured four speakers.

Two were attorneys who have represented corporate clients like Koch

Industries and ExxonMobil. A third speaker, Johnston, the former

Property and Environment Research Center fellow, spent part of his

presentation criticizing the American civil courts system for making

American companies less competitive on the international stage.

Butler, who moderated the panel, acknowledged the imbalance as he introduced a last-minute replacement for the fourth panelist.

“Eric Mayer is going to be pro-public nuisance, climate-change

litigation cases, and the other three are basically going to express

some skepticism,” <a href="http://vimeo.com/18664030">Butler said</a> in his introduction, identifying Mayer, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs as well as corporate defendants.

The announcement drew laughs from panelists and audience members.

“This may seem unbalanced,” Butler continued, “but Eric is not daunted by this challenge at all.”

<h4>Donor names disappear</h4>

</hgroup>

The “transparency” policy regarding judicial trips may be weak, but

the names of the corporations, foundations and individuals that pay for

the conferences at least are available to the public.

Now, even that bit of sunshine is clouding over.

In 2012, George Mason’s Law & Economics Center began listing “xyz

corp.,” as a sponsor before listing itself as the only donor on

official disclosure documents. However, the think tank does provide a

list of donors on its <a href="http://www.masonlec.org/about/donors-date">website</a>.

The 2007 Judicial Conference policy allows such reporting if the

support comes from general revenues or from endowments or gifts “not

raised for the particular educational program or for the purpose of

educating judges.”

Geyh, the Indiana University law professor, says the policy enables

conference hosts to shield their donors and make it tough for judges to

identify potential conflicts before attending seminars.

“It does raise transparency issues,” he says. “It strikes me as some semantic game-playing with the rules.”

This story was <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars" target="blank">originally published</a> by <a itemprop="url" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/" target="blank">The Center for Public Integrity</a>, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. It was reported and written by <a title="Chris Young" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/chris-young">Chris Young</a>, <a title="Reity O'Brien" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/reity-obrien">Reity O’Brien</a> and <a title="Andrea Fuller" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/andrea-fuller">Andrea Fuller</a>; John Dunbar contributed.