National Dollars Find, Defeat Circuit Judge
What Happened in Cole County to Tom Brown
Represents a Growing Trend Across the U.S.

By Tim Hoover
Kansas City Star
December 5,. 2006

JEFFERSON CITY - If you’re irritated by a local judge’s decision on an issue dear to your heart, a national group opposed to "judicial activism" has a blueprint to ease your angst.

Just bankroll a campaign against that judge or a fellow jurist right before voters cast their ballots. The target doesn’t have a chance to rebut the allegations before the election, and bingo, the judge is bounced from the bench.

That’s exactly what happened last month to Cole County Circuit Judge Tom Brown.

Brown, a Democrat seeking his third six-year term, lost to a Republican challenger Nov. 7 after a media blitz against him right before the election.

A mysterious group called Citizens for Judicial Reform paid for the negative ad campaign.

Its only financial contribution, according to Missouri Ethics Commission reports, was $175,000 from Americans for Limited Government less than two weeks before the election. The Chicago-based limited government group "aims to make our nation’s judges accountable to both the rule of law and to the citizens whose rights they are sworn to uphold," its Web site says. "Recent years have shown a flurry of power plays by unaccountable, activist judges."

Justice at Stake, a Washington-based group that defends judicial independence, said the Brown race was a new twist in an ongoing assault on judges.

"Most of this sort of politics and big money from interest groups has been in the world of state Supreme Courts," said Jesse Rutledge, a group spokesman. "It’s not common to see the interest groups pour this type of money into a local race."

Cole County, home to Jefferson City, became the target of the campaign because it is the first stop for most cases involving state government or a challenge to state law. Decisions by Cole County judges on the constitutionality of state laws go directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.

To understand why Brown became a target, it helps to know the interests of Howard Rich, listed as chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Rich, a New York real estate investor, has backed term limits for lawmakers and judges, limits on the government’s taking of private property, and state spending lids.

His group this year backed a ballot measure in Montana that would have allowed the recall of judges for any reason. The measure was pulled from the ballot after courts found pervasive fraud by signature gatherers.

In Colorado, the group backed term limits on judges. Voters defeated the measure, which would have applied retroactively, thereby unseating five of seven Supreme Court judges and seven of 19 appeals court judges.

In Missouri, a Rich-backed group called Missourians in Charge earlier this year spent more than $2 million trying to place measures on the ballot that would have limited state spending and the taking of private property for public use. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan upheld the secretary of state’s decision to bar the issues from the November ballot because of mistakes in the initiative petitions.

Callahan, a Democrat not up for re-election this year, saw the campaign against Brown as a message to all Cole County judges.

"It appears to be retaliation for some of the decisions regarding the proposed ballot issues," Callahan said.

Senior Judge Byron Kinder said he’d never seen a judge’s race so expensive or nasty.

"This is a scalp they can wave around in people’s faces and say, ‘See? If you don’t get in line, this is what’s going to happen to you,’ " Kinder said.

Brown’s Republican challenger, Jon Beetem, has said publicly that he didn’t have anything to do with the negative campaign. He was not available for comment. Rich did not return telephone calls or e-mails. Rachel Maxam, a spokeswoman for Americans for Limited Government, refused to comment.

As a federally registered tax-exempt organization, the group is not required by Missouri law to identify its donors.

Mike Clark of Jefferson City, listed as treasurer for Citizens for Judicial Reform, said little about his committee, formed Oct. 6.

"I was just asked to be the treasurer," said Clark, a Department of Mental Health employee. "I was asked by a friend here in town. I cannot discuss it."

The campaign against Brown involved TV and radio ads, as well as direct mail pieces. Some of the mail referred to Brown’s "activist decisions," and Brown said the literature grossly misrepresented his rulings.

One mailing said: "If you’re lucky enough this Christmas, you may get invited to one of Judge Tom Brown’s lavish Christmas parties. Food, drink, even presents for each guest, all at taxpayer expense."

Brown in 2004 asked Cole County commissioners to approve $600 in court funds for a courthouse employee Christmas party at his home to boost morale. Commissioners denied his request. But the mailer, with its illustration of a bow-tied man holding a tray full of drinks, left the impression Brown had been holding elegant soirees at taxpayer expense.

Brown, who raised $57,000 for his re-election, said so much opposition money pouring in during the final days of the campaign made it impossible to respond to the allegations. He lost 53 percent to 47 percent after winning his two previous terms with at least 59 percent of the vote.

"There’s no other explanation for how this vote turned out except this last-minute campaign," Brown said.The opposition group deliberately filed campaign reports as late as possible to hide the campaign that was under way, he said.

Citizens for Judicial Reform filed a spending report with the Missouri Ethics Commission at 10 p.m. on Election Day that showed it paid Axiom Strategies, a Republican political consulting firm in Kansas City, $173,195 on Nov. 7. Missouri law requires that reports be filed within 48 hours of incurring expenses.

Jeff Roe, who leads the firm, declined to discuss who paid him to work on the campaign against Brown.

However, public comments Roe made in Kansas City on Nov. 13 shed light on the Brown race.

The recorded comments came while Roe sat on a panel sponsored by legal and business groups on the independence of the judiciary.

"There are large groups around the county that are in place to defeat judges," Roe said.

Roe said those groups know that spending a significant amount of money in a local judge’s race is more cost-effective than spending perhaps $250,000 or more to oppose the retention of a statewide judge.

"If you place large sums of money quickly in a judicial race, you have the immediate impact," Roe said.

At one point, he was asked about the Brown race.

"They (interest groups) want to influence public policy, and they see, maybe, risk with a certain judge," he said. "I think some of these groups just want a scalp."

Rachel Caufield, a researcher at the American Judicature Society, based at Drake University in Iowa, said the "attacks are not based on … whether the judges are following the law. They’re based entirely on ideological goals or political goals."

[Index to Articles]