this is our american story. this is america tonight. >> i'm ali velshi. "on target" tonight, campaign contributions to get elected, how can they staying independent? and more mainstream than ever. tonight we're putting judicial elections on trial. that's because the honor of some american judges is being jeopardized by the potentially corrupting influence of politics and money. in some states judges have to pay for election campaigns to win seats on the bench meaning they take financial

contributions from donors, donors who may one day appear in the winning judge's court. to understand what i'm talking about let's talk about how judges win seats on state sprorts. supreme courts. the 28 just in red appoint judges, after that they are set for life or face uncontested elections, this is not where voters worry about money polluting election, the 13 states in orange they've got so-called nonpartisan elections where judges are listed on ballots without party affiliation but then there are the nine states in gray. they have partisan elections where judges run under a party affiliation in primary or general elections. pennsylvania where i am tonight is one of those states in gray. this is where the debate over money and integrity really matters mainly because of those nine states marked in gray. spending on state supreme court

elections has skyrocketed. it went from $83 million in the ten years between 1990 and 1999, to $207 million in the decade from 2000 to 2009. and alabama someone of the states moving that money needle. it's one of the biggest that'siest elections took place back in 2006. sue bell cobb won the seat that year, but since retiring in 2011 she has come out with a bold charge that a judge receiving money from a donor cannot be expected to be impartial when that donor appears in his or her court. she says it's become a system of money for justice. chief justice sue bell cobb was a supreme court justice in alabama for four years before she retired.

>> you're due again. >> her sweet talking granted us access inside the alabama state supreme court room, a place where news cameras aren't often welcome. >> i remember when i was sworn in as chief justice of the supreme court. >> in 2006 cobb won what was at the time the most hotly contested and expensive election in u.s. history. >> what we were able to raise was $2.6 million. which is a huge amount. >> her opponent spent more than $5 million in that race. only recently, cobb has become a whistle blower of sorts, speaking out against the vast amounts of money it takes for a judge to get elected to state supreme court. >> do you want your courts to be filled with people that have had to spend a significant amount of their time trying raise money so they can keep this job and then expect them to make decisions not impacted by it? >> in the last decade 537

judicial candidates raised more than $206 million for elections. the majority of that money came from just a handful of states in which supreme court judges run as either democrats or republicans. >> i don't think that's a coincidence. i think it's because whether you have candidates running in partisan races i think that campaign donors feel like they have a clear idea of how that judge might rule. >> all of these states have had particular episodic instances in which one or more major contribute oarcontributors to al campaign really was able to swing an election or at least come very close to it. >> chief justice cobb ran as the only democrat on the ticket and says party affiliation should have no role in her job as a judge. >> i'm forced day in and day out as many judges around this

nation on laws i don't personally agree, it doesn't matter what i think of it, it mattered not a wit, not at all. >> most voters who know very little about judicial candidates, that r or that d next to a candidate's name is a significant piece of useful information. >> i appreciate that very much. thank you. >> judge david wett is running as a democrat for pennsylvania's supreme court. it's being held as a significant election, three republicans and three democrats running for an unpresunprecedented three seats. press conference for exactly one camera, ours. >> all right, good afternoon

owner and thank you very much for joining us here today. >> it's not easy getting media attention for a judicial election. voters don't seem to care so tv ads are crucial. >> i'll restore pennsylvaniaians faith in the supreme court. >> i aim to do you proud. thank you very much. >> each candidate in the general election to be viable will be required to raise and spend well over $1 million, perhaps over $2 million. >> so far judge wecht has been endorsed by state senators and representatives even the mayor of pittsburgh and major contributions from big unions as well as $200,000 from attorneys and law firms. >> there's got to be something fundamentally wrong with a system that basically requires judges to raise tons of money,

and seek political endorsements from attorneys and special interest groups and others who might have a case before them once elected. >> about judge wecht says he didn't pick the system. he just has to find a way to exist ethically within the system. >> there's no perfect system and i'm not so enamored of one way to select a judge, that i should convince you of one system. >> judge wecht says he has nothing to hide, since two of the three open seats on the pennsylvania supreme court are up for grabs because judges resigned after major scandals. effort to sway voters' minds can take a less than honorable turn in elections. >> he called her a total

(bleep). >> especially as pac money enters, spending money on behalf of the candidates on attack ads against their opponents. >> the first system that we had when we became a nation was that the king appointed our judges. the governors then appointed the judges. and during president jackson's era the reform was to go to the citizens electing them. but now, because of the obscene amounts of money that are in judicial elections it's like the money has now become the king. >> up next, trust in judges and the courts may be eroding because of the perception of justice for sale. when i come back, we'll explore alternatives to ensure that we've got fair and impartial judges on the bench. bench.

>> tonight we're putting judicial elections on trial. critics worry that state judges taking campaign contributions from donors can't be completely impartial if those donors end up one day in their courts. that needs the perception that money is buying justice but the view is that elections are the most transparent way to select judges. joining me now to dispute that is lynn mark, the executive director of pennsylvaniaians for modern courts, it's a watchdog group. thank you for being here. pennsylvania is one of these nine saits in gray where you have partisan elections for judges. >> right. >> the fact is most people who are entitled or qualified to vote for a judge are not going to ever appear in fronts of that judge. and the concept of electing judges was seen when it started as being more fair than the old system where people got

appointed and no one was accountable for their appointments. >> there was a huge change back in the 1850s. that's a long time ago, with the jacksonian democracy where these systems, judges were appointed. >> and people didn't think that seemed fair. >> and then they went to elected judges. the controversy has really increased more and more as there's been big money in judicial races. there's always been big money and growing money, the executive and legislative branch but there's more and more coming into judicial races and it's even increasing after the citizens united case. >> and the bottom line is it's easier to win. if you have a million dollars to donate to a campaign to fund a campaign in a congressional campaign that may be of great influence. in a judicial race it will win the race for you. >> one of the things again we're used to money in the other races. but it's important to remember, judges are different. judges make decisions based

solely on the facts and the law in an individual case and not according to what they've said in the campaign trail or what the contributors wanted. it's really different from a congress person or a president or a governor or a legislator who run on platforms and they have constituencies and that's why we vote for them and they have a slew of donors but for jucial racejudicial races, moste donors come from the lawyers. >> why a judge makes a statistician in a particular case, there are so many reasons why they might make a decision. one of the things we looked at, we had the american judicial society do a study for us, a

while back just to see not whether judges made the decisions according to campaign contributions but to have a sense of how many of the lures and litigants appearing before the pennsylvania supreme court gave money to the judges. and over 60% of the lawyers involved in the court cases gave money -- >> these guys are getting solicited by the judges who are running by some cases, you have got a doubly awkward situation, where even a lawyer who doesn't want to donate is getting called. that is where you are between a rock and a hard place. >> there is a rule here that says a judge, if i'm running i can't ask you ali directly for a contribution but i can have my campaign chair right next to me, my campaign chair can ask you for a donation. i'm not blaming the judges, i'm

not tblaimg lawyers but the system. -- blaming the lawyers but blaming the system. it's important to get the judges out of the fundraising business. former supreme court justice san drai dasandra day o'connor saide have to get judges out of the elections system. after the term the judge goes before the people and a yes-no retention nonpartisan vote on whether or not that judge should stay on the bench for a full term. and in these states in most of the states there is some kind of judicial performance evaluation, some kind of nonpartisan

evaluation to inform voters of how that judge has been on the bench. not necessarily how they've ruled in a particular case but are they respected by the lawyers and litigants who come before them? are there reasoned decisions? are they respectful, a whole slew of things not just yes you like them or you don't like them. but in a merit selection system, the most port part is that it puts a premium on qualifications. what matters is, qualifications and a reputation for fairness and impartiality. not who's a good campaigner, not somebody who happens to have a familiar name, not somebody who happens to have a good place on the ballot or comes from the region where there's the highest turnout. >> nice to have you with us, thanks for talking with us. up next, heavily armed men

keep the application ya in ferguson and why publish as are not on the fringes anymore. anymore.

>> the streets of ferguson are quiet again today but the streets remain on edge. descended into violence this week including the shooting of police of 18-year-old tyrone harris who remains in critical condition. and adding to the tension is a handful of heavily armed men,

drawing criticism of residents and police. the men are oath keepers. composed of ex military and police officers, the oath keepers claim to have 30,000 members nationwide. part of a group that is staunchly antiestablishment and very pro-gun and while many would like to dismiss them as fringe they are being catered to by mainstream politician he like never before. david ariosto has the story. >> c.j. grisham is not just any gun owner. when i met him at a range just outside of austin, texas, he had three guns on him and made me know he was prepared for anything. >> if there was ever a breakdown of society all the food in the world is not going to protect you there the person that wants to take that food away from you.

>> that kind of doomsday theory seems extreme but they believe they should disagree with any law that they believe violates the u.s. constitution. >> in san antonio i can't walk around with a rifle, it's an uunlawful ordinance so we carry our rifles just to see if they can do anything about it. >> antigovernment groups like the oath keepers have increased by 800%, some say because of the direct election of barack obama. >> by his election, empowered a radical element in the republican party that had always existed, but had never been a force that you would even want to be associated with. because it would be certain political death. >> todd smith is a former texas house republican who served in

the state legislature from 1997 until 2013. he says the real risk to his party isn't from the left. instead it's from politicians who pander to fringe groups like the oath keepers on the right. an indication some say of just how important primary politics has become in states like texas. >> of the 31 senate seats, maybe one senate seat that could potentially swing from republicans to democrats. and almost every house district, and in many every senate district. the general elections are completely meaningless. >> reporter: and that spells changes in campaigning. >> yeah, at some point in time everybody becomes so predictably and substantively conservative that it is no longer about substance, it's about who can -- you know who can grab the perception of being the real

conservative. >> reporter: but that has real implication when it comes to actually governing. here's an example. right now a military training exercise called jade hell.15 is getting a lot of attention, the reason because of a rumor that's cropped up on conspiracy sites, extreme right wing blogs that say this isn't a training exercise at all. instead they accuse the government of using jade helm of imposing martial law. it is a rumor that has gained traction. >> we are truly invested in are's personal rights and their privacy. that's what we live for.we live to support the constitution of the united states. >> my question is, i want you to address receiving this, and cutting it out. and i'll bring it back by any

other name that your strategist may mind in this dictionary that has anything to say that it is a preparation for martial law. >> that's because it is not a preparation for martial law sir. >> that's what you say. >> reporter: and yet even some oath keepers like c.j. griffin seem to think the idea of a military takeover is overblown. >> there is nothing to see here. i don't mean that in a facetious way, it's a train exercise like we've done in our entire history. >> that didn't prevent greg abbott, mayor of texas, from keeping the national guard to make sure the state was protected. that the obama administration hassal tear i don't remember motives. senator ted cruz openly asked the pentagon to clarify their intention. niert senatoneither senator crue

pentagon clarified their positions. relatives in several texas towns have taken to monitoring the military on their own and federal officials this week say they arrested three men in south carolina who were fearful of jade hell helm. >> a question for republican party which is how they are going to deal with some of these extremist elements? >> it is a question that is expected to be raised more and more as republicans look into the primary iies and on to 2016. >> candidates even sitting governors often play to topics that are first broadcast over radio air waves.

millions of texans, turned into dan patrick who is coincidentally lieutenant governor. jones who claims an audience of 3 million listeners is considered the man behind this jade helm conspiracy, david ariosto sat with holmes. >> i'm simply giving my opinion about what's happening. and i've never said it's imminent martial law. i said it's clearly an invasion map for training domestically in the united states. >> reporter: but you have said this is a process towards -- >> absolutely. >> -- torts martial law. >> let's be clear, i'm not hiding and saying it is a process towards totalitarianism. >> the process of u.s. military taking over parts of the american southwest, just sounds a little bit off to me. >> we're seeing the military called out all over the country now for riots and racial

division. i mean mean really, we saw reconstruction during the civil war, most nations have been brought under military rule. it is the preparation of domestic takeover. and so the media can misrepresent, they can change definitions -- >> you say that as if it's fact. and you say that on the radio as if it's fact and like you have clear cut evidence-based components of your argument here or what your discourse is, and it's theory. isn't there a danger there in positing theory as fact and we talk about this stuff. >> you keep framing the debate like i'm speculating. it is in not hundreds but thousands of documents and admissions and hundreds of mainstream news articles that north com, south com and cent com are training for domestic civil unrest, gun owners, this

coming war. >> you say there's a coming civil war in the united states. >> the whole -- let me answer your question. look at the whole civil war thing. >> that's what you just said. >> that's what they're trying to push. the people don't trust the system to protect them. call me a bitter clinger, i'm going to claim to individualism in the fact that i'm going to protect myself and take care of my family. one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is the attempt to disarm the american people. that is a line in the sand that a large percentage of america's 180 million gun owners will not allow to be crossed. >> but disarming the total -- >> total gun bans in new york, gun bans in chi -- >> no not total gun bans in new york. >> this country was founded when the red coats came to take the guns in 1775 in lexington and

con covered. >> that is categorically untrue. that you say on your show that aren't true and you posit them as fact. >> you can pull the statistics up, they went from in the '70s and stuff where they had shooting clubs for high schools to all those being shut down. they have -- they have massively reduced the second amendment. >> "on target" tomorrow, america's roads and bridges used to be the envy of the world. not anymore. ♪ >> that's tomorrow "on target" from philadelphia at 10:30 p.m. that is our show for today. i'm ali velshi, thank you for joining us today, see you back here tomorrow night. night.

>> challenging diagnosis - president jimmy carter reveals that he has cancer and it has spread throughout his body environmental mineraling si. -- emergency, we are doing an internal e.p.a. investigation, and will seek independent review and investigation of what happened the government steps up response efforts a week after toxic spills