CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Supporters of campaign-finance reform in West Virginia experienced several setbacks in this year's legislative session. Now, they hope the U.S. Supreme Court's decision involving state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin will spur action on public-finance legislation and changes to the state's donor disclosure rules.

In a high-profile decision on Monday, the court ruled 5-4 that Benjamin should have recused himself from a case involving Massey Energy, whose president and CEO Don Blankenship had donated more than $3 million of his own money to help Benjamin unseat incumbent Justice Warren McGraw in 2004.

During the session that ended in April, the Legislature took up -- but did not pass -- several bills on campaign finances.

One would have created a pilot program to publicly finance candidates in the 2012 state Supreme Court race. That was pulled from the Senate Finance Committee's agenda after committee Chairman Walt Helmick, D-Pocahontas, said it could interfere with Gov. Joe Manchin's proposed Independent Commission on Judicial Reform.

Another would have clarified which groups that run election advertisements must file campaign finance reports, though Republicans said it unfairly targeted certain advocacy groups. That measure passed the House, but later died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In May, West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections unsuccessfully urged Manchin to address the public-financing bill during the May special session, said Julie Archer, a lobbyist for the group.

"Maybe this ruling from the Supreme Court will make him reconsider that," Archer said.

She predicted that Monday's decision would impact all 39 states that elect judges.

"It emphasizes here in West Virginia that it's more important than ever to look at ways to restore confidence in the judiciary," she said. "And public financing is one step we could take."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler had sponsored the pilot-program bill. On Tuesday, he said he believes the U.S Supreme Court opinion will add "fuel ... and energy" to his and others' efforts.

"Obviously, the role that money can play in the election process, particularly with members of the judiciary, has been pointed out and highlighted in a nationwide fashion with this case," the Marshall County Democrat said.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Supporters of campaign-finance reform in West Virginia experienced several setbacks in this year's legislative session. Now, they hope the U.S. Supreme Court's decision involving state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin will spur action on public-finance legislation and changes to the state's donor disclosure rules.

In a high-profile decision on Monday, the court ruled 5-4 that Benjamin should have recused himself from a case involving Massey Energy, whose president and CEO Don Blankenship had donated more than $3 million of his own money to help Benjamin unseat incumbent Justice Warren McGraw in 2004.

During the session that ended in April, the Legislature took up -- but did not pass -- several bills on campaign finances.

One would have created a pilot program to publicly finance candidates in the 2012 state Supreme Court race. That was pulled from the Senate Finance Committee's agenda after committee Chairman Walt Helmick, D-Pocahontas, said it could interfere with Gov. Joe Manchin's proposed Independent Commission on Judicial Reform.

Another would have clarified which groups that run election advertisements must file campaign finance reports, though Republicans said it unfairly targeted certain advocacy groups. That measure passed the House, but later died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In May, West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections unsuccessfully urged Manchin to address the public-financing bill during the May special session, said Julie Archer, a lobbyist for the group.

"Maybe this ruling from the Supreme Court will make him reconsider that," Archer said.

She predicted that Monday's decision would impact all 39 states that elect judges.

"It emphasizes here in West Virginia that it's more important than ever to look at ways to restore confidence in the judiciary," she said. "And public financing is one step we could take."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler had sponsored the pilot-program bill. On Tuesday, he said he believes the U.S Supreme Court opinion will add "fuel ... and energy" to his and others' efforts.

"Obviously, the role that money can play in the election process, particularly with members of the judiciary, has been pointed out and highlighted in a nationwide fashion with this case," the Marshall County Democrat said.

Kessler said he also hopes the Legislature will revisit the financial disclosure legislation. This week, he and his House counterpart, Kanawha County Democrat Carrie Webster, wrote a letter to Manchin, urging him to take up the issue if he calls another special session this year. 

"If you can't disclose the identity of the donor, how can you determine whether a conflict exists?" Kessler asked. "I think it's important for people to be able to track money from the get-go."

The governor believes "everything should be on the table" when it comes to changes in the judicial system, said Manchin spokesman Matt Turner.

"[Kessler's] ideas are a part of the many things that he wants that study commission to consider," Turner said.

So far, no appointments to the nine-person commission have been announced. The Manchin administration is "working in earnest" on the appointments and plans to announce them soon, Turner said. Under the executive order Manchin issued when creating the commission, a report from the group is due Nov. 15. 

Two states -- North Carolina and New Mexico -- have public financing for judicial elections. Wisconsin lawmakers are now considering the concept and could approve it this year, said Bert Brandenburg, director of the national organization Justice at Stake.

"Progress has tended to be slow, but somewhat steady," said Brandenburg, whose group tracks spending in judicial campaigns. "I think if a third state decides to do public financing of judicial campaigns, it sends a strong signal." 

Besides public financing, judicial campaign reform efforts across the country also include implementing merit selection for judges -- where they are appointed, not elected -- and making recusal standards stricter, Brandenburg said.

The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent recusal standards, he said. "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points." 

Reach Alison Knezevich at alis...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1240.