Winning RE-election last fall was not easy for State Supreme Court Judge Frederick Marshall.
Even though he was the only candidate to get the top rating from four different bar associations, Marshall was not "cross-endorsed" or endorsed to run on both the Democratic and Republican lines, all but guaranteeing victory.
Jeannette Ogden, Dennis Ward, Paul Wojtaszek and Donna Siwek were all cross-endorsed and won.
So did Marshall, taking the fifth and final judge spot after waging an aggressive campaign including $177,000 in TV ads.
That was paid for mostly by Marshall himself, who loaned the campaign $100,000.
And the Buffalo News reported in October that Judge Marshall did not anticipate getting back that money.
But then 2 On Your Side got a copy of an invitation to a 'Debt Reduction Party' for Marshall's campaign.
Because the only loans listed in campaign finance reports were from Marshall, it appeared money collected at last Tuesday's fund-raiser at Templeton Landing would go directly to Marshall.
New York State Bar Association rules allow judge candidates to take contributions from attorneys.
And Susan Lerner, executive director of good government group Common Cause New York says, "The attorneys who are most interested in supporting judges are the attorneys who appear in front of the judges and know whether they're good, bad or indifferent."
The catch is ethically, a judge candidate is not supposed to accept contributions from any attorney with a case before that judge or if the attorney is likely to have a case before that judge.
That's a tough prediction. State Supreme Court Judges have 14 year terms.
2 On Your Side wanted to ask Judge Marshall about how he safeguards against this sort of conflict of interest. However, he turned down our request for an on-camera interview.
But Michael Perley, a member of Marshall's campaign committee, did tell 2 On Your Side, "After you started asking questions about (the fundraiser) we started having second thoughts about the party and we decided to give all the money back."
Perley says the exact amount of money is unknown. Checks were mailed back, uncashed.
