"The leading myth is probably about the California voters' 1986 denial of retention to Chief Justice Rose Bird and the two fine justices that she took down with her, Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso. That election set the record for spending in a judicial election, $ 11.5 million - or in 1999 dollars, $ 17.5 million. See Hans A. Linde, Elective Judges: Some Comparative Comments, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1995, 2002 (1988). Of that sum, $ 6,001,708 was spent by committees opposed to retention, and $ 3,195,336 was spent by the justices and independent committees supporting them. See 7/1/86-12/31/86 Campaign Receipts and Expenditures, Part 2: Supreme Court Justices, Cal. Fair Political Practices Comm'n. (Apr. 1987) [hereinafter Campaign Receipts].

"The myth is that "the media campaign against the justices received heavy contributions from big business interests that were angry with the court's decisions protecting consumers', tenants' and employees' rights. The supporters of the incumbent justices, on the other hand, had less resources ... ." Erwin Chemerinsky, Evaluating Judicial Candidates, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1985, 1986 (1988). "The majority of these funds [in opposition to the justices] came from small contributions from individuals, but agricultural and business interests contributed a large proportion, with one contribution in the amount of $ 100,000." Judge Robert S. Thompson, Judicial Retention Elections and Judicial Method: A Retrospective on the California Retention Election of 1986, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 2007, 2038 (1988). See also Scott D. Weiner, Note, Popular Justice: State Judicial Elections and Procedural Due Process, 31 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 187, 195 n.63 (1996) (mentioning the agricultural interest in the election due to "Chief Justice Bird's role as Secretary of Agriculture").

"In fact, seventy-seven percent of the opposition's $ 6,001,708 came from contributions of less than $ 250; of their larger contributions, twenty-five were over $ 10,000, fourteen of which were from individuals including: Clint Eastwood ($ 30,000); and attorney Richard Riordan (who later became Mayor of Los Angeles), who was responsible for the largest contribution in the entire $ 11.4 million: $ 116,001. See Campaign Receipts supra. No state in the union matches California's FPPC for effective disclosure reports.

"In contrast to California's undeniable flood of grassroots opposition to the justices, only thirty-two percent of the contributions to the justices and the independent committees supporting them, were small contributions. They did enjoy thirty-one over-$ 10,000 contributions, eleven of which came from lawyers, law firms, or legal PACs. See id.

"The myth about the money in the Rose Bird election is both distortion and denial: distortion to the extent that it blames corporations and the wealthy when seventy-seven percent of the funds came from the grassroots; and denial that there could be genuine, strong, and widespread outrage at a justice who put herself above the law. See generally Linde, supra, at 2002 (arguing that the California judicial campaign was both "exceptional" and "disturbing").

"May I add that I would have voted for Rose Bird, but before the election, I would have done all that I could to get her to resign. No one, I believe, has ever done as much damage to judicial independence in America as she did."

Schotland, 34 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 1361, 1362 n.4 (2001).