A West Virginia judge decides in a coal company's favor and then photos surface of that judge on vacation in Monaco with the company's CEO...nothing fishy about that arrangement at all.

The Herald-Dispatch reports on this seeming conflict of interest:

Photos have surfaced showing Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard, who is up for re-election, in Monaco with Massey Energy Co. head Don Blankenship, in 2006. The photos were part of a motion filed by Hugh M. Caperton in an effort to get Maynard to disqualify himself from a case between Caperton and Massey.

Ten of the photos were filed sealed, and show Maynard and Blankenship with female companions traveling with them, according to the Associated Press.

Maynard was one of three justices who voted last year to reverse a 2002 jury decision in Boone County that awarded Caperton more than $76 million after finding Massey stole a coal contract from Caperton's business, Harman Mining Corp., and ruined the company financially. The Supreme Court's opinion was filed Nov. 20, 2007.

Maynard and Blankenship make the "we just both happened to be in Monaco at the same time! What are the odds?!!" argument which holds even less water when it surfaces that Blankenship has a history of trying to meddle in the selection of judges in trials involving his company. And then there's this:

[This issue of] Blankenship's $3.5 million in donations to help elect Justice Brent Benjamin to the Supreme Court in 2004. Benjamin's win unseated Warren V. McGraw, who had typically gone against coal companies in litigation that came before the court.

Carol Warren of the West Virginia Coalition for Clean Elections says this is why we need public financing of campaigns:

"I think one of the key parts of our work is trying to eliminate special interest influence from our elections at all levels," she said. "When we see something that indicates perhaps contributions have helped someone gain influence or purchase access to a particular public official, it confirms to us the need for a different system that makes that less likely to happen."

The coalition supports a bill before the state Legislature seeking a system that requires candidates to raise a certain amount of money in small contributions from registered voters in their district. Once that amount is raised, the candidate would be eligible for an amount of public funding for the campaign.

"It would cost about $5 to $6 per household to provide that funding," Warren said. "That's a very small amount to pay to ensure that the candidates are accountable only to the voters."

The bill in question only applies to the state Senate and House of Delegates. It does not address judicial elections.

"That isn't part of our bill right now, but it could be," Warren said.