In the topsy-turvy world of what passes for Brooklyn Supreme Court elections this year, losers shelled out thousands of dollars more than winners, and political clubs were the lone profiteers.

 
Thankfully, it will never be like this again.

In January, federal Judge John Gleeson declared the state’s judicial convention system unconstitutional. He ordered state legislators to build a new selection mechanism, and judicial insiders are anxiously (or eagerly) awaiting results from Albany.

For years, candidates have competed to curry the favor of party leaders to win votes from party-picked delegates at the judicial convention. Once candidates secure nominations at the September convention, party imbalances mean they win a free election pass in November.

As post-convention Supreme Court campaign receipts come pouring in to the state Board of Elections, ballot watchers can sift through campaign finance records to perform a post-mortem on the now-extinct convention riggings.

These figures are temporary, however. So far, Supreme Court candidates have only filed four of the six campaign finance disclosure forms required by state election law. All these figures should change as more filings arrive.

At this year’s convention in late September, Brooklyn Civil Court judges Karen B. Rothenberg, Jack M. Battaglia, and Delores J. Thomas, along with Appellate Division, Second Department judge William F. Mastro and acting Supreme Court justice David Schmidt, won coveted Supreme Court nominations from the Democratic Party.

State Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, the Democratic Party leader in Brooklyn, supervised proceedings. These five party-approved candidates will be elected perfunctorily by general election in November.

Despite the rigged system, all four of the new Brooklyn candidates spent between $3,600 and $12,400 to earn this stamp of approval. The process has befuddled some of the state’s best political consultants. “I don’t generally work Supreme Court races,” explained Ernest Lendler from Branford Communications. “I think the process is archaic and bizarre.”

Nevertheless, Lendler handled a small mailing for Judge Rothenberg back in the spring, orchestrating a $900 pre-convention production. That was chump change compared to the election fundraiser expense circuit. According to Rothenberg’s filings, she raised $17,000 and, to date, and has spent more than $11,000 of that money on fundraisers.

In any Supreme Court race, the largest expenses come from political club fundraisers, explained Lendler. “People believe that they have to go to these events, so they go.”

Every year, candidates spend months raising campaign money, and then obediently spread around the treasure on fundraiser tickets — spending between $100 and $300 to schmooze with political clubs and Democratic leaders.

Rothenberg visited 64 fundraisers and committees in all, giving $500 to Friends of Vito Lopez and $500 to the Kings County Democrats.

Judge Rothberg’s campaign was far from unique. All four Brooklyn judges who received first-time nominations to the Supreme Court bench at the 2006 convention had donated at least $250 to Friends of Vito Lopez.

Those four judges spent a grand total of $29,700 on their campaigns, making the same visits to political clubs and leaders as Rothenberg’s campaign. One anonymous political insider compared these judicial contributions to ATM machines for the various clubs and campaigns around the state.

Of the five judicial winners in Brooklyn, only one justice appeared to be exempt from the fundraising circuit. According to the most recent campaign finance filings, incumbent justice Mastro — the lone Supreme Court incumbent on the November ballot — spent a paltry $915 on his campaign.

Like all Appellate Division justices, Mastro must face re-election every 12 years as a Supreme Court justice. Incumbents enjoy even stronger protection from the party, according to Lee Daghlian, a spokesperson from the state Board of Elections.

“Many times, Supreme Court judges don’t even have filers because they are cross-endorsed, so there’s no competition,” he explained.

Surprisingly, the two losers in the nomination process spent the most money. Civil Court judge Debra Silber spent  $18,000 on her campaign for the Kings County Supreme Court, but lost the nomination to judge Rothenberg.

The committee named Debra Silber for Supreme Court 2006 spent more than $10,000 on her consultant, Peter R. Weiss, doling out the rest in contributions to 35 political clubs and fundraisers. “I don’t think it was more expensive than your average race,” said Weiss when asked about the hefty consultancy fees. “A lot of people have consultants.”

According to Weiss, his main duty was mustering support from county leaders, trying to line up enough delegate votes at the convention for his candidate.  

Friends of Loren Baily-Schiffman 2006 also spent a relative fortune this election cycle, even though the Brooklyn Civil Court judge couldn’t muster enough delegate support to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Between consultancy fees and the fundraiser circuit, Judge Baily-Schiffman’s committee spent $25,000 on her campaign. According to Board of Election filings, she spent nearly $16,500 on her consultancy firm — the Dunham Group.

That firm did not return phone calls for comment.

After undergoing that whole judicial selection process this year, consultant Weiss was convinced that his candidate would win. He admitted that the strange, scrapped convention system still confounds him. “I thought judge Silber had the votes,” he said. “I don’t know what happened. I don’t understand the process anymore.”

No matter what Albany decides about judicial selection next year, Weiss will have plenty of business from judges struggling to understand a whole new process.