Was there a Conflict of Interest in the Supreme Court?

One year ago Friday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the door to unprecedented campaign spending by outside groups. The 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United declared political spending a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore not subject to limits and scrutiny.

Since then, information has come to light that raises questions about a possible conflict of interest of two Supreme Court Justices who voted in the decision. Documents show Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia attended one or more closed-door political strategy sessions sponsored by Koch Industries, the nation’s second-largest private company, and who are among the most aggressive of these political investors and thus one of the most important beneficiaries of the Citizens United ruling.

All United States judges are required to disqualify themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In addition, engaging in any political activity is against the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including attending events held by organizations whose mission is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties.

Campaign spending by outside groups in the 2010 midterm elections was up 330% over that of 2006. Among them, the group Americans for Prosperity - founded and funded by the Kochs - pledged to spend $45 million to influence the elections largely in favor of Republican candidates.

Common Cause is formally asking the Justice Department to investigate the apparent involvement of the two Justices in political strategy to determine if one or both should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case. If the claim is substantiated, the Justice Department should seek to vacate its judgment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

What constitutes a conflict of interest for Supreme Court Judges? Is the appearance of impropriety enough to disqualify a judge from a decision? What steps must be taken before a decision is vacated? What does this mean for future campaign contributions?