Yesterday I linked to this Slate piece by Linda Greenhouse, which includes a provocative paragraph on Caperton. James Sample of the Brennan Center responded to Linda on the election law listserv. I forwarded James’s message to Linda, and she’s sent in this response:

I sense a bit of “Linda, how could you” from my friends in the progressive community from my failure to salute the outcome in Caperton. I didn’t mean to put words in former Chief Justice Phillips’ mouth. Yes, he told Tony Mauro that the decision established “a principle that is really important.” But here” what he also said in that interview that led me to characterize his views as I did — his views on the decision itself, let me emphasize, not on the principle:
He said that as he read the holding, it was limited to the following: Due process is violated ONLY (my emphasis) when: “(1) a person (2) with a personal stake in a particular case (3) had a significant (4) and disproportionate influence (5) in placing the judge on the case … (6) when the case was pending or imminent.” He went on to conclude: “Given how narrow that holding is, I’m not sure Caperton will ever be direct precedent for another recusal.”
That’s what the man (much more expert that I on this issue) actually said, and that’s what my post reflected. My personal opinion is that if that’s all there is, or all that a majority can manage to extract from the extraordinary facts, I’m not sure this case was worth the effort.