Supreme Court justices uphold limits on judges’ appeals for campaign cash

Brooklyn Federal Judge Says Money in Politics, Judicial Elections are Mistakes

April 30, 2015 By Mark Sherman and Sam Hananel Associated Press

Justices, from left are, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan. AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren

Share this:

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can ban judicial candidates from personally asking for campaign contributions, in a decision aimed at protecting the impartiality of elected judges.

The justices’ 5-4 ruling means that restrictions on soliciting campaign cash can remain in place in 30 states that elect state and local judges. In all, 39 states hold elections for judges and some allow personal appeals for donations.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a rare break with fellow conservatives, said in his majority opinion that laws barring judicial candidates from personally asking for campaign cash do not run afoul of First Amendment free speech rights. He said the state has a compelling interest “in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”

“Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” Roberts wrote. “A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor — and without having personally asked anyone for money.”

The court’s four liberal justices joined Roberts in the majority.

In a sharp dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the Florida rule a “wildly disproportionate restriction upon speech” that should be struck down under the First Amendment.

Roberts, who has written other major First Amendment decisions protecting speech rights, also previously sided with conservatives in the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that freed corporations and labor unions from some limits on campaign spending.

Speaking to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in March, Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein called the Citizens United decision a mistake, but one that may have been unavoidable.

“I thought the court’s decision was a mistake,” he said. “We ought to be able to control [money in politics] more. But, when someone has a lot of money he or she is going to be able to influence people.”

The court’s decision in the 2010 case “[led] to a scale…almost a scandal…where billionaires are running what amounts to elections. You have to get their permission to run. That doesn’t seem right.”

In the 2012 election cycle, the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) estimates that $7 billion was spent by candidates, parties and outside groups. The FEC estimates that candidates spent about $3.2 billion of the total $7 billion, parties spent another $2 billion and other outside political committees made up more than $2.1 billion. And Conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch have already announced a plan to spend $899 million on the 2016 election.

But in the Williams-Yulee case, Justice Roberts, at several points, drew a distinction between candidates for judgeships and other offices. The ruling took note of concerns that lawyers in particular might have a hard time refusing to contribute when a judge personally asks for campaign money.

When asked whether judges should be elected or subject to appointment, in an effort to avoid the conflict that judicial candidate campaigning may pose, Weinstein concluded that there is no definitive answer and that newspapers play an important role in that process.

“There’s a lot to be said about both processes.

“A lot of it depends on the attitude of the community,” Weinstein told the Eagle in March. “I’ve studied it over the years, but I’ve never come to a firm conclusion, except that it depends to a large extent of the newspapers and whether they keep close tabs on the general attitude of the public and the general attitude of the bar.”

Newspapers, the judge said, “should be critical of the judges in their decision and publicize them and subject judicial decisions to public debate.”

In a separate dissent in the Williams-Yulee case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said he wanted to “underscore the irony in the court’s having concluded that the very First Amendment protections judges must enforce should be lessened when a judicial candidate’s own speech is at issue.”

The case of Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Fla., arose after she signed a mass mailing asking for money for her campaign for a local judgeship and posted the letter on her website. The appeal didn’t bring in a penny, but Williams-Yulee received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.

Lawyers for Williams-Yulee had argued that the rule has a chilling effect on political speech and does nothing to prevent a candidate’s campaign committee from requesting contributions.

Lower courts have been split on the issue in the Florida case.

-Charisma L. Troiano of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle contributing