By June, we will know the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on a First Amendment case whose ripples will emanate from Tampa.
In 2010, public defender Lanell Williams-Yulee didn’t just lose big in her election challenge to Judge Dick Greco Jr. for a seat on the Hillsborough County Court, she also took a notable hit from the Florida Bar. She was fined for sending out a signed letter personally soliciting campaign funds. She challenged it on First Amendment grounds.
Such direct solicitations are the sort of thing candidates for office do–but not those running for judge. Not in Florida. And not in more than two dozen other states. The Florida Bar’s response was an overreaction to the ever-increasing influence of money in judicial elections. So, yes, it comes from a good place.
And, by the way, thanks again, Supremes, for the post-Citizens United era were stuck in.
Here’s the inherent issue with the Florida Bar’s proscription against direct solicitation of funds in judicial races. It’s a sham. It’s hypocritical. It’s disingenuous. Other than that, it’s swell.
It’s a sham because there’s no prohibition for judicial candidates to raise money via a campaign committee set up largely for that exact purpose. Hardly church-and-state separation.
It’s hypocritical because in the honorable name of being removed from all fundraising activities, candidates are still allowed to jot off thank you notes to those who have donated to their candidacy. Being privy to such detail is not seen as problematic, even if at obvious odds with the spirit of the Florida Bar rule.
In effect, “Thank you so much for helping out by writing that check and then giving it to somebody who represents me and my campaign. As you probably know, I can’t literally ask you directly for money. To stay legal, which is really, really important for a judicial candidate, that’s the way we have to do business.
“And also thanks so much for responding to my campaign committee’s request for a high-profile, public endorsement. That was better than cold cash. And finally, thank you for being so understanding about this whole wink-and-nod process.”
It’s disingenuous because it purports to address a serious societal problem–the insidious incidence of donors buying influence across the spectrum of government–while enabling an easy work-around for contributors, however motivated.
There are two ways of addressing this.
The Supreme Court, of course, can just say the Florida Bar rule doesn’t trump the First Amendment.
Or we can all agree that it’s better–albeit still imperfect–to vet and appoint judges, not elect them as de facto, fund-raising politicians.