Hypocrites

Former state justice calls Supreme Court hypocrites on money in politics

Troy Carter,

State bans on judicial candidates personally drumming up cash for their campaigns are OK, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a rare decision issued Wednesday that allows a state to limit free speech.

Public perception of judicial integrity is a state interest of the highest order, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 5-4 majority opinion. Roberts was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar upholds the bans on judicial candidates personally asking for campaign contributions in 30 of the 39 states that elect their state and local judges.

Lanell Williams-Yulee was a 2009 judicial candidate in Florida who was fined for signing a fundraising letter, a violation of Florida’s judicial ethics. She later appealed, arguing a violation of her right to free speech.

Montana also uses judicial elections. But unlike Florida, candidates here are allowed to be personally involved in fundraising in part because Montana has a relatively small population and low limits for judicial contributions of $320 per person.

Helena’s James Nelson, 71, knows the rules well. During his 20 years on the Montana Supreme Court (1993-2013) he had to campaign to keep his seat on the bench.

“I ran for election in 2004 in a contested race. I did a lot of my own fundraising. It was one of the most distasteful things I’ve ever done as a public official,” Nelson told the Chronicle on Thursday.

He supports the court’s ruling. As a new board member for Free Speech for People, a campaign finance reform group, he filed an amicus brief urging the justices to uphold the ban.

But his agreement with the ruling is not preventing him from calling it a major contradiction.

He contrasted the Williams-Yulee decision with the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which led to the creation of super PACs, which are allowed to accept contributions of unlimited size, and a sharp increase in use of tax-exempt “dark money” groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

In the 2014 Montana Supreme Court race between Justice Mike Wheat and Lawrence Van Dyke, outside groups like Americans for Prosperity spent more than three times what the candidates themselves raised.

“In Yulee, they made a big deal of public confidence and the integrity of the judiciary,” Nelson said. “On the other hand it’s perfectly acceptable for these dark money organizations, these big PACs, to dump millions of dollars into judicial races.

“Most of it is spent on negative advertising, which not only misrepresents the judge, usually, it misleads the public.”