For the first time ever, the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued an advisory opinion on when it is proper for a judge to accept campaign contributions from certain political action committees.
“The committee had not been asked to address this topic before,” said committee member Belinda A. Handy. “The committee received a request for advice on this topic which the committee decided to address in an opinion.”
The request specifically inquired about PAC contributions to judges that include funds from another PAC organized and funded by court employees.
“The committee responds to requests for advice but does not investigate the reasons for the actions of others, such as the court employees or the PAC in these circumstances,” Handy told the Southern California Record.
Handy has been a commissioner since 2017. She was elected to the Riverside County Superior Court judiciary in 2016 adjudicating family law and domestic violence matters.
The identity of employees who contributed to an employee PAC or the amount of the individual’s donation is not information that judges can access, according to the opinion but Handy did not have an explanation as to how the anonymity of court employees will be maintained.
“The rules about whether and when a PAC must disclose the identities of its donors are not a matter of judicial ethics but are governed by law,” Handy said. “For purposes of this opinion, the committee assumes that the judge who receives the funds does not know which employees contributed to the PAC. The opinion does not advise that any particular measures be taken to preserve anonymity, but acknowledges that different measures may be appropriate in different kinds of courts.”
In its opinion, CJEO decided that in the absence of improper solicitation or coercion, a judge may accept a campaign contribution from a PAC, which includes contributions from another PAC organized and funded by court employees.
“The two dangers the committee identifies in this opinion are that a donation may be the result of either (1) a direct or indirect solicitation of court employees, or (2) coercion,” Handy added. “The committee’s guidance was to avoid coercion, without regard to the question of its actual occurrence.”
The 12 members of the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions include appellate justices, trial court judges, a retired judge, and a lay person commissioner.
“The committee was established by the Supreme Court to act independently in providing judicial ethics advisory opinions to judicial officers and candidates for judicial office,” Handy said.