Title: Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Judicial Fundraising

Student Blog

Title:  Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Judicial Fundraising

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/supreme-court-ruling-judicial-fundraising/index.html

Author of Article:  Ariane de Vogue

Date:  May 11, 2015

Blog by:  Drewv Magan

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, The Supreme Court upheld a Florida rule that said that judicial candidates cannot personally raise money while they are candidates. Chief Justice John Roberts said, "Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot.”  He went on to say, "A State may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor—and without having personally asked anyone for money."  This just goes to show that judges can’t be bought.  I totally agree with this ruling because I would not want a judge who received a large donation from someone to vote in their favor.  That would go against what our Constitution says.  

As of now, 39 States use an election to pick some of their judges.  Thirty of these States limit the way in which candidates “themselves” ask for money.  This ruling is a loss for Florida’s judicial candidate, Lanell Williams-Yule.  The state of Florida’s disciplined her for breaking its Judicial Code of Conduct for doing a mass mailing in which she signed a letter requesting campaign funds to support her race.  Such requests from candidates can create distrust in our judicial system.  There is plenty of distrust in our Executive and Legislative branches so it is very important to project our Judicial Branch from such opinions.  

The vote was 5-4.  Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas wrote the dissent opinion as they did not agree with the decision.  Scalia said the ruling, "wildly disproportionate restriction upon speech."  

This article relates to what we are learning about in class regarding the Judicial System.  This case relates to what we learned because the Judicial Branch is seen as the fairer place to protect our rights.  Plus, it says that the dissent opinion was written by those Justices that did not agree with the ruling – as I learned from the chapter.