Proposed Lid on Judicial Campaign Gifts Attacked

Expressing fears for the fate of judges who have limited personal wealth or who make unpopular rulings, leading judges and lawyers voiced strong opposition Wednesday to a proposed ceiling on judicial campaign contributions under study by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

The measure, proposed by Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), would place a $250 limit on contributions to judicial candidates by attorneys, bail bondsmen and other judges. A commission analysis shows that attorneys alone contributed 37% of the funds given to candidates in recent Southern California Superior Court races.

Question of Influence

Stirling, speaking at a commission hearing in Los Angeles, said the legislation would “limit the appearance of substantial influence” of attorneys who appear before judges to whom they have contributed campaign funds. The bill also would force judicial candidates to “sell themselves” to other voters, who now rarely spend much money or time thinking about local judgeship races, he said.

Leaders of such organizations as the California Trial Lawyers Assn., the California Judges Assn. and the California State Bar countered that Stirling’s proposal is hardly the remedy for any minor problems that may exist.

Particularly vocal was Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Weil, who termed “repugnant” the idea of judges “selling” themselves to the public.

Weil, president-elect of the California Judges Assn., took special offense at “the vision of having to walk door to door with one’s hat in one’s hand saying, ‘Would you contribute a couple of bucks to the judge who would like to keep his office, who wants to promise that he will send more people to jail . . . who will crack down on the offenders.’ ”

Favoring the Rich

What’s more, Weil added, contribution limits would “favor the rich (candidates)” who could continue to pour as much money as they wanted into their own campaigns. Challengers would generally gain an advantage under this system, he said, since “there are more wealthy lawyers than there are wealthy judges” because often judges have given up their lucrative law practices to take the bench.

Other speakers argued that judges who make unpopular decisions would become vulnerable to attack by special-interest groups. Judges from minority groups also would tend to suffer, said attorney Michael Yamaki, representing the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a defense attorneys group.

After the three-hour hearing, commission members agreed to study the proposal further before making recommendations to the Legislature.

“There is unanimous agreement to the fact that the current system of campaign financing has the appearance of compromising the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” said commission Chairman Dan Stanford. “Serious problems exist, but solutions will be very complicated and much further discussion is necessary.”