Sentences with phrase «judicial campaign contributions»

According to a 2011 survey conducted by Justice at Stake, a non-partisan organization whose mission is to ensure an impartial court system, 83 percent of the public believe that judicial campaign contributions influence judges» decisions to some degree (National Registered Voters Frequency Questionnaire, October 2011).

Second, you may want to consider disclosing your judicial campaign contributions to opposing counsel even though the ethical rules do not specifically require you to do so.

The report makes incomplete points, such as when it condemns judicial campaign contributions by plaintiffs» lawyers without mentioning contributions from business groups.

Not exact matches

Kraft Heinz and the Kraft Heinz PAC do not support Presidential campaigns, judicial candidates, super PACs or make contributions to independent expenditure committees, which is defined as money spent to support a political candidate, but not at the suggestion or request of the candidate, the candidate's authorized committee or a political party.

Abinanti says the «matching contribution» structure not only would reduce pressure on judicial and district attorney campaigns to raise money but likely would expand the pool of candidates.

The contribution to Fertel is just one of what may have been a series of illegal campaign contributions by Kettner to Democrats while a judicial candidate and after she was sworn in as a judge on January 1, 2011.

Kettner may have violated New York State Judicial Ethics by making a $ 500 contribution to the campaign of New Rochelle City Council Member Barry Fertel this past April.

In a 2000 report, the ABA Commission on State Judicial Selection Standards warned of the «alarming increase in efforts by special interests to influence the outcome of judicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigningJudicial Selection Standards warned of the «alarming increase in efforts by special interests to influence the outcome of judicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigningjudicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigning.»

The project aims to make judicial elections more transparent for journalists and researchers by creating online profiles of judges that show campaign contributions, judicial opinions and biographies.

A proposed change to the Model Rules would require managing partners to track all contributions that any employee makes to a judicial campaign.

According to a new paper on judicial integrity, direct campaign contributions undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary.

In her testimony to the Special Committee, Justice Roggensack noted that judicial bias can not be presumed solely from a lawful campaign contribution, lawful independent expenditure, or even from a gubernatorial appointment.

The petition sought to amend the recusal rules when a party in an action — or the lawyer or law firm in an action — makes a campaign contribution to or spends money in a judicial campaign for a judge presiding in the case.

[4] The petitions sought to amend the Judicial Code of Conduct to provide that recusal is not required in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or receipt of a lawful campaign contribution from a party or entity involved in the proceeding.

SB 440 Provides rebuttable presumption of judicial recusal where party, attorney, or law firm in case gave 25 % of all contributions to judge's campaign.

I mentioned last month the raft of legislation filed in the Wisconsin Assembly dealing with judicial recusal, including proposals to require recusal for certain campaign contributions as well as giving the supreme court the ability to force a justice off a case.

In 2013, the legislature repealed the state's renowned public financing program for judicial candidates, leaving would - be judges to raise contributions from wealthy campaign donors.

Still, if you think that this article will result in reforms, such as mandatory recusals in cases where judges have taken campaign contributions, or replacing judicial elections with appointment, think again.

The impact of campaign contributions on judicial impartiality, both real and perceived, is significant.

Although most states have rules governing judicial recusal related to campaign contributions, few formal ethical rules govern lawyers making those contributions.

Moyers: The concern that each of you expressed last year in Philadelphia was in particular about campaign contributions to judicial races.

Finally, regardless of whether you decide to contribute to judicial campaigns or not and regardless of whether you think contributions are likely to affect an individual judge or not, you should avoid claiming to a client, or to anyone else, that contributing to an election campaign might be a viable way to influence a judge's decision.

Trouble was, Benjamin had received $ 3 million in campaign contributions from Massey, raising questions of judicial bias.

Judicial candidate Lanell Williams - Yulee signed a mass - mailing in which she solicited contributions to her campaign.

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the canon was narrowly tailored to the state's interests in judicial impartiality and open - mindedness, and that White was inapplicable because the facts of the case and the details of the solicitation canon were distinguishable: «We do not believe anyone can seriously argue that a judge personally soliciting campaign contributions from attorneys having cases before him or her should be permissible.»

However, in 2010, Wisconsin Supreme Court had changed the state's recusal rules to exclude campaign contributions and independent expenditures as sole bases for judicial recusal.

The Justices» questions generally fall along anticipated ideological divides (e.g., the conservative Justices seem to support uninhibited solicitation of campaign contributions and the liberal Justices seem to support more regulation in judicial elections).

In Defense of Florida's Flat Ban on the Personal Solicitation of Campaign Contributions From Attorneys by Candidates for Judicial Office PDF · Burt Neuborne · 68 Vand.

The plaintiffs challenged eight restrictions on judicial conduct: 1) the prohibition on judicial candidates campaigning as a member of a political organization, 2) the prohibition on judicial candidates making speeches for or against political organizations or candidates, 3) the ban on judicial candidates making contributions to political causes or candidates, 4) the prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, 5) the prohibition on judges from acting as a leader or holding office in a policitical organization, 6) the prohibition on judicial candidates knowingly or recklessly making false statements during campaigns, 7) the ban on judicial candidates making misleading statements, and 8) the prohibition on candidates making pledges, promises, or committments in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court.

The court also held that the state's solicitation clause, which prohibited judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions (but allowed campaign committees to do so on behalf of the candidates), was unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibited candidates from signing solicitation letters and making campaign appeals before large groups.

The Florida Supreme Court thus publicly reprimanded Williams - Yulee for violating the Canon, notwithstanding her complaint that the Canon violates the First Amendment «in that it limits a judicial candidate's right to engage in free speech by prohibiting a judicial candidate from directly soliciting campaign contributions.»

Readers undoubtedly know that the Supreme Court of the United States will soon decide whether judges, or at least judicial candidates, may solicit campaign contributions personally (i.e., in lieu of, or in addition to, the customary campaign committee of «responsible persons»).

On April 29th, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Williams - Yulee v. Florida Bar, upholding the constitutionality of Florida's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

That is, even with the costs incurred by campaign contributions, judicial elections are legitimacy - ENHANCING institutions.

The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, a non-profit, non-partisan and non-governmental body, is concerned that the ruling on contributions may undermine the integrity of judicial elections and thus damage public regard for the juJudicial Campaign Conduct Committee, a non-profit, non-partisan and non-governmental body, is concerned that the ruling on contributions may undermine the integrity of judicial elections and thus damage public regard for the jujudicial elections and thus damage public regard for the judiciary.

This Rule recognizes that in many jurisdictions, judicial candidates must raise campaign funds to support their candidacies, and permits candidates, other than candidates for appointive judicial office, to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept reasonable financial contributions or in - kind contributions.

[1] Judicial candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign contributions or personally accepting campaign contributions.

The most recent American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct instructs judges to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and requires recusal when campaign contributions exceed a certain amount.

Independent spending allows interest groups to circumvent campaign contribution limits, and if allowed to remain unchecked, they will continue to play a crucial role in judicial races.

Beginning on March 1, employees of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Federal Judicial Center may not make campaign contributions or engage in partisan activity.