 |
The Idaho Secretary of State’s website lists the campaign finance reports for state supreme court justice candidates. Do judges have to promise not to peek? |
Here’s what I mean. I was looking at the campaign finance report for Justice Joel Horton, and it contains a page with the heading “Judicial Election Statement.” That statement reads:
Judicial elections are different from all other types of political contests because judges are bound by a strict canon of ethics that bars candidates from many of the activites normally associated with election campaigns. Campaign fundraising and related activities for Justice Joel D. Horton reported hereunder are undertaken on his behalf by Friends of Justice Horton for Supreme Court, a group of campaign volunteers. Justice Horton is not informed of the identity of donors to his campaign. (Emphasis added)
The page following the “is not informed” page is … you guessed it … the list of campaign contributors including their names, addresses, and amounts they donated. One might wonder if the temptation to peek from the comfort and privacy of one’s own home might be just a wee bit stronger than that pesky ol’ ethical canon.
After meeting with Justice Horton, it would be my best guess that he didn’t peek. He seemed like a strongly ethical man, despite my efforts to tempt him otherwise!
Comment by Dan — November 11, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Dan,
I used his record simply because it was the only detailed one in a contested race. Still, it was interesting still to see whose name was on the list of his contributors. The other reports were for uncontested races where it appears there were no outside contributors.
Comment by Bill — November 11, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
According to Reuters, on Friday, November 14, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the Massey Energy case. A significant issue in this case will be the need for some justices in the West Virginia Supreme Court to recuse themselves. It seems the justices took exceedingly large campaign contributions from Massey Energy, then ruled in favor of Massey Energy against the appellant, Harman Mining Corp. National Public Radio had a Weekend Edition story about this on Saturday, November 15.
Comment by Bill — November 16, 2008 @ 9:47 am