On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Williams-Yulee v Florida Bar Association, 13-1499. Here is the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The vote is 5-4. The opinion upholds a Florida rule that bars judicial candidates from asking for campaign contributions. The opinion says states have a compelling reason to uphold campaign speech involving judicial elections, to avoid the public perception that judges are not being bought by individuals who contribute to their campaigns.
The plaintiff had sent a mass e-mail to thousands of people, asking for contributions. She was not a judge, but she was running to become a judge.
One more gang of 5 JUNK opinion with the standard junk about *compelling* and scrutiny levels stuff.
Judicial HACKS somehow different from Legislative and Executive HACKS ???
How about getting a 10 year to point out to all 9 MORONS that that there is NO dollar amount in the 1st Amdt ??? — perhaps add an army of law school profs with ANY brain cells about legal history.
And yet it’s OK, apparently, that legislators and executives can be “perceived” to be “bought” by anonymous donations, made without limit, by corporations and wealthy individuals, to SuperPacs?
Trying to rationalize decisions by the USSC on the matter of campaign finance can give one a free “high.”