May a South Dakota judicial candidate review public campaign reports identifying contributors?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The candidate asked how to keep campaign contributors' identities unknown while meeting the Secretary of State's campaign disclosure requirements. The Committee read Canon 5C(2) as placing fundraising and reporting work with the candidate's campaign committee, while keeping the candidate responsible for its compliance.
The Committee concluded that the candidate must take reasonable measures to prevent reported contributor information from reaching the candidate. Public availability of the reports did not change the candidate's ethical obligation to avoid seeking that information. The candidate's committee could provide aggregate contribution information that did not identify sources.
The opinion also called for the campaign committee to understand this screening requirement and take steps to keep individual contributor information from the candidate.
In practice
The opinion separated the committee's duty to file public campaign reports from the candidate's duty to remain unaware of contributor identities. It allowed aggregate information without revealing contributors.
Common questions
Q: Can the candidate look up donors in public state filings?
A: No. The Committee said the candidate was ethically bound not to seek information identifying contributors, even if publicly available.
Q: Who files campaign reports?
A: The opinion assigned applicable reporting requirements to the candidate or campaign committee and placed campaign finances under the committee.
Q: Can the candidate receive aggregate donation totals?
A: Yes, if the totals do not reveal the sources of contributions.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(2) on campaign committees, fundraising and candidate responsibility. It cited Canon 5C(2)(b)(v) on nondisclosure of contributor identities and Matter of Discipline of Hopewell in its conclusion.
Citations and references
- South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(2), including subsections (a) and (b)(v).
- SDCL §§ 12-27-15, 12-27-22, and 12-27-24 through 28.
- Matter of Discipline of Hopewell, 507 N.W.2d 911, 915 (S.D. 1993).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: Formal Opinion 22-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2022. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace