Can a Michigan judicial candidate's campaign committee solicit and accept contributions from political action committees?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked whether soliciting and accepting substantial campaign contributions, or accepting unsolicited money or in-kind contributions, by a judicial candidate's campaign committee creates an appearance of impropriety. The opinion drew on MCJC 7(B): 7(B)(1)(a) requires a candidate to maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office, 7(B)(2)(b) allows the candidate to establish committees to solicit and manage funds, and 7(B)(2)(c) allowed a committee to solicit contributions from lawyers not in excess of $100 per lawyer.

The opinion found no logical distinction between accepting unsolicited monetary contributions from lawyers and accepting contributions from political action committees, and no literal prohibition against PAC contributions. It concluded that the $100 solicitation limit applicable to lawyers would apply where a PAC is the alter ego of a lawyer or firm, meaning a committee dominated or controlled by lawyers. In-kind contributions are treated the same as money according to their value.

For unsolicited contributions, the opinion concluded they may be accepted as long as the contribution is motivated by a desire to support election of the most qualified candidate, not by a desire to have influence over the candidate. Citing a New York ethics opinion discussed in a law-review article on judicial campaigns, the opinion noted that a very large contribution from a single source might foster an appearance that the donor seeks favored treatment, even where the contribution is not in itself unethical.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989 and interprets the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct as it then stood. Canon 7 has since been amended: effective January 1, 2000 the 180-day fundraising period in MCJC 7B(2)(c) was replaced by a period beginning February 15 of the election year, and effective May 1, 2019 the $100-per-lawyer limitation and the disclaimer requirement were eliminated in favor of the statutory campaign limitation. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific limit or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Michigan judicial campaign committee accept contributions from a PAC?

A: The opinion concluded there is no literal prohibition; a committee may accept unsolicited PAC contributions unless the contribution appears motivated by a desire to influence the candidate.

Q: Did the $100 lawyer-solicitation limit apply to PACs?

A: The opinion concluded the $100 limit applied where the PAC was in fact the alter ego of a lawyer or firm, that is, a committee dominated or controlled by lawyers.

Q: How were in-kind contributions treated?

A: The opinion concluded in-kind contributions are treated the same as money contributions according to their value.

Q: When did a large contribution become a concern?

A: The opinion concluded that a contribution so large as to foster an appearance that the donor seeks favored treatment raises an appearance concern, even though a contribution of that size is not unethical in itself.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted MCJC 7(B)(1)(a), 7(B)(2)(b), and 7(B)(2)(c), the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct provisions governing judicial campaign conduct and the solicitation and management of campaign funds, together with MCJC 5(C)(4)(c) on the valuation of in-kind contributions. It relied on prior committee opinion CI-509.

Citations and references

Code of Judicial Conduct (as cited):

• MCJC 7(B)(1)(a) (dignity appropriate to judicial office)
• MCJC 7(B)(2)(b) (campaign committees to solicit and manage funds)
• MCJC 7(B)(2)(c) (solicitation of lawyer contributions; then capped at $100)
• MCJC 5(C)(4)(c) (in-kind contributions valued as money)

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan CI-509: acceptance of unsolicited lawyer contributions in excess of $100 within 180 days of a primary
• New York Opinion No. 289 (1973): a single source should not give an appearance of seeking favored treatment

See also

• Mich Judicial Ethics Op. JI-3: judge soliciting funds for charity

Source

• Landing page: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions?OpinionID=711&Type=6

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JI-2

January 28, 1989

SYLLABUS

A judicial candidate's campaign committee may solicit $100 or less from political action committees which are in fact an alter ego of a lawyer or a law firm.

A judicial candidate's campaign committee may accept unsolicited money or in-kind campaign contributions from political action committees, unless the contribution appears to be motivated by a desire to have influence over the candidate.

References: MCJC 7(B)(1)(a), 7(B)(2)(b), 7(B)(2)(c).

TEXT

A judge asks whether the solicitation and acceptance of substantial campaign contributions or acceptance of unsolicited money or in-kind contributions by a judicial candidate's campaign committee creates an appearance of impropriety.

Several provisions of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct and various opinions of this Committee are applicable in deciding this question. MCJC 7(B)(1)(a) affirmatively requires that a judicial candidate maintain the dignity appropriate to that of the judicial office; MCJC 7(B)(2)(b) allows a candidate for judicial post to establish committees to solicit and manage campaign funds; MCJC 7(B)(2)(c) allows a candidates campaign committee to solicit contributions from lawyers not in excess of $100 per lawyer; CI-509 allows a judicial candidate's campaign committee to accept unsolicited campaign contributions from lawyers, in excess of $100, within 180 days of a primary election.

There is no logical distinction between the acceptance of unsolicited monetary contributions from lawyers and the acceptance of contributions from political action committees. No literal prohibition prevents the acceptance of contributions from political action committees. The $100 limit on solicitations for lawyers would apply if the political action committee were, in fact, the alter ego of a lawyer or law firm, i.e., a committee dominated or controlled by lawyers.

Unsolicited contributions may be accepted as long as the contribution is motivated by a desire to support election of the most qualified candidate, and not by a desire to have influence over the candidate. Contributions in-kind are treated the same as money contributions according to their value. See MCJC 5(C)(4)(c).

In Terrance J. Brook's article, Campaigning for Judicial Office: An Overview of the Ethical Constraints, he points out a New York ethics opinion (Opinion No. 289, 1973), which states that a judicial campaign committee should not accept an amount from a single source, other than the candidate or his/her family, which is so large as to foster an appearance that the donor is seeking favored treatment. The contribution of a larger sum might be misinterpreted as improperly intended, even if that is not the case, and although there is nothing unethical in a contribution of that size in and of itself. Implicit in such a contribution is the possibility that the donor is hoping to improve his or her or its reception in the courtroom.

Therefore, a judicial candidate's campaign committee may accept unsolicited money or in-kind campaign contributions from political action committees, unless the contribution appears to be motivated by a desire to have influence over the candidate.