U.S. top court rejects judicial candidate's free speech challenge

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Florida law that bars candidates running for elected judge positions from soliciting campaign contributions does not violate free speech rights.

On a 5-4 vote, the court ruled against Lanell Williams-Yulee, who ran in 2009 for county court judge in Tampa. She objected when Florida's Supreme Court publicly reprimanded her for violating a rule preventing candidates from seeking donations. She argued that the rule violated her free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Writing on behalf of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that a state "may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor - and without having personally asked anyone for money."

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/29/us-usa-court-election-idUSKBN0NK1OU20150429

---

US | Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:18am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

Short article. No more at link.

[Stallion]

1. Great Decision. Now why Doesn't the Same Analogy Applied to Judges Apply to Politicians?

hmmm?

"may assure its people that politicians will write the law without fear or favor - and without having personally asked anyone for money."

[pipoman]

6. I have thought for a long time

That individual states could limit contributions along with some other campaign finance reforms and stay completely within the constitution...

[elleng]

2. Because money ISN'T speech!

(Didn't say that, did they?)

[heaven05]

3. really, Roberts, really??????

while we have the best Supreme Court money can buy....

[Stallion]

4. Seriously In All Major Litigation These Days

there is a consideration as to how much should be donated to the judges' campaign war chest. As a lawyer believe me it happens in almost all MAJOR litigation from both the client and the law firms as well

[heaven05]

5. seriously I can and do understand the limitations

on judges getting money from private sources. Instantly compromised and ensnared by the monied. It's the hypocrisy that burns me. The worst, most ideologically twisted Court in memory......and finding for the corporate monied powers 99 percent of the time. That's my point. But thank you.

[asiliveandbreathe]

7. Calling all lawyers - could this now

open the argument to take down citizens united????

Roberts - can't have it both ways..what a hypocrite!

[spooky3]

8. maybe he's beginning to learn

at least he voted the right way on this case.

[lark]

9. Exactly!

Big money wasn't pushing them on the judicial process so they used sanity. When big money is involved with the Felonious Five they will ALWAYS RULE FOR THE $$. Do think this decision enables future, hopefully more sane, less RW SCOTUS to throw out Citizens United.

[cstanleytech]

11. I dont see how since Citizens United was about campaign spending by organizations.

[turbinetree]

10. Really

Roberts?
Why did you and your five right wing cronies say otherwise in Citizens United, or McCutcheon.

You really did forgot your own rulings there Johnny Roberts.
You and the other right wing justices should be on a comedy night show---with all of your right wing jokes of campaign funding and how it's supposedly not turning this country into the oligarchy of greed fast enough and that a politician can be bought and sold for millions including judges, look no further than West Virginia and the Massey Mine explosion verdict and appeal.

Maybe you should read Ian Millhiser new book, because you and your five cronies are in there and its really true.
And you and your five right wing cronies really should be impeached in my opinion --- I mean really.