Judicial fundraising

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected next week to issue a ruling that some expect will strengthen the First Amendment against assaults in the name of campaign finance reform.

But that might not stop Nevada’s highest court from issuing new rules for state judicial elections that run counter to the principles of free speech and expression.

While the nation’s top justices ponder a case involving restrictions on political advertising near election time, Nevada’s Supreme Court on Thursday was debating whether to restrict campaign activities and fundraising for judicial candidates who run unopposed.

Whether or not states should elect or appoint their judges — and whether either system offers better protection against corruption and favoritism — is a matter of legitimate debate. But Nevada currently elects its judges — and voters have previously turned away attempts to move to an appointment process, so that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.

In the meantime, as judges rush to quash the perception that political contributions can buy justice, it’s important that any new restrictions on judicial elections not run counter to constitutional principles.

The new Nevada proposal would not only ban those running unopposed from accepting campaign contributions, it would outlaw efforts to solicit “public support,” as well.

While some limitations on political fund-raising have overcome constitutional challenges, it’s unlikely that an outright ban could survive. Besides, might not a judicial candidate have a legitimate interest in spending money to build name recognition for future campaigns even if he faces no opponent in the current cycle?

In addition, how can regulators prohibit something as vague as soliciting “public support”?

In states that elect judges, the best protection against corruption isn’t to attack the Bill of Rights by limiting expression or chasing a chimerical fantasy involving money and politics. Rather, it’s to encourage full and open debate. And, in the case of judges running unopposed, to put the harsh light of public scrutiny on incumbents who feel the need to raise excessive funds when they face no opponent.