Richard Pope alleges that Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has accepted illegal campaign contributions:
Canon 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from getting campaign contributions more than 120 days before the first day of the period for filing for candidacy.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2006 11:31 PM | Email ThisThe first day to file as a candidate this year is Monday, July 24, 2006. Therefore, no judicial candidate can accept a campaign contribution prior to Sunday, March 26, 2006.
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has accepted $6,400 in illegal campaign contributions for his 2006 election campaign that were made before March 26, 2006. (Please note the $1,000 contribution on Monday, March 27, 2006 from Justice Tom Chambers and his wife Judy Chambers -- i.e. $500 each. Chambers knows the law, and wanted to give money to Alexander as soon as he could in compliance with the law.)
Judicial candidates almost never violate Canon 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I looked at numerous other candidates for state Supreme Court in the last three election cycles (2002, 2004 and 2006), and couldn't find any other candidates who violated this rule.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm quoting Pope.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 10, 2006 12:20 AMBTW: Even if it is not technically a violation of an RCW or a WAC, I assume it still wouldn't hurt for somebody to bring this to the attention of the compliance section at the PDC....
In any case, another major attaboy to Mr. Pope.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 10, 2006 12:30 AMIn Washington, almost no state campaign finance violations are considered crimes under state law. Most campaign finance regulations are contained in Chapter 42.17 RCW, which is enforced by the Public Disclosure Commission. However, nearly all of those are only punishable by a civil fine, and do not carry any criminal penalties.
The Code of Judicial Conduct is enforced by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. If someone files a complaint with the CJC, Chief Justice Alexander could receive various sanctions, ranging from an admonishment to removal from office if they determine he violated the CJC.
Until the CJC either files formal charges or dismisses the complaint, the complaint process is shrouded in extreme secrecy. In fact, the CJC rules actually prohibit anyone (including the person filing the complaint) from telling anyone that a complaint has been filed, until either it has been dismissed or charges have been filed.
However, anyone oustide of the CJC (including the complainant -- who can't say that they are the complainant of course!) can talk about the relevant facts upon which a complaint is based, so long as they don't disclose whether or not a complaint has been filed.
Regardless of whether or not anyone has filed or will file a complaint against Chief Justice Alexander with the CJC, or what action the CJC may or may not take in such a hypothetical situation, the apparent violation of the campaign finance regulations in Canon 7(B)(2) by Chief Justice Alexander is extremely relevant to the general public in determining whether or not he should be re-elected to serve on our state's highest court and can (and should) be publicly discussed.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 12:36 AMBy DAVID AMMONS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 7, 2006
OLYMPIA -- The Legislature has approved campaign contribution limits for judicial candidates.
The move, championed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, will help shore up public confidence in the courts and head off ultra-expensive campaigns, the sponsor, Rep. Shay Schual-Berke, D-Normandy Park, said Monday.
The bill, sent to the governor after passing both houses Saturday, applies the same limits to judicial candidates as for statewide candidates. That is $1,400 per donor for the primary and $1,400 for the general election.
Alexander, who had voluntarily adopted that standard as he seeks re-election this fall, asked for campaign limits for all appeals and Supreme Court candidates. The Legislature added municipal and superior court races and port commissions serving more than 200,000 registered voters.
....
Earlier this year, Alexander said he worries about increasingly expensive court races and the appearance of currying favor.
"The specter of judges with their hand out is appalling," he said then. "I am concerned with the public perception of the impact of contributions on the fairness of judicial proceedings."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/261984_contributions07.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 02:19 AM"In fact, the CJC rules actually prohibit anyone (including the person filing the complaint) from telling anyone that a complaint has been filed, until either it has been dismissed or charges have been filed."
Several years ago, I went to a CJC meeting held in Vancouver, WA, where revisions to the CJC were being discussed. The ACLU submitted documents outlining the unconstitutionality of the law that prevents complainants from disclosing the the filing of a complaint. While it is a misdemeanor to reveal the existence of a complaint until it has been dismissed or charges filed, the CJC pretty much acknowledged that such a rule and law are unconstitutional.
Posted by: Don on May 10, 2006 07:51 AMThe ethics provision to which Mr. Pope cited prohibits solicitation of contributions - it does not prohibit acceptance of contributions. His post is wrong - yet again.
PS - Mr. Pope, how's your letter writing campaign regarding Mr. McGavick's SAFECO salary going? Have you been told to get lost yet? If not, you should, because you don't know what you are talking about and you are wasting peoples' time.
Posted by: Mary on May 10, 2006 09:42 AMIt reminds me of six years ago when a good-lucking ditzy woman was running for the US Senate. She was rich and was not going to accept campaign contributions but use her own money. After the election, we found out that Hillary Clinton was throwing parties to pay her debt and that her purported wealth she was claiming was not there.
In those six years we found out a lot of other stuff.
So, yes, I like to hear things are still the same and not on the up and up. And that goes for judges and their hypocrisy.
While it may turn out not to be illegal, it still isn't kosher for a Supreme Court judge to circumvent the rules. Especially one running on a clean campaign contribution agenda.
Posted by: swatter on May 10, 2006 09:55 AMThe intent is clear what is meant by both, and if either is true, then both should suffer the consequences. But with libs it is usually alright to skirt the intent, with conservatives it isn't. Typical consistency.
Note though that the conservative gets out of the way to not bring others down. "Culture of corruption?"
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 09:56 AMAnd if Mary is correct, what does that prove? The 120 day rule is ALMOST universally complied with by judicial candidates in Washington. At least 95% of them don't accept contributions prior to the 120 day deadline. So Alexander should get off the hook if he claims that the $6,400 in early contributions was somehow unsolicited? If that is the case, what is to prohibit incumbent judges to accept "re-election" contributions during their entire term of office, and use the flimsy excuse that these were from public-spirited individuals, and were not solicited in any way?
We still ELECT judges in Washington. Even if Alexander were to get off on a technicality, his actions are still HYPOCRITICAL. Every other Supreme Court candidate in 2006 has OBEYED both the LETTER and SPIRIT of Canon 7(B)(2), and not accepted any contributions whatsoever before March 26, 2006.
Not only is Alexander the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (which writes all the court rules, including Canon 7(B)(2)), he also championed the passage of campaign finance legislation this year in the legislature. (Unfortunately, Alexander did not ask the legislature to incorporate the 120 day limit into the PDC laws -- this may be a project for future lawmaking -- but it is still a court rule that governs his conduct.)
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 10:05 AMYou don't know what you are talking about. It's plain english - "solicit" is not "accept" and you know it. There's no question about the "intent" of the provision - it is spelled out very clearly in english. The provision is meant to ban candidates from "soliciting" contributions - there's no prohibition against accepting contributions. It is Mr. Pope who is distorting the language of the judical canon to improperly accuse a supreme court justice of having done something unethical.
PS - this has nothing to do with Mr. Delay
Posted by: Mary on May 10, 2006 10:06 AMAlexander is acting more like a legislator than a judge.
But in WA, I don't think there's really any distinction to any public title. Legislator, Assemblyman, Judge, Governor, County Executive, Director of Elections, Official Liar, etc. they are all interchangeable, the only thing you need to know is that they all have a (D) before their names.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2006 10:08 AMnot personally solicit or accept campaign contributions
Mary come again??
I have a cockroach in my camp but I love how Richard is shining the light on the bad ones.
I have enjoyed lately how the SP troll base is expanding. How soon until "kathleen" is demanding blogs be shut down except, how did the Blethen kid put it, “smoking grass roots” blogs should remain.
SP circulation up - Joel Connelly circulation down.
Thanks for being a stand up guy and admitting that your were wrong when you accused Justice Alexander of an ethics violation. Admitting when you're wrong will only serve to bolster your credibility going forward.
I don't know what you're smokin, but can I have some? Of course your claim the "SP circulation is up" is completely wrong - there's little button at the bottom of the page called "site meter" - go look at it. It shows SP's visits have steadily declined over the past year (they are arguably flat in the last couple of months).
Posted by: Mary on May 10, 2006 10:26 AM"Candidates, including incumbent judges, for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not PERSONALLY SOLICIT OR REQUEST campaign contributions. They may establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage campaign funds and to obtain public statements of support. Such committees may solicit campaign contributions and public support from lawyers and others. CANDIDATES' COMMITEES may SOLICIT contributions no earlier than 120 days from the date when filing for that office is first permitted and no later than 60 days after the final election in which the candidate participated. Candidates shall not use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of themselves or members of their families. Candidates shall comply with all laws requiring public disclosure of campaign finances, which may require knowledge of campaign contributions. When an unsolicited contribution is delivered directly to the candidate, receipt and prompt delivery of the contribution to the appropriate campaign official is not prohibited."
From this, it's clear that Pope's wrong and Mary's right. Nothing in the canons prevent a candidate's reelection committee from accepting contributions AT ANY TIME. And why would such a rule make any sense?
Candidates cannot personally solicit or accept money at any time (ever), but there's no allegation that the Chief's ever did that.
Nothing to see here. Everybody move on...
Posted by: DJ on May 10, 2006 10:44 AMI would note that several of the campaign contributions are from members of Justice Alexander's own steering committee. How can we say that members of his committee did not solicit the contributions, when they decided personally to make them?
But it is a great loophole. An incumbent judge can solicit lawyers and other to serve on his campaign committee many months (or years) before the 120 day deadline. Then all the "steering committee" members can make contributions well in advance of the 120 day starting line.
If more clever lawyers would follow Alexander's shining example, the various restrictions in Canon 7(B)(2) will no longer serve as any practical impediment whatsoever.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 11:13 AMCANON 2--JUDGES SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL
THEIR ACTIVITIES
(A) Judges should respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=CJC&ruleid=gacjc2
Canon 2(A) applies only to incumbent judges, and not to candidates for judicial office in general. Perhaps a lawyer who did not hold judicial office could rely upon the technicality that MIGHT excuse Chief Justice Alexander -- i.e. the contributions magically fell off a tree and were not "solicited".
But, as an incumbent judge, I would say that acceptance of a contribution more than 120 days before filing certainly gives the appearance that the judge or his committee may have solicited it in some way. Even if this appearance of impropriety did not rise to the level of an ethics violation, it is certainly a reason that voters could take into account in deciding whether or not to re-elect (or elevate) an incumbent judge.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 11:20 AMRight?
Well, maybe not.
Posted by: Hinton on May 10, 2006 11:30 AMWhat Alexander has done may, or may not be a violation, but since all of the other justices appear to comply (this time) with the rules as probably intended, this does give the appearance of "bending" the rules to Alexander's own advantage.
Does it really say that much for Alexander that he takes advantage of a "loophole" that the other justices do not?
Of course, Hinton is correct. If what Bridges did was basically overlooked, then this offense pales by comparison.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 10, 2006 11:46 AMInstead of desperately digging around looking for something to hang your theory on, Pope, you and Stefan should be apologizing to the Chief Justice for accusing him of illegal and unethical behavior without first reading the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Posted by: DJ on May 10, 2006 12:03 PMSo far, it seems the anti-s are relying on a narrow interpretation of the word "is" is.
Posted by: swatter on May 10, 2006 12:14 PMAlexander is a "girly-man"!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: dude on May 10, 2006 12:52 PMCandidates, including incumbent judges, for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not PERSONALLY SOLICIT OR REQUEST campaign contributions.
According to Canon 7 of Washington Court Rules per Washington Court website, the text is slightly different as below:
Candidates, including incumbent judges, for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not personally SOLICIT OR ACCEPT campaign contributions.
Posted by: C. Oh on May 10, 2006 01:54 PMIn Washington, many judicial elections are decided in the primary. If a candidate gets over 50% in the primary, they are either elected outright (Superior Courts in most larger counties) or are effectively elected outright by being the only candidate appearing on the general election ballot (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court in smaller counties).
Filing week usually starts about 57 days before the primary election, sometimes 64 days depending upon the (living?) calendar. So a 120 day cutoff is intended to provide for about a 180 day (approximately six months) campaign season for judicial officers.
An incumbent judge should be able to focus most of their energy on performing their judicial job, rather than spending lots of time trying to get re-elected or campaign for a higher office. So the campaign season is limited to six months in most cases, and seven and a half months if a runoff is necessary in a general election. Identical restrictions are placed on lawyer candidates who are not incumbent judges, in order to keep the playing field fair and level.
In addition to keeping attention focused on judicial decision-making (or serving one's clients, in the case of lawyers), the limited duration campaign season minimizes the time period that lawyers, businesses, and others are solicited for campaign contributions by judicial candidates.
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has clearly violated the spirit of Canon 7(B)(2), regardless of whether it is later determined that he violated the letter of it. Almost no other incumbent judge or lawyer in their right mind would be kicking off their campaign prior to the last Sunday (or Monday) in March, due to the purposes behind Canon 7(B)(2), and the generally accepted practices of judges and judicial candidates in general.
Chief Justice Alexander, on the other hand, decided to jump start his campaign, and kicked things into full gear on January 11, 2006, over two and a half months before the generally accepted starting date:
http://soundpolitics.com/AlexanderRe-Election20060111.pdf
In fact, Alexander's campaign hired Washington Media Services at the outset, paying them an initial $2,583.08 on January 27, 2006. This included $1,020.00 for the January 11, 2006 news release linked above for his announcement of re-election.
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/viewdoc_new.asp?strAppName=PDC&nDocId=898508&nQRSeq=16&nCurrentIndex=1&nPageNum=2&nZoomPercent=100&UseIrc=no
If these actions isn't hypocritical, then what is? Alexander hires a professional public relations firm to announce his re-election, and self-righteously advocates campaign contribution limits. However, funding this campaign announcement depended upon "unsolicited" campaign contributions that were magically given to Alexander's campaign committee over two months before they could legally be "asked for".
Let's also don't forget that Alexander spent at least the period from January 11, 2006 to March 26, 2006 focused in large measure on his re-election campaign. Had he followed both the LETTER and the SPIRIT of Canon 7(B)(2), he would have been devoting full time to his work as Chief Justice, rather than being distracted by starting his campaign 2-1/2 month or more early.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 10, 2006 03:17 PMIt's all beside the point, of course, because the relevant portion of the Canon is the second part I highlighted: namely, that judges' campaign committees are precluded from soliciting contributions 120 days before the filing date--but nothing bars the committees from RECEIVING contributions at any time.
The distinction between soliciting and simply accepting a contribution is not narrow or technical. It's the difference between actually requesting money (which, I suppose, may carry with it an appearance of impropriety if allowed at any time) and passively receiving money that a donor seeks--on his own volition--to give the judge (which carries with it less of an appearance that the judge is on the take).
Hopefully, this will help swatter and dude understand that the Chief Justice has done nothing improper here. If honesty and integrity is really what you value, you should be telling Pope to apologize too.
Posted by: DJ on May 10, 2006 03:24 PMOK, got. Glad we got that straight.
-JEP
Posted by: jep on May 10, 2006 03:42 PMSloppiness doesn't bolster my argument. The plain text of the CJC itself does.
Oh, and I did type in parts of the section I cited--the parts that are capitalized. I'd assumed this was obvious. Seems I was wrong.
Please don't challenge my integrity.
Posted by: DJ on May 10, 2006 05:40 PMOk, fair enough, the text of the CJC doesn't forbid the acceptance of an unsolicited contribution by the Committee.
But if that is all there is to it, why have all the others voluntarily followed the practice of not accepting any contributions prior to start date?
Posted by: ewaggin on May 10, 2006 08:51 PMWTF??? Don't you actually need some integrity before it can be challenged??? You obviously cut-and-pasted that quote and intentionally changed it to try and mislead. Integrity my a$$!!!!!
Posted by: dude on May 10, 2006 09:18 PMBut if you aren't soliciting, how can you 'accept' a donation? How do these people know that you are a candidate and have a bank account, etc. if you haven't announced your candidacy? And if you have been talking to your 'friends' about running, aren't you soliciting?
Posted by: swatter on May 11, 2006 07:25 AMGerry wasn't "soliciting"...he didn't even know she was a hooker.
Posted by: Huh? on May 12, 2006 03:07 AM