Washington College of Law
     
Home Archive Volume 61 Volume 61, Issue 1 COMMENT: Disrobing Judicial Campaign Contributions: A Case for Using the Buckley Framework to Analyze the Constitutionality of Judicial Solicitation Bans
COMMENT: Disrobing Judicial Campaign Contributions: A Case for Using the Buckley Framework to Analyze the Constitutionality of Judicial Solicitation Bans

By Aimee Priya Ghosh | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 125 (2011)

In the past twenty years, numerous elected judges (and judicial candidates) have argued that state regulations prohibiting them from personally soliciting campaign contributions—even from would be litigants—violate their First Amendment free speech rights and should be struck down.  The constitutionality of these bans hedges on the level of scrutiny used for review. The bans should not be subject to strict scrutiny, but rather, the less rigorous campaign finance framework set out by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.

If the Buckley framework is employed, the constitutionality of these bans will likely be upheld, and they will continue to serve as an important safeguard of the impartiality and independence of the American judicial system.

Click here to view this Comment.