Replacing personal solicitation bans will mitigate the increasing influence of PAC spending. Previous scholarship has focused on Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar--the Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of personal solicitation bans. This Article contributes to the literature by analyzing the connection between solicitation bans and the problem of non-transparent PAC spending. It argues solicitation bans make judicial candidates dependent on lawyers and lobbyists for fund-raising, allow super PACs to control campaign narratives, and encourage non-transparent spending. As a solution, this Article argues the Supreme Court should overturn Williams-Yulee and declare personal solicitation bans unconstitutional restrictions on campaign speech. Absent Supreme Court action, this Article proposes model legislation based on the codes of judicial conduct in Ohio, Texas, Alaska, and Minnesota to combat the rising influence of super PACs without sacrificing judicial integrity or impartiality.
LINKS
Read “The ‘Burlap’ Blindfold: Increasing Transparency in State Judicial Elections Through Updated Candidate Solicitation Laws,” authored by Nicholas LeFevre, published by the Gonzaga Law Review.