Friday, May 8, 2026
Page 1
Ethics Body Issues Advisory Opinion on Contributions to Judicial Campaigns
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An ethics committee yesterday issued an expedited advisory opinion concerning contributions to judicial reelection and retention campaigns by California judges and justices, saying that such donors must consider their duties to avoid the appearance of impropriety, as well as any circumstances that may lead to disqualification, in addition to any limitations set by local authorities.
The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (“CJEO”), an independent body authorized and appointed by the high court, said that the opinion was issued to answer the following questions:
“Is there a limit on the amount a trial court judge or appellate court justice may contribute to a judicial campaign for reelection or retention? Relatedly, is there a maximum amount that a judge or justice may cumulatively donate among multiple such campaigns? What other ethical considerations arise from justices and judges contributing to the reelection or retention campaigns of their judicial colleagues?”
Applicable Laws
Noting that both the California Code of Judicial Ethics and the Political Reform Act exempt judicial campaigns from contribution caps applicable to donations to political parties and other candidates, yesterday’s opinion highlights that there is no cap on the amount a judge or justice may donate to colleagues as a matter of state law.
However, the body cautioned that any would-be donors “must determine whether a local ordinance has enacted a limit on contributions to candidates for judicial office.” Los Angeles has not adopted any such limitation.
In yesterday’s opinion, CJEO added:
“[A]ll judicial election campaign activity must align with the judiciary’s central principles of independence, impartiality, and integrity. In pursuit of that goal, judges and justices who intend to contribute to a judicial campaign must carefully consider the timing and circumstances of their prospective contributions. Their contributions must avoid creating the appearance of impropriety, raising concerns of partiality, or causing frequent disqualification.”
Specific Circumstances
Saying that “the specific timing and circumstances” of a potential donation must be taken into account, the body advised that, “[f]or example, a judge whose adult child is a party to an ongoing legal matter would be prudent to refrain from contributing to the…campaign of the judge or justice assigned to the litigation prior to the matter’s resolution.”
CJEO added:
“It is unlikely that a judge or justice who contributes to the judicial campaign would later become a party or attorney in a matter before the judicial colleague who received the donation. If, however, a judge or justice who intends to contribute…could foresee that such a circumstance would occur…they should refrain from the contribution.”
However, the opinion continues:
“Where the timing and circumstances of a justice’s or judge’s contribution to the judicial campaign of a colleague are not comparably complicated,…there is nothing inherently improper about their providing financial support to a…campaign….[J]udges and justices are ‘uniquely knowledgeable’ about the qualifications necessary for judicial office and may have specific knowledge about the qualifications of a judicial candidate….Such well-informed support…would generally appear poised to advance the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Twelve jurists from across the state sit by appointment on the CJEO, including Los Angeles Superior
Court Judges Samantha P. Jessner, D. Brett Bianco, and five current and retired Court of Appeal justices, among others.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company