(Ed's Note: Following yesterdays post of the Sept. 3 Democratic fundraiser for Texas Democratic party Lt. Governor Candidate fundraiser and "Night Honoring Cameron County Judiciary," we received various criticisms for questioning the propriety of having local county court-at-law and district judges in attendance lending the prestige of the judge and the power of his office to support a fundraiser for a political candidate. Below are opinions issued by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct committee addressing the same issues.)
SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS AT FUND-RAISING EVENTS FOR ANOTHER
Opinion No. 60 (1982)
QUESTION: May a judge sit at the head table and make supportive comments in behalf of another person seeking public office at a fund-raising event for the other person?
QUESTION: May a judge sit at the head table and make supportive comments in behalf of another person seeking public office at a fund-raising event for the other person?
ANSWER: The Committee is of the opinion that sitting at the head table and saying supportive comments about a third person at a fund-raising event for that person would be using the prestige of the judge and his office to benefit the third person. Such conduct would be in contravention of Canon 5B(2)* and is prohibited.
JUDGE AS MEMBER OF HOST COMMITTEE FOR FUND RAISING EVENT
Opinion No. 150 (1992)
QUESTION: Should a judge permit the judge's name to be included in a list of the members of the "Host Committee" on an invitation to a fund raising event?ANSWER: No. Canon 5B(2)* provides that a judge shall not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, political, or civic organization.
+ Canon 10** provides that the word "shall" when used in the Code means compulsion. The Committee concludes that if a judge should agree to be listed as a host on an invitation to a fund raising event, that would constitute soliciting funds for the cause benefited by the event and, therefore, would violate Canon 5B(2).**
Canon 2B is also relevant. It provides that a judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others. Such use of a judge's name would use, or at least would give the appearance of using, judicial prestige for fund raising even if the invitation does not identify the host judge as a judge, because a judge cannot realistically separate the prestige of judicial office from the judge's personal affairs. (Compare Opinions 73 and 136.)
Canon 2B also provides that a judge should not permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. By hosting a Fund raising event a judge would create an opportunity for a litigant to attempt to curry favor by contributing generously, and then to convey such an impression.
The applicable principles are also addressed in Opinions 11 (1976), 16 (1977), 41 (1979), 61 (1980), 59 and 60 (1982), and 131 (1989). The same rules apply to judges' personal participation in public fund raising activities for organizations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Canon 4C.***
+Committee Footnote: As the Cannon 5B(2) distinction between soliciting funds, and being a speaker or guest of honor at such an event, is quite specific, the Committee does not reach or consider the rationale for that distinction.
Canon 2B is also relevant. It provides that a judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others. Such use of a judge's name would use, or at least would give the appearance of using, judicial prestige for fund raising even if the invitation does not identify the host judge as a judge, because a judge cannot realistically separate the prestige of judicial office from the judge's personal affairs. (Compare Opinions 73 and 136.)
Canon 2B also provides that a judge should not permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. By hosting a Fund raising event a judge would create an opportunity for a litigant to attempt to curry favor by contributing generously, and then to convey such an impression.
The applicable principles are also addressed in Opinions 11 (1976), 16 (1977), 41 (1979), 61 (1980), 59 and 60 (1982), and 131 (1989). The same rules apply to judges' personal participation in public fund raising activities for organizations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Canon 4C.***
+Committee Footnote: As the Cannon 5B(2) distinction between soliciting funds, and being a speaker or guest of honor at such an event, is quite specific, the Committee does not reach or consider the rationale for that distinction.
SELLING TICKETS
Opinion No. 11 (1976)
QUESTION: Is the selling of tickets for various fund-raising activities prohibited by Canon 5B(2)* ("A Judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable. . . .")?ANSWER: Canon 5B(2),* forbidding the solicitation of funds or the use of the prestige of his office for that purpose, includes "the selling of tickets for various fund-raising activities" and the answer to the question is in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN, FUND-RAISING EVENTS FOR ANOTHER
Opinion No. 59 (1982)
QUESTION: May a judge act as a co-chairman of a fund-raising event for another person seeking public office?ANSWER: No. Canon 5B(2)* states in pertinent part as follows: "A judge should not solicit funds for any...political... organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of his [or her] office for that purpose...." The Committee is of the opinion that Canon 5B(2)* prohibits a judge from acting as a co-chairman of a political fund-raising event for another person.
4 comments:
Same holds true Republicans honoring each other for their glorious exploits !!!
Did anyone ask if a judge could sell her daughter's Girl Scout cookies by encouraging attorneys who appear before her court to purchase same?
Hey smarty pants the Judges are listed as Honorees not Hosts! You know there is a big difference. There you go again you Do-Do twisting the facts!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder losers flock to you!
Where's Oscar Garcia of the 357th District Court? Why is he being excluded from the list of Honorees? He's a judge in Cameron County; why is he not being honored??? Because he's Republican?! This ad claims a "Night Honoring the Judiciary." Not "Democrats in the Judiciary," but "Judiciary."
This event isn't about honoring the judiciary of Cameron, or Oscar Garcia would not have been excluded. It's about these Democrat judges allowing their names to be used to support a Democrat candidate for AG. Worse, it's a snub of Oscar Garcia, and an intentional act by all the judges to keep his name out of the public's eye while he's running for office against a Democrat.
You judges should be ashamed of yourselves! Prostituting your names and the prestige of your court to further your party's objective. If any of you attend this function it will be a willful violation of your Judicial Canon of Ethics. A disgraceful display of abuse of your office.
This is why Cameron County will not change from the corruption the Democrats have worked so hard to cultivate. Even the lousy judges will ignore their judicial code of ethics to further their party' and friends’ objectives. There is no honor for those who condone and attend this event that excludes one judge simply because he does not share your party affiliation!
Post a Comment