Now Accepting Votes, Not Contributions

Election campaigns are expensive. Candidates must purchase promotional materials, campaign literature and pay to attend many meetings. Nevertheless, as a judge, Anne Segal will not accept any donations or contributions. She and her husband saved for this re-election and pay for everything themselves. Why? Because Judge Segal is committed to integrity and impartiality. 

Consider this:

If a person runs for Congress and accepts a donation from a supporter, the candidate then promotes the views of the contributor. The political donation is used to elect a person who speaks on behalf of the contributor. If a judge accepts a donation from an attorney, the judge cannot advocate for the attorney. There is nothing that prohibits a donor from appearing as a litigant or a lawyer before the judge. Nevertheless, the donation implies that the judge may have an obligation to the donor. It creates “the appearance of impropriety.”

Judges also appoint attorneys to represent defendants or, rarely, victims in criminal cases. What if the judge appoints an attorney to case, for which the attorney is paid by the county, and then the attorney makes a donation to the judge? The judge can finance his election and the attorney is repaid with taxpayers’ dollars? It’s wrong and unethical.

What if there is a contested lawsuit and Mr. Client knows that his attorney, Mr. A. did not donate as much to the judge’s campaign as his opponent’s attorney, Mr. B. What if the Mr. B then wins the case? Will Mr. Client wonder if the reason they lost the case was because Mr. B gave more money to the judge’s election? It’s a real concern.

Judge Segal doesn’t want there to be any room for question. She doesn't accept donations because she is committed to integrity and impartiality.