Opinion ID: 2002270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: improper retention of campaign funds

Text: Respondent was charged with judicial misconduct for the improper retention of campaign funds in his re-election campaign in 1978. The Committee to Re-Elect Edward W. Lawrence received contributions in excess of $13,800, of which $6,200 was improperly diverted to an officeholder expense fund. Respondent made donations from his officeholder expense fund, including contributions to candidates for non-judicial office, charities, individual retirement parties, and luncheons for public officials. Canon 7C(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct clearly states, in pertinent part: (2) No judge or other person, party, committee, organization, firm, group or entity may accept any contribution of money or of a tangible thing of value, directly or indirectly, to or for a judge's benefit for any purpose whatever, including, but not limited to, contribution for a campaign deficit, expenses associated with judicial office, testimonial, honorarium (other than for services, subject to Canon 6) or otherwise. (Emphasis added.) Respondent acknowledges this clear prohibition in the Code of Judicial Conduct, but emphasizes that this provision directly conflicts with MCL 169.249; MSA 4.1703(49), which states in pertinent part: (1) An elected public official may establish an officeholder expense fund. The fund may be used for expenses incidental to the person's office. The fund may not be used to make contributions and expenditures to further the nomination or election of that public official. (Emphasis added.) This statute was enacted pursuant to Const 1963, art 2, § 4 which grants the Legislature authority to regulate elections. We do not dispute the fact that the Legislature has the authority to maintain the integrity of Michigan's election process, Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State, 412 Mich 571, 594; 317 NW2d 1 (1982), but we conclude that the more specific Code of Judicial Conduct authorized by Const 1963, art 6, § 4 governs respondent's actions. Canon 7C(2) clearly prohibits the maintenance of an expense account consisting of contribution funds. Respondent defends his actions with respect to funds contributed to his campaign principally on the basis that the Code of Judicial Conduct was superseded by MCL 169.249; MSA 4.1703(49), establishing officeholder expense funds. This is a complete misapprehension of the situation, and we do not accept respondent's position as having any validity. The Code of Judicial Conduct was established by this Court pursuant to the authority and responsibility imposed on it by Const 1963, art 6, § 4, providing that [t]he Supreme Court shall have general superintending control over all courts. The general and comprehensive nature of this authority was examined by Chief Justice DETHMERS in In re Huff, 352 Mich 402, 417-418; 91 NW2d 613 (1958). This Court, as recently as 1981, in In the Matter of Probert, 411 Mich 210, 229-230; 308 NW2d 773 (1981), confirmed the continuing validity of Huff, as follows: As explained in In re Huff, 352 Mich 402, 418; 91 NW2d 613 (1958): `The superintending control conferred by Constitution on this Court is a power separate, independent and distinct from its other original jurisdiction and appellate powers, its purpose being to keep the courts themselves `within bounds' and to insure the harmonious working of our judicial system.    Such power having been conferred by Constitution upon this Court, it also received all the power necessary to make that control and its implementing orders and writs effective.' (Citations omitted.) Specifically, this Court has held that the supervisory power of the Court cannot be restricted or removed by legislative action. Brown v Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, 75 Mich 274, 279; 42 NW 827 (1889). The matter has most recently been reviewed in In re 1976 PA 267, 400 Mich 660, 662-663; 255 NW2d 635 (1977). This was a letter to the Governor and Legislature from this Court advising that the so-called Sunshine Law, 1976 PA 267, could not constitutionally be applicable to the courts even while exercising rulemaking authority. The import of this letter for this matter is that the legislation may not intrude upon the constitutional exercise of judicial authority in the exercise of its rulemaking function, which is what this Court was doing in this case. As a consequence, this Court will not presume that the general election law and particularly the officeholder expense fund provision was intended to intrude upon specific action of this Court in adopting a Code of Judicial Conduct to assure judicial integrity well within its constitutional authority. Respondent maintains that he did not know whether the Judicial Code or the legislation controlled and that, therefore, he should not be charged with misconduct. Respondent, however, was informed of the conflict by a State Court Administrative Office memorandum transmitted by an election official that a judge may not establish such [an officeholder's] fund. The Code of Judicial Conduct clearly states what a judicial candidate is to do with campaign funds. Canon 7B(2), subds (d) and (e) provides: (d) If a candidate is not opposed for such judicial office, he or his committee shall return to the contributors funds raised in excess of the actual costs incurred or contribute such funds to the Client Security Fund of the State Bar of Michigan, not later than January 1 following the election. (e) Any candidate or his committee having funds remaining after payment of all campaign expenses shall either return such funds to the contributors thereof or donate said funds to the Client Security Fund of the State Bar of Michigan, not later than January 1 following the election. Regardless of whether respondent was opposed or not (his opponent withdrew), the respondent should have either returned the funds not properly expended on his election to the contributors or donated the funds to the Client Security Fund. Respondent did donate $532 to the client fund, but $6,200 went into an officeholder expense fund. This was clearly in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.