Opinion ID: 1779386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the findings on the charges

Text: Judge Gooding was charged as follows: 1. During the campaign, you incurred campaign expenses at a time when your campaign account did not have sufficient funds to cover those expenses in violation of § 106.11, Florida Statutes, in violation of Canons 1, 2, 6 B and 7. 2. After the campaign, you loaned to your campaign substantial sums and deposited such funds in your campaign account after the deadline for depositing money into that account in violation of § 106.08, Florida Statutes, in violation of Canons 1, 2, 6 B and 7. In the stipulation, Judge Gooding admitted that during his 2002 campaign for the circuit court judgeship he holds, he incurred campaign expenses at a time when his campaign account had insufficient funds. He correctly admitted the impropriety of this conduct under section 106.11, Florida Statutes (2001), which prohibits drawing on a campaign account when there are insufficient funds to cover the expenditure. [1] The parties also stipulated that this conduct violated Canons 1, 2, 6 B, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the provisions of which are summarized below: (1) Canon 1 states that a judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. (2) Canon 2 provides in part that a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (3) Canon 6 B requires judges to file such public report as may be required by law for all public officials to comply fully with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution of Florida, to use the form used by the Florida Commission on Ethics for public officials, to timely file the form with that Commission, and to file a copy with the JQC. (4) Canon 7 governs political activity by judges or candidates for judicial office, and specifically applies to the conduct of judges or candidates seeking election to judicial office. In this case, although we find that the judge's admitted conduct violated Canons 1, 2, and 7, we find that the stipulated facts do not support the JQC's finding that he violated Canon 6 B. The JQC alleged in its first charge that incurring campaign expenses when his campaign account had insufficient funds also violated Canon 6 B, which requires a judge to file required financial reports. There is no allegation or admission, however, that Judge Gooding was required to and failed to file a report, and section 106.11(3), Florida Statutes (2001), does not contain a reporting requirement. See, e.g., In re Rodriguez, 829 So.2d 857, 858-59 (Fla.2002) (charging judge's specific campaign finance activities and specific reporting practices violated Canon 6 B). Accordingly, the stipulated facts do not support the JQC's finding of this violation, and we reject it. The second charge suffers from the same problem. Judge Gooding admitted that he personally loaned his campaign substantial sums and deposited such funds in his campaign account after the statutory deadline for depositing money into that account. This conduct is clearly prohibited under section 106.08(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). [2] See Op. Div. Elec. 83-10 (May 10, 1983) (concluding that under this express language in the Election Code, ... a candidate is prohibited from loaning money to his campaign account on the day of an election or less than 5 days prior to the day of that election); Op. Div. Elec. 76-10 (Aug. 7, 1976) (stating that a candidate's deposit of his own money into his campaign account constitutes a reportable contribution). Accordingly, the JQC's findings of fact support its determination that the conduct violated the statute and violated Canons 1, 2, and 7. The violation of Canon 6 B, however, is not supported by the admitted facts. The campaign finance statutes of Chapter 106 contain many reporting requirements, but the JQC did not charge a violation of any of them. See, e.g., § 106.075, Fla. Stat. (2002) (Elected officials; report of loans made in year preceding election; limitation on contributions to pay loans.). Further, the JQC has not alleged that Judge Gooding was required to and failed to report his conduct, and neither the alleged nor the admitted conduct clearly violates Canon 6 B. Thus, we reject the finding that Judge Gooding's conduct violated Canon 6 B.