Court Opinion

ID: 9628156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:09:43.917894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:58.529545
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.
I concur in the result. I share the Chief Justice’s concern regarding the majority’s pronouncement that “[a]dequate protection against corruption and bias is afforded...” (maj. opn., ante, p. 947). I also agree with her view regarding the interpretation of Government Code section 87101 (ante, this page, above).
*953Regarding the difficulties that confront legislators and judges who in the future will struggle with the problem of campaign contributions to adjudicators see, e.g., The Robed Politician (Mar. 1979) 2 L.A. Law. pages 10, 30; cf. my dissents in Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 50-54 [157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46], and Hays v. Wood (1979), id., 772, 801-802 [160 Cal.Rptr. 102, 603 P.2d 19]. Money has been called “the mother’s milk of politics”. Campaign contributions, unfortunately, seem likely to become the mother’s milk of nonpolitical as well as political elections.
TOBRINER, J.
I join in the majority opinion upon my understanding that nothing in that opinion is intended to preclude the Legislature or a local governmental entity from enacting appropriately defined legislation providing for the disqualification of a decisionmaker in a quasi-judicial proceeding on the basis of the decisionmaker’s receipt of campaign contributions from a party to the proceeding. We have no such disqualifying legislation in the present case. Thus the majority correctly holds that in the absence of such provision the fact that a decisionmaker has received a campaign contribution does not automatically demonstrate bias or the appearance of bias. The receipt of such a contribution does not preclude the decisionmaker’s participation in the proceeding under the “fair hearing” principles of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 or of the due process sections of the state or federal Constitutions.