Judge’s donations from campaign committee raise ethical issues and questions
A Chester County judge, shortly after she was sworn in on the bench, made donations from her own campaign finance committee to other political committees, a move that could be viewed by some as a conflict of interest — or at least as ethically questionable. Yet the judge, Fredda Lewis Maddox, says campaign finance laws left her with precious few options of how to empty out her campaign committee before closing it down.
The entire incident shows the many cracks that still persist in both the mechanical and ethical requirements when it comes to campaign finance for judicial candidates as opposed to any other kind of candidate.
Judge Maddox won her seat on the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in November 2023, and was sworn in just two days before the year was out, according to a county press release. Although judicial elections are nonpartisan, Maddox is a Democrat.
Then in 2024, her political committee “Friends of Fredda Maddox” began making numerous contributions to empty the account so it could be closed.
Those contributions, all to Democrats, included: $500 and $750 donations to “Malcolm for PA,” the committee for Malcolm Kenyatta’s campaign for auditor general; $1,500 to “Lillian DeBaptiste for Mayor” in West Chester; $3,000 to “Friends of Cristian Luna” in the state House District 13 race; and $750 to “Friends of Elizabeth Moro” in the state House District 160 race.
When reached for comment, Judge Maddox said she was closing out the account. By law, a political committee must have a zero balance when it is closed, so she had to distribute the money.
“Since my election, I have not personally contributed to any political campaign. The [Friends of Fredda Maddox] PAC was terminated in accordance with campaign finance law. No legal or ethical violations were committed,” she said in a written statement.
There exists a rather tight distinction in this explanation.
According to Pennsylvania law, “a judge or a judicial candidate shall not…make a contribution to a political organization or a candidate for public office[.]” In other words candidates may make contributions from their political committees, but not their personal checking accounts, which Maddox says she has never done.
While Maddox may be right down to the letter of the law, her menu of options was fairly broad.
“The judge had less-political options available to her than the route she took.” Republican consultant Charlie Gerow, said. “She could have made pro-rated refunds to her donors. Or, giving to the state Democratic party or to her county Democratic committee would create less potential for future conflict than giving to these individual candidates.”
Making pro-rated refunds is manageable for smaller committees that have fewer donors, but that task becomes quite complex when the number of donors stretches into the hundreds or even thousands. If a campaign spent 70 percent of all the donations it took in, it would give each donor a 30 percent refund.
As Maddox noted in her response to Broad + Liberty’s request for comment, there is no specific time frame for a candidate committee to be shut down. She could have kept the committee dormant until her next election cycle.
Maddox pointed to an online document from the Department of State that outlines various dos and don’ts that apply specifically to judicial candidates.
“There is no set date by which the judicial candidate’s authorized committee must be
terminated, but all fundraising activities in connection with a campaign must end no
later than the last calendar day of the year in which the judicial election is held.”
The document goes on to advise candidates who keep committees “which do not terminate, must continue to file reports as prescribed by the campaign finance reporting law.”
In many other judicial campaign committees that Broad + Liberty examined for comparison, those committees generally had nothing left in the bank by the time the election was held, rendering the issue moot.
This ethical conflict never arises at the federal level simply because federal judges are appointed, and not elected, meaning a campaign committee is never formed.
Todd Shepherd is Broad + Liberty’s chief investigative reporter. Send him tips at tshepherd@broadandliberty.com, or use his encrypted email at shepherdreports@protonmail.com. @shepherdreports
Judge’s donations from campaign committee raise ethical issues and questions. Who do we need to contact to have impeachment proceedings or an inquiry started?. The GOP can’t continue to allow this to happen -because it never stops.