Brooklyn Democratic leaders have received nearly $200,000 in campaign contributions from judges and judicial candidates since 2012, drawing criticism amid concerns over potential pay-to-play practices tied to judicial nominations. Former Brooklyn Democratic Party chair Frank Seddio, current chair Rodneyse Bichotte-Hermelyn, and their allies have collectively raised approximately $190,000 from over 90 judges and judicial candidates, according to campaign finance records.
Critics argue that the donations raise questions about judicial independence and the integrity of the nomination process. Observers claim that some sitting judges circumvent established rules intended to limit their involvement in partisan political activities. Additionally, judicial candidates reportedly face pressure to attend party events and use vendors selected by party leaders, with suggestions that failure to comply could jeopardize their chances of endorsement.
Ben Weinberg, public policy director at the watchdog group Citizens Union, expressed concerns that such practices erode public trust in the courts. “The public’s confidence in the courts is undermined when judges appear dependent on party organizations for political support, endorsements, or advancement,” he said.
State guidelines for political contributions by judges and judicial candidates in New York are among the strictest nationwide. Judges may purchase only two tickets to political events at the lowest available price, capped at $250 per ticket. Those running for county judge positions are permitted to attend and contribute around election events within prescribed windows—nine months before a primary or nominating event and six months after the corresponding election—following a formal declaration of candidacy submitted to the state’s chief administrative judge.
Despite these restrictions, records indicate that many judges attend numerous political events annually. A spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration, which represents judges, stated that the donations complied with these authorized time frames. However, requests for documentation supporting these declarations and authorizations were not fulfilled.
Insiders allege that some sitting judges repeatedly extend their eligibility to contribute by annually declaring their candidacy for county judge positions, reapplying after party endorsements are made at conventions. Weinberg criticized this practice, arguing it undermines the intent of limiting campaign activity to narrow periods. “The whole purpose of limiting the window in which judicial candidates can actively campaign is to keep their political and fundraising activity to a bare minimum, walling them off from partisan politics,” he said. “Finding workarounds to effectively campaign every year and continuously donate to politicians makes these restrictions moot.”
Additional scrutiny surrounds financial disclosures from party-affiliated political clubs. Records show that Bichotte-Hermelyn’s Shirley Chisholm Democratic Club collected over $53,000 since 2013 from 24 judges and judicial candidates, primarily categorized as “petition expenses.” However, filings lack detailed expense information to confirm that candidates only reimbursed their portion of costs, a requirement under state law. Moreover, some payments may not be publicly reported, as political clubs like the Thomas Jefferson Club and Seneca Club are not registered as political committees.
Alex Camarda, senior policy adviser at government reform group Reinvent Albany, faulted the state Board of Elections’ enforcement of campaign finance rules, saying, “Only the Board of Elections’ longstanding meek enforcement lets judges, judicial candidates and political clubs ignore basic campaign finance rules.” The Board of Elections did not respond to requests for comment.
Seddio and Bichotte-Hermelyn have denied that contributions from judges influence the endorsement process. They maintain that judicial donations do not impact nominations within the Brooklyn Democratic Party.