There is a paucity of case law addressing the extent to which temporal prohibitions on solicitation and receipt of contributions by judicial candidates can be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. However, in
State v. Dodd, the Supreme Court of Florida addressed a related type of prohibition. The Campaign Financing Act,
Florida Statutes § 106.08(8) (1989), prohibited candidates for legislative or state-wide office from accepting or soliciting any campaign contribution during a regular or special session of the legislature. Just like the instant case, the Florida Supreme Court found the State had a compelling interest in preventing the actuality or appearance of corruption.
561 So.2d at 265. However, the
Dodd court held that the state Campaign Financing Act failed to advance this interest through the least intrusive means because it applied to all office-seekers without exception, including “some public officials and candidates who could not possibly be subject to a corrupting quid pro quo arrangement.”
Id. The
Dodd court also noted that the statute failed to recognize that corrupt campaign practices could occur during periods not encompassed by the statute.
Id. at 265–66. The Supreme Court of Florida concluded that numerous less restrictive means existed, and therefore struck down the statute as unconstitutional.
Id. at 266–67. Although Defendants argue that
Dodd is not on point, their arguments are not persuasive
.