Roberts switches sides. Most likely because as Chief, he has concerns over the impact of money on the integrity of the judiciary.
Rick Hasen has the details.
In a surprise and very important development, the Supreme Court has rejected a First Amendment challenge to Florida’s ban on the personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates.
. . . .
This is a HUGE win for those who support reasonable limits on judicial elections—and getting Roberts on this side of the issue is surprising, welcome, and momentous.
http://electionlawblog.org/...
Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court, with the four liberals, over the dissent of the four more conservative Justices, is unusual—Roberts usually does not side with the liberals in these cases over the objections of the conservative Justices. So what motivated things? It comes from the very beginning of the case: Chief Justice Roberts says that judicial elections are different, and that therefore the First Amendment analysis is different.
The one point on which the Chief does not speak for a majority of the Court is in the level of scrutiny. In Part II, the Chief writes that strict scrutiny applies. On that point he loses Justice Ginsburg. This is important, as there is no holding on the level of scrutiny, but even more important is that this is a rare case where a law survives First Amendment strict scrutiny review. Breyer equivocates on this point in a short separate opinion.
The state’s interest which lets the law survive strict scrutiny is public confidence in the judiciary.
. . . .
The big question will be whether spending limits and limits on super pacs in judicial elections can now pass constitutional muster.