By New York Post (U.S.) | Created at 2026-09-21 10:11:54 | Updated at 2026-09-21 11:00:54
1 hour ago
High-rolling Brooklyn Democratic Party bigwigs raked in nearly $200,000 in campaign donations from judges and judicial candidates in a move critics called a pay-to-play “shakedown” in exchange for nominations.
Former Brooklyn party chairman Frank Seddio, current chair Rodneyse Bichotte-Hermelyn and their allies have collected $190,000 in contributions and payments from more than 90 judges and judicial candidates since 2012, when Seddio took control of the local committee, according to records.
Insiders claim sitting judges have bypassed rules that are supposed to keep them outside of the partisan campaign process, while others said candidates are pressured to attend party events and pay handpicked vendors — or lose their nominations.
“The public’s confidence in the courts is undermined when judges appear dependent on party organizations for political support, endorsements, or advancement,” said Ben Weinberg, public policy director of government watchdog group Citizens Union.
Empire State judges and judicial candidates face some of the strictest guidelines for political contributions in the country — with the exception that they are allowed to buy two tickets to political events at their lowest cost, at a maximum of $250 per ticket.
Sitting judges in local seats who decide to run for county judge are allowed to buy two tickets to the events within nine months of a primary or nominating event and six months after the election using “public declarations” of their candidacy — but records reveal jurists attend dozens of these events a year.
The declarations include a letter to the state’s chief administrative judge, which triggers an authorization to open up their wallets. A spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration, which speaks for judges, said that the donations in question were authorized under those time frames.
The Post asked for a list of those authorizations but none was provided.
Insiders claim that sitting judges can donate perpetually by declaring their candidacies for the county seats every year, then reapplying after the party endorses someone else at their convention.
That goes against the intent of the law, Weinberg claimed.
“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,” Weinberg said. “Finding workarounds to effectively campaign every year and continuously donate to politicians makes these restrictions moot.”
Further, records showed Bichotte-Hermelyn’s Shirley Chisholm Democratic Club collected over $53,000 from 24 judges and judicial candidates since 2013 in payments mostly filed as “petition expenses.” But the entries lacked expense information showing that candidates only paid for their share of costs — the only legal justification for these payments.
And there may be other payments not reflected in public records.
Political clubs like the Thomas Jefferson Club and Seneca Club are not registered as political committees.
“Only the Board of Elections’ longstanding meek enforcement lets judges, judicial candidates and political clubs ignore basic campaign finance rules,” said Alex Camarda, a senior policy adviser for government reform group Reinvent Albany.
The state Board of Elections did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Seddio, who is facing several lawsuits accusing him of defrauding investors of millions of dollars, denied that judicial donations impacted his endorsement process in a statement to The Post.
“I seek qualification, responsibility and competency in my determination as to who would serve as a good judge,” he said. “I’d like to think those candidates that I have supported in the past or appear to have met and now serve with that qualifying commitment of good service.”
Bichotte-Hermelyn categorically denied that donations bear any influence on the county’s endorsements of judicial candidates, insisted that she followed relevant campaign finance laws.
The Commission for Judicial Conduct, which oversees these donations, did not respond to a request for comment but asked for a copy of the information the Post assembled.
Nearly 50 judges were cautioned over federal political contributions by the judicial ethics commission after Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas issued a 2023 memo warning about donations.
The revelations already have Weinberg calling for a wider investigation, adding that the alleged deeply entrenched rot could require a special prosecutor to be appointed.
“Courts must be independent, and the selection of judges should not be shaped by political donations or loyalty to party leadership,” he said.
