Allegations of Improper Political Contributions
\n1.1 Details of the JQC Complaint
\nIn a formal petition filed earlier this month, the Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Judge Moon with violating Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.045 and the accompanying Code of Judicial Conduct. The core allegation is that, between 2022 and 2024, Judge Moon made multiple campaign contributions to:<\/p>\n
Kamala Harris\u2014then a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.<\/p>\n
Joe Biden\u2014the eventual Democratic nominee and President of the United States.<\/p>\n
ActBlue\u2014a Democratic Party fundraising platform utilized by a wide array of progressive candidates and causes.<\/p>\n
The JQC\u2019s records indicate that these contributions totaled $2,115 and were made while Judge Moon was an active member of the Florida judiciary. Under Florida\u2019s judicial canons, any direct financial support by a sitting judge of partisan political candidates or entities is strictly forbidden.<\/p>\n
1.2 The JQC\u2019s Recommended Sanction
\nAs part of a proposed resolution\u2014subject to approval by the Florida Supreme Court\u2014the JQC has suggested:<\/p>\n
Public Censure: A formal reprimand to be entered in the official court record, made available to the public.<\/p>\n
Monetary Penalty: A fine equaling the total amount of her prohibited contributions ($2,115).<\/p>\n
The JQC stated that these sanctions, combined, \u201cwill be sufficient to deter similar misconduct by the respondent (Moon) in the future and will also serve as a reminder to future candidates for judicial office\u201d of their duty to maintain the integrity of judicial elections.<\/p>\n
2. Prior Misconduct Referrals
\nJudge Moon is already awaiting a separate decision by the Florida Supreme Court on earlier allegations of unprofessional conduct. Those charges stemmed from two incidents in January 2024:<\/p>\n
Courtroom Solicitation: In open court, Judge Moon reminded attorney Michael Jones that he had not returned her after-hours phone call regarding her re-election campaign\u2014comments that the JQC characterized as coercive given the inherent power dynamic between judge and attorney.<\/p>\n
Ex Parte Contact: She directly contacted a therapist involved in a case before her court, a move the JQC argued violated the prohibition on ex parte communications, which safeguard fairness by preventing one party from gaining private access to the judge without the opposing side\u2019s knowledge.<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, the JQC recommended a public reprimand for those two incidents as well. Judge Moon has agreed to accept that sanction, though the final decision rests with the Florida Supreme Court.<\/p>\n