The decision by the Supreme Court to allow states to forbid judicial candidates from soliciting campaign contributions is a welcome step in stemming the influence of special interests [“Roberts swings decision on judges’ campaign fundraising,” news, April 30]. However, some of the accompanying comments by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. are quite troubling. In drawing a distinction between judges and those seeking political office, Justice Roberts wrote, “A judge is not . . . to provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” This is a welcome sentiment for sure, but by making the distinction in this manner, he implied that political officeholders are expected to provide special consideration to campaign donors. That seems to be the definition of corruption.

Most troubling is the perception of the Supreme Court effectively admitting that politicians are in the pockets of their campaign benefactors. But given that the court in the last few years has demolished most campaign finance restrictions, this is not all that surprising — it is more sad than anything else.

Anish Goel, Washington