You’d think a judge would know better.
But according to campaign finance records filed in Oakland County, Michigan, Judge Christopher Dingell, a sitting member of the bench, donated $100 to the campaign of Democratic Prosecutor Karen McDonald on February 18, 2025.
This isn’t just a small lapse in judgment.
It’s a direct violation of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, which explicitly prohibits judges from making financial contributions to individual candidates for public office.
And while $100 might not sound like much, what it represents is a breach of judicial neutrality and the public trust.
The Rule Is Clear: Judges Must Stay Out of Individual Campaigns
Let’s look at what the Michigan Judicial Code of Conduct says.
Under Canon 7 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct:
“a judge or a candidate for judicial office may: (a) attend political gatherings; (b) speak to such gatherings on the judge’s own behalf or on behalf of other judicial candidates; and (c) contribute to a political party.”
Nowhere in the Code does it allow for financial contributions to individual non-judicial candidates, like, say, a county prosecutor going for the Attorney General seat.
That means Judge Dingell’s $100 contribution to Karen McDonald is a clear ethical violation.
The Evidence: Campaign Finance Report
Christopher Dingell
3360 Brookshire St.
Trenton, MI 48183
Occupation: Judge
Employer: State of Michigan
This isn’t a disguised contribution.
It’s openly declared, with Dingell identifying himself as a judge, listing a government employer address, and making a direct contribution, not a loan, not a fundraiser ticket; it’s an outright direct donation.
This isn’t really anything new as Karen often thinks she’s above the law.
Why This Matters
Judges are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law. That’s why the ethics rules bar them from making partisan financial contributions to candidates seeking executive or legislative office.
When a judge financially backs a prosecutor, particularly one who may oversee criminal cases that could come before his bench, it compromises public confidence in the judge’s impartiality. At the very least, it creates the appearance of bias and judicial impropriety.
And appearances matter.
Would a defense attorney feel confident their client is getting a fair hearing if the judge financially supported the prosecutor across the aisle?
Would the public feel justice is blind if it knows the bench is bankrolling the prosecutor?
The Bigger Picture
Judge Dingell is no stranger to Michigan politics.
He’s the son of the late Rep. John Dingell and part of one of the state’s most recognizable political families. But being a Dingell doesn’t excuse ethical violations it heightens scrutiny.
Karen McDonald isn’t just any candidate. She’s a sitting county prosecutor who has wielded her power controversially failing to charge officers in high-profile brutality cases, while selectively pursuing others. She’s also running for Attorney General.
That makes this financial support even more concerning.
Time for the JTC to Step In
The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) exists to investigate and discipline judges who violate ethical rules.
Judge Dingell’s donation to Karen McDonald is an easily verifiable, documented violation of Michigan’s Judicial Code of Conduct. The JTC should investigate this contribution and issue a public ruling, and clutch will be submitting a formal complaint.
Because if judges are allowed to pick sides with their wallets, our justice system stops being neutral and starts being political theater.
In Closing
$100 may not be enough to buy a prosecutor, but it’s enough to raise serious ethical concerns when it comes from the bench.
Michigan deserves judges and prosecutors who follow the rules, not ones who pretend they don’t apply to them.
Love what we do? Support Clutch.
