I know most of them consider the constitution a "Living breathing document" that they can twist into what ever they want but you have to raise a serious eyebrow at the notion that judges should be barred from their rights of free speech. And the group that is trying to do it is the state supreme court and the head man for the bar association?
I am sorry but even I know the US supreme court has ruled that money (in the form of political donations) is a form of speech. The AG has already said because of the questionable constitutionality of a ban he will not prosecute a case where an un paid lobbyist (Tony Gotlieb) wanted to make a donation to my campaign in spite of a ban on such a donations.
And now the bar wants to try it for judges? Just because someone is elected a judge does not mean they forfeit their constitutional freedoms. Where do they stand on their hiring a lobbyist?
You could go the other side and make the argument they should not sit on cases before donors but that would dramatically shrink the judges donor list of people who are lawyers so that will not be brought forward.