PIRG: Mortgaged House: Introduction & Method

[ Report Home | Previous Page | Next Page ]

Mortgaged House

II. Introduction & Method

Many Americans are alarmed by perceptions that elected offices are being sold to the highest bidder through exorbitant campaigns that twist our political system into a caricature of its original democratic ideals. In Texas, it is difficult to determine whether these perceptions are rooted in reality. The Texas Legislature - on the cusp of the 21st Century does not require its members to file electronic contribution and expenditure reports. Through the most comprehensive analysis of Texas House contributions undertaken to date, this report confirms popular perceptions of a political system in which, with few exceptions, the candidate with the most money wins.

Since most Texas Legislature members just submit paper contribution reports, it is onerous to analyze contributions to a single member—much less the entire House. Beginning in 1995, a commercial vendor, Texas Legislative Service (TLS), began compiling contribution data in an electronic system. While TLS data are convenient for some purposes, its data are not readily analyzed by electronic databases and just track contributions of $100 or more. This report uses TLS numbers for some big-trend numbers, but most of the numbers presented here come from more comprehensive data gathered directly from Texas Ethics Commission reports.

To conduct this study, staff members and volunteers armed with calculators crunched the contribution reports of 149 current House members for the period July 1, 1995 through year end 1996.¹ Researchers first classified contributions by check size (less than $100, $100 to $999 and $1,000 or more). Next, they separated contributions made by individuals from those made by a business or a political action committee (PAC).² Finally, they distinguished in-district contributions from out-of-district money.³

A confusing aspect of this report is that it reflects three separate “universes” of House contributions. The classifications by check size, for example, are based on the overall amount of money that House members reported for the period: $14,627,357. While members must itemize the source of all large contributions, they can either itemize contributions of $50 or less or report them as a lump sum. All of this lump-sum money clearly falls into the $100-or-less category. But there is no way to assess, for example, how much of it came from individuals versus PACs or businesses. For this reason, the data distinguishing individual contributions from those made by PACs and businesses are based on a smaller universe of itemized contributions: $14,356,865.

Finally, classifying each contribution as being in or out of district was the most onerous job because legislative districts encompass dozens of different zip codes that fall into no particular numeric order. To simplify this task, TLS data—which just cover contributions of $100 or more—were used for this section. To ensure accuracy, TLS numbers on the 20 members who derive the greatest share of their campaign money from out-of-district contributions were double-checked against Ethics Commission reports. The TLS universe covering House contributions of $100 or more amounts to $12,559,176.

¹ These data exclude Dist. 118, whose representative, Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, replaced Frank Tejeda in the U.S. House of Representatives. This time period was extended through January 1997 for Rep. Bill Roman, who won a special election at that time.

² Corporations are prohibited from making direct contributions but can channel money through PACs or individual executives. Other businesses entities, such as limited liability partnerships or sole proprietorships, can contribute to candidates directly. A contribution from “Davy Crockett Honda” would be classified as “PAC/Business” money. But a contribution from “Davy Crockett” would be classified as an individual contribution, even if Davy Crockett owns the car dealership.

³ Contributions were compared with legislative zip code lists from the Legislative Council. A September 1995 redistricting affected several dozen districts. Researchers counted as “in district” any contribution that lacked a zip code or that was “in district” under either of the two districting schemes.