[ Report Home | Previous Page | Next Page ] Pay to Play VI. Conclusion

This study finds a strong, undeniable correlation between campaign contributions and access to the Texas Supreme Court. The more political money that lawyers and litigants contribute to the justices, the more likely they are to have their day in the high court. These findings do not link specific campaign contributions to the way that the court handled a particular petition or case. Rather, they reveal a general, institutionalized pattern in which the court’s big donors enjoy vastly greater access to the court than do lawyers and litigants who do not contribute to the justices.

The strong relationship between political contributions and access to the Texas Supreme Court mirrors what goes on in our legislative and executive branches of government—where money buys access to politicians even when it may not buy guaranteed support for a given policy. The difference, however, is one of expectations. The American system of government holds out the promise of an independent judiciary that will treat everyone alike, be they rich or poor, contributors or non-contributors. The strong relationship between campaign contributions and access to the Texas Supreme Court is further evidence that Texas courts fall woefully short of this ideal.

The beneficiaries of the current system (those who give and receive judicial contributions) have long denied that campaign contributions influence the court’s official actions. Yet the data plainly demonstrate a powerful relationship between campaign contributions and the likelihood that the court will agree to accept an appeal.

Defenders of the status quo may still argue that campaign contributions do not fully explain why petitions filed by the biggest donors are 10 times more likely to be accepted than petitions filed by non-donors. They may argue that it is a coincidence that the firm that racked up a record 74 percent petition-acceptance rate was one of just two firms that gave more than $250,000 to the justices. To be sure, contributions are not the only factor that influences petition-acceptance rates. Baker Botts’ acceptance rate of 74 percent may also reflect such factors as the number and caliber of its appellate lawyers or its practice of paying large, pre-employment bonuses to sitting Supreme Court clerks.

Nonetheless, given the powerful relationship between political contributions and the court’s acceptance of cases, it asks too much to argue that political contributions have no influence on which petitioners get a foot in the courtroom door. Rather than asking the public to suspend disbelief, Texas’ political leaders should institute fundamental reforms to create a judiciary that is politically and financially independent in both reality and appearance.