Austin, Texas -- My curmudgeonly
9th grade civics teacher, Mr. Bartlett, taught us about the justice system
-- or what it's supposed to be. We heard all the ideas and ideals: innocent
until proven guilty, impartial judges weighing facts and evidence, a great
system of righting wrongs, holding the guilty accountable ... where the
powerless face the powerful, justice can prevail.
But this description of a magnificent and impartial judicial system
has little in common with the one that we have here in Texas. And this
is especially true at the highest levels, before the state Supreme Court.
Seeking justice in a Texas courtroom can cost more money than most folks
have. I'm not referring to paying lawyers. Because in Texas, where we cling
to the old ways of electing judges, it's money -- campaign donations --
that often determines who can win and preside in the courtroom. Just like
other political contributions, those that go to judges often come with
strings attached.
Once little-noticed, low-dollar affairs, campaigns for the bench now
can run into the millions -- particularly for seats on the state's Supreme
Court. This powerful court has the final say in multi-million-dollar disputes
between businesses. It also settles disputes between corporations and aggrieved
workers and consumers. In the past decade, Texas business interests have
contributed millions of dollars to their own, pro-business judicial candidates.
Unfortunately, the candidate with the most money almost always wins. And
that means people without deep pockets, consumers and others, lose.
Our non-profit organization, Texans for Public Justice, took an in-depth
look into the campaign funds of Texas Supreme Court judges in 1998. "Payola
Justice," our report, tracked more than $9 million raised by the judges.
Who coughed up these millions? The biggest chunk came from corporate lawyers
and law firms. Another big chunk came straight from businesses and their
trade groups. These are the very people who are most likely to have disputes
before the high court.
Altogether, the judges took about $4 million from lawyers and parties
that already had cases before the court. In fact, six out of every 10 cases
the court decided involved a campaign contributor to one or more of the
judges. It's hard to believe justice will be fully impartial when these
kinds of relationships shadow the courtroom.
Our research this year shows that things aren't getting any better.
The justices' financial dependence on corporate lawyers is rising while
the number of donors is falling. The high court justices gathered two-and-a-half
million dollars from just 25 law firms and business groups: twenty-five
law firms and businesses out of 20 million Texans.
Our latest study of 4,000 appeals filed at the high court strongly suggests
that the money makes a difference. The more money that a law firm or party
to a lawsuit gave to the judges, the more likely they were to accept their
case. The two law firms that gave more than a quarter of a million dollars
each to the justices had over half of their appeals accepted. Meanwhile,
the court accepted just 5 percent of cases appealed by the folks who hadn't
given a dime to the judges.
In light of these facts, many Texas politicians now acknowledge that
we have, quote, "an appearance problem." But it's gone way past appearances.
Eight out of 10 Texans say that our judges are influenced by campaign money.
When recently polled by the Bar Association, eight of 10 lawyers said the
same thing. And who should know better than the lawyers? Well, the judges,
I guess. And half of the judges agreed with the lawyers.
But will anything change? It's not likely. Next year Texans will face
an unprecedented number of open seats on the high court. And guess what:
it'll be the most expensive campaign ever.
This is Craig McDonald for TomPaine.com
