Counting Cash in Candidates'
Campaign Coffers
By Mary Alice Robbins and
John Council
Texas Lawyer
|
|
While other Texas Supreme
Court candidates are scrambling for campaign cash, Chief Justice Tom Phillips
is turning down contributions to protest what he calls Texas' dysfunctional
method of selecting judges. Well, all but one contribution -- the $5,000 he received
last year from George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign.
Supreme Court watchers and
politically active lawyers say Phillips' announcement may be the kind of
statement that moves the Texas Legislature to reform the way the state chooses
its judges.
"It's worth it to me
[not to accept contributions] because at this stage of my career I don't have
to have this office any more," says Phillips, who's been on the state's
highest civil court since 1988 and served as a trial judge for seven years prior
to that. "I'd like to run a campaign that just sees what can be done
differently," he says.
With the money in his
campaign account and funds left over from previous campaigns, Phillips
estimates that he'll have about $20,000 to spend.
Most candidates for the five
contested seats on the Texas Supreme Court raised thousands of dollars,
according to their most recent campaign finance reports to the Texas Ethics
Commission; the reports had to be postmarked by July 15. The reports include
donations made during the first half of the year.
The total funds raised
range from $5,000 brought in by the shoestring Place 4 campaign of Republican
Steven Wayne Smith to nearly $400,000 raised by Houston district judge Dale
Wainwright, who won a runoff in April to become the Republican nominee for the
Place 2 seat.
Most of the money given to
Supreme Court candidates comes from firms, individuals and a smattering of
political action committees. [See "Recent Contributions to Texas Supreme
Court, Attorney General Candidates," page 18.]
No Money, Big Gesture
Court watchers say
Phillips' decision not to accept contributions could add fuel to his more than
decade-long push to change a system in which judges depend on the money they
receive from lawyers and parties with cases before them to get elected.
Phillips favors
gubernatorial appointments of judges who would face retention elections to keep
their posts, but he says other reforms, such as shortening the duration of
judicial campaigns, elimination of partisan elections for judges and public
funding, would help.
"It is certainly a
dramatic gesture that, with luck, will focus the Legislature's attention on the
situation," says James Paulsen, a Supreme Court observer and professor at
South Texas College of Law.
Anthony Champagne, a
University of Texas at Dallas political science professor, says Phillips is
making "an incredible statement" by not accepting contributions. But
Champagne says the gesture could have a negative impact, freeing up more money
that can be funneled into the campaigns of other candidates for the court.
Phillips says he isn't
asking any other candidate for the Supreme Court to follow his lead and would
advise them not to do so. "I don't see that most judges have a choice. I
do," he says.
Champagne, a state courts
specialist, says Phillips' move may put some pressure on other judicial
candidates not to engage in heavy fund raising. "If I were out there
trying to raise money for the court [races], I'd be worried this makes me look
bad," he says.
But Wainwright, the top
money raiser, taking in nearly $400,000 during the last three months for his
high court campaign, says he's forced to run a traditional campaign. Wainwright
says he's spent most of the money on campaign staff, consultants and travel. He
expects to raise double the amount he's already raised before the Nov. 5
election.
"You've got to get the
word out. I'd certainly rather not do it," says Wainwright, judge of
Houston's 334th District Court. "If it wasn't necessary to raise the funds
to get my name and qualifications out there, I wouldn't do it. I think the
statement he's [Phillips] making is admirable."
One court watcher says
Phillips' gesture is symbolic, yet won't likely have an effect on other Supreme
Court races.
"I don't think this
puts nearly as much pressure as a well-funded opponent will put," says
University of Texas School of Law professor Douglas Laycock, who teaches free
speech and other constitutional law issues.
Phillips doesn't face that
problem. His Democratic opponent, Liberty lawyer Richard G. Baker, says he
isn't soliciting contributions and won't accept any from firms.
"I want to show you
can run a good race without soliciting special interest money," says
Baker, a shareholder in Baker & Zbranek.
Baker's campaign finance
report shows he received only $100 in a single contribution from Victoria
attorney Norman D. Jones for the March through June reporting period.
Supreme Money
By all indications, the
campaigns for the Texas Supreme Court, with the exception of the chief justice's
spot, are shaping up to be million-dollar races if the level of fund raising
indicated by the most recent reports continues at its current pace.
One of the most interesting
races is the Smith/Margaret Mirabal contest for Place 4 on the court. Smith defeated
Republican favorite Xavier Rodriguez in the March 12 GOP primary -- even though
Rodriguez was appointed to the court last year by Gov. Rick Perry and spent
$558,000 on his race. Shocked political analysts believe Smith won the race
because of his ballot-friendly name.
But lawyers and firms have
virtually ignored Smith in fund raising, throwing the weight of their
contributions behind Mirabal, a Democrat who's served on Houston's 1st Court of
Appeals for nearly 14 years. Mirabal raised $200,670, according to her latest
campaign contribution report.
"It's not that he's a
bad guy. It's that nobody knows him, and he's not experienced," George
Bramblett, a partner in Dallas' Haynes & Boone who chairs the firm's
political action committee, says of Smith. "At least with Mirabal, she has
a record and has been elected, and she's known."
Bramblett believes firms
have snubbed Smith because he was the plaintiff's lawyer who filed Hopwood v.
Texas, a case that eliminated racial preferences in law school admissions at
Texas universities.
"This case that he had
is very unpopular, especially among established firms, because it's hurt"
firms in minority recruiting, Bramblett alleges. "It's bad for the
state."
Smith says he's surprised
by the firms' reactions to his candidacy.
"I don't know what
their concerns are," Smith, an Austin solo, says of the firms. "The
Hopwood case is very popular with the general public, and I'm surprised to
learn that the firms are against that."
Smith says he is
experienced enough to serve on the court.
"I don't have any
judicial experience. I think I'm qualified to do the duty and decide the cases
based on my years of legal experience," Smith says.
Mirabal hopes to raise more
than $1 million by the end of the election -- enough money to buy television
advertising and overcome Smith's name power.
"I am concerned about
the name game," Mirabal says. "That's why I plan to go on TV and get
my qualifications out there."
Mirabal's dominance in fund
raising is the exception. Other Democratic candidates trailed far behind their
Republican general election opponents in fund raising.
Democrat Linda Yañez, a
justice on the 13th Court of Appeals seeking Place 1 on the court, raised
$95,080 during the last reporting period. Her Republican opponent, Michael
Schneider, chief justice of the 1st Court of Appeals, raised $351,827 during
the same period.
Democrat James Parsons,
judge of Palestine's 3rd District Court who's seeking Place 2 on the court,
raised $110,197 during the last reporting period. His Republican opponent,
Wainwright, raised nearly four times as much during the same period.
Democrat William Moody,
judge of El Paso's 34th District Court seeking Place 3 on the court, raised
$42,446 during the last reporting period. His Republican opponent, Wallace
Jefferson, who was appointed to the court last year by Gov. Perry, raised
$316,276, according to his latest report.
Even though some firms gave
to both candidates, it shouldn't be surprising that most of the money went to
the candidates whose party currently has every seat on the high court, says Cal
Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
"Whoever has control
of the levers of power gets the most money," Jillson says.
But Jillson expects the
donations to the Supreme Court candidates to balloon as the general election
approaches.
"What I will watch,
sadly, is the interested money that comes in late. If a candidate's race is
close, the money is influential," Jillson says. "When the candidates
are frantic, that's when it starts to get brutal."
Other Races
While high-dollar
contributions have flowed to some Supreme Court candidates, Court of Criminal
Appeals candidates have taken little or no money for their campaigns. CCA races
are traditionally low-interest affairs that rarely garner donations.
San Antonio Municipal Judge
John W. Bull, the Democrat in the Place 1 race, says he's received about $7,000
in small contributions.
Judge Tom Price, the
Republican incumbent in that race, did not return a phone call seeking comment
by presstime on July 18. His report was not available by presstime.
In Place 2, Republican
incumbent Judge Paul Womack and his Democratic challenger, Pat Montgomery of
San Antonio, say they are not accepting contributions.
Judge Cathy Cochran,
Republican candidate for Place 3, reported no contributions, living up to her
pledge to finance her own campaign after being appointed to the CCA by Perry.
[See "Herasimchuk Jumps Right in at CCA," Texas Lawyer, Oct. 8, 2001,
page 1.] Her Democratic opponent, Fort Worth solo J.R. Molina, did not return a
phone call seeking comment and did not have his campaign finance statement
available by presstime.
Meanwhile, the candidates
for Texas attorney general have far outpaced the judicial candidates in campaign
fund raising.
Ethics Commission reports
show Republican Greg Abbott, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court,
pulled in $2.3 million during the first half of the year, while Democrat Kirk
Watson, former mayor of Austin, raised $1.1 million.
Political analysts say the
attorney general's race tends to attract more interest in donors because it's
considered to be a more partisan race than judicial elections.
Both campaigns have
invested some of their money in television time. Abbott reported he purchased
$1.35 million in TV time through Strategy Group for the Media in Austin. Watson
purchased $1.9 million in TV time for political spots that will air this fall,
says Margaret Justus, a spokeswoman for Watson's campaign.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform,
a group backed by business and insurance interests, is one of Abbott's top
contributors, giving $55,000 during the January-through-June reporting period.
TLR spokesman Chuck McDonald says the Abbott-Watson race is critical for
determining the proper role of the attorney general.
"Kirk Watson is a very
efficient trial lawyer. I think that's what he sees his role as," McDonald
says.
Justus says Watson has
represented clients on both sides of the docket.
TLR represents interests
such as Enron Corp., which is the subject of an investigation by the Texas
Office of the Attorney General because of the millions lost by state funds in
the wake of the corporation's collapse, she says.
The legal community also
made hefty contributions to Abbott and Watson. Abbott's campaign calculates he
received $117,240 from firms during the reporting period. Justus says Watson's
campaign has not calculated the amount he received from firms.
The firm that gave the most
to Abbott also covered its bases by contributing to Watson. Fulbright &
Jaworski, headquartered in Houston, gave the Republican $26,000 in two separate
contributions during the six-month period. Watson's report shows three
contributions from the firm, which gave him a total of $6,500.
"Sometimes we give to
competing candidates because we feel that both candidates would do a good job,
and we want to support the electoral process," says Fulbright &
Jaworski spokeswoman Leigh Ann Nicas.
Nicas says she doesn't know
why the firm gave substantially more to Abbott than Watson. However, she adds,
"We're still early in the [election] process."
Plaintiffs' attorney
Richard Mithoff, partner in Mithoff & Jacks in Houston, is one of Watson's
biggest contributor in the legal community, contributing $24,000, the Ethics
Commission report shows.
Mithoff says Watson has
been a friend a number of years and, as a lawyer who has tried cases, is well
qualified to be attorney general.
"I think it's
important who represents the state of Texas," Mithoff says.
Date Received: July 19, 2002