Dallas Morning News, Sept. 9, 1998
Justice, 'just say no'
The recent attack by several major law firms on our "Payola Justice" report misfires by failing to address the report's key findings ("State high court doesn't favor donors, ex-chief justices say," Aug. 15).
"Payola Justice" found that members of the Texas Supreme Court who came to office as "reformers" took $3.7 million (40 percent of their total) in campaign contributions from interests with cases before that court. Sixty percent of the 530 decisions rendered by the court during the four years ending in 1997 were tainted by the fact that at least one justice took money from at least one party involved in the case.
Critics fault the report for failing to prove that specific contributions resulted in specific votes by individual justices. This is a conveniently impossible standard that would require a psychoanalysis of the justices - something that our report never intended to do.
Court defenders contend we have "outstanding" justices trapped in a bad system. Sure, the system needs to be changed. But what about the personal responsibility of the justices? Shouldn't "outstanding" jurists exercise better judgment than to take millions of dollars from the very people whom they judge?
In his recent re-election campaign, Chief Justice Tom Phillips raised $1.3 million, with $576,000 coming from parties in his courtroom. Yet Justice Phillips faced no primary election opponent and a general election opponent who spent a paltry $20,056. Why didn't Justice Phillips "just say no" to money that taints Texas' highest civil court?
CRAIG McDONALD
Director, Texans for Public Justice
Austin