• Average amount raised by winning candidates for a seat on the Michigan Supreme Court in 1994: $287,000. 1
• Average amount raised by winning candidates for seats on the Michigan Supreme Court six years later: $1.3 million. 2
• Michigan Manufacturers Association’s analysis of what “swayed the Supreme Court election to a conservative viewpoint, ensuring a pro-manufacturing agenda”: the group’s campaign contributions. 3
• Percent of cases heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court involving a campaign contributor to a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate: 75%. 4
• Proportion of Texas attorneys who believe campaign contributions influence judicial decisions “very significantly” or “fairly significantly”: 79%. 5
• Proportion of campaign money the 10 Texas Supreme Court Justices who faced an election between 1994 and 1998 raised from lawyers, law firms, and litigants who filed appeals with the high court during the same period: 52%. 6
• Chance that the Texas Supreme Court would, between 1994 and 1998, accept an appeal filed by a campaign contributor versus the chance it would accept an appeal by a non-contributor: 4:1. 7
• Chance that the Texas Supreme Court would accept a petition from a campaign contributor of more than $250,000 versus the chance it would accept a petition by a non-contributor: 10:1. 8
• How often the Ohio Supreme Court ruled favorably for clients of 20 Cleveland area attorneys who gave the most cash to justices’ political campaigns between 1993 and 1998: 2/3 of the time. 9
• Percent of members of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns who favor full public financing of contested judicial elections: 100%. 10

______________________________

1 “More Money, Less Disclosure,” Michigan Campaign Finance Network, July 18, 2001, www.mcfn.org.
2 ibid.
3 Charlie Cain, “High Court Race Will Be Nasty, Pricey,” The Detroit News, June 23, 2000, p. 1. The story quotes the Michigan Manufacturers Weekly Newsletter on the group’s strategy of giving campaign contributions to judicial candidates.
4 Covers campaign contributions made between 1989 and 1999 to a Supreme Court candidate by a party, law firm, business, or other organization involved in a case heard during the same time period. Samantha Sanchez, “Campaign Contributions and the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” The National Institute on Money in State Politics, May 9, 2001.

5 Supreme Court of Texas, State Bar of Texas and Texas Office of Court Administration, The Courts and the Legal Profession in Texas - The Insider's Perspective (May 1999), www.courts.state.tx.us/publicinfo/publictrust/execsum.htm.
6 Texans for Public Justice, “Pay to Play: How Big Money Buys Access to the Texas Supreme Court,” April 24, 2001, www.tpj.org/reports/paytoplay/index.htm.
7 ibid.
8 ibid.

9 T.C. Brown, “Majority of Court Rulings Favor Campaign Donors,” The Plain Dealer, February 15, 2000, p. 1A.
10 “Report, Commission on Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns,” American Bar Association, July 2001, www.abanet.org/judind/home.html.