Law school faculty monetary contributions to political candidates, 2017 to early 2023

I’ve done some work looking at law firms and where political contributions from each went among the largest law firms. I thought I’d try my hand at gathering some comparable data among law professor at law schools.

I drew FEC data from 2017 to early 2023 (when I started running data for this study). Contribution disclosure is only required for those who contribute more than $200, but many outlets like ActBlue or WinRed disclose even $1 contributions.

I looked for all faculty who self identified as a “law” “professor” as their occupation. That included professors of law and all potential titles, but it did not include professors with “legal” alone in the title, or those who identified as a law “teacher” or “educator.” Of course, if faculty members primarily self-identified as an “attorney” or some other title, they fell outside the filter. I then screened out anyone with the title “adjunct” or “emeritus/emerita” to return only full-time faculty members. It includes anyone in “doctrinal,” “clinical,” “research,” “writing,” “dean,” or other faculty roles, as long as “law” and “professor” appeared in the title.

The final data set had around 80,000 items. I sorted and standardized their institutions, the law schools they taught at. Some were more ambiguous (e.g., Was “UM” Michigan, Minnesota, or Maryland? Was “Widener” in Pennsylvania or Delaware?), but I tried to standardize as readily as I could.

I then coded all contributions as “Democratic,” “Republican,” or “other.” Some, like ActBlue or WinRed, are of course obvious. But I sifted through every label to identify whether they were Democratic- or Republican-leaning. OpenSecrets helped reveal if an ostensibly “neutral” political organization overwhelmingly contributed to candidates of one political party or another. Those whose contributions were at least 25% to each party I labeled “other.” So, too, were contributions to the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. These ended up being a trivial part of the data set.

I cleaned up the names of faculty. For instance, “William O’Connor” might sometimes label himself “Bill O’Connor” in some places, or “William OConnor” elsewhere. Data entry for contributors is often quite sloppy. I created a function that took the first five letters of a donor’s last name and the first letter of the first name to create a unique ID, eliminating any punctuation or spaces. I then spot checked to clean up situations where the “William” v. “Bill” scenario could arise. Undoubtedly, this method cleaned up most things but might have errors.

I then sifted through each school to identify how many faculty at each school contributes to Democratic, Republican, or other candidates. I also separately identified faculty who contributed to both Democratic and Republican candidates in this window. If faculty moved from one school to another in this window, it is possible that faculty member is listed twice.

In the end, I identified 3148 law faculty who contributed only to Democrats in this 5+ year span—95.9% of the data set of those identified as contributing to either Democrats or Republicans in this period. Another 88 (2.7%) contributed only to Republicans. And 48 others contributed to both Democrats and Republicans.

The dollar figures were likewise imbalanced but slightly less so. About $5.1 million went to Democrats in this period, about 92.3% of the total contributions to either Democrats or Republicans. About $425,000 went to Republicans. (Around $6000 went to others.)

Of course, there are limitations to this study like any others. For some law schools, law faculty were running for office (e.g., former Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren running for Senate and for President), and contributions could be skewed to support a colleague. Faculty can “contribute” in other ways, such as volunteering for a campaign or even work in an administration. Faculty might be very “political” in a sense but refuse to contribute to candidates.

That said, I was surprised to see very few cross-partisan contributions. Even a $1 contribution to, say, Senator Mitt Romney or Representative Liz Cheney would have put a Democratic-leaning faculty member into the contributor to both Democrats and Republicans. But the data reveals very few cross-partisan contributions.

The first chart breaks down total faculty who gave to Democrats, Republicans, or both at each school in this time period.

View fullsize

Next shows the dollars contributed at each school in this time period.

View fullsize

Raw figures for the faculty donors, and the total dollars contributed, are below.

School	D	R	Both
Stanford	30	2
Yale	27
Chicago	23	1	1
Penn	28
Duke	40	1	1
Harvard	56		1
NYU	50		3
Columbia	32	2
Virginia	38		2
Berkeley	34		1
Michigan	46
Northwestern	32		1
Cornell	22
UCLA	42	1
Georgetown	74	2	1
Minnesota	19	1
Texas	37		1
USC	19
Vanderbilt	19		1
Georgia	13
Washington University	18
BYU	6	2
Florida	22
North Carolina	22
Ohio State	19	1
Wake Forest	27
Boston University	26
Notre Dame	14
Boston College	21		1
Fordham	46	1	1
Texas A&M	11
Arizona State	16		1
George Mason	11	6	2
Utah	20
Alabama	11		1
Emory	21	1
George Washington	49	3
Iowa	13		1
Irvine	37	1
Kansas	9
Washington & Lee	17
Wisconsin	14
Illinois	12	1	1
Villanova	8
Indiana-Bloomington	27
Pepperdine	8	1	1
SMU	21
William & Mary	9	1
Baylor	5
Washington	15
Maryland	28	1
Oklahoma	8		1
Tennessee	9	1	1
Arizona	21
Temple	28
Colorado	16	1	1
Florida State	10	1
Seton Hall	18
Wayne State	16		2
Davis	17
FIU	10	1
Hastings	43
Houston	21
Kentucky	11	1
Loyola Los Angeles	36		1
Richmond	18
South Carolina	14	1
St. John's	14	1
Cardozo	32
Georgia State	18
Connecticut	21		1
Marquette	8
Miami	30		1
Missouri	8	1
Northeastern	20
Texas Tech	9		1
Tulane	9	1
Oregon	11
San Diego	12	3	1
Case Western	17		2
Denver	25	1
Drexel	14
Penn State Law	12
Cincinnati	10
Lewis & Clark	16
Loyola Chicago	25
Stetson	10	1
Drake	10
American	56	2
Duquesne	11	1
Nebraska	7
Penn State Dickinson	7
Pittsburgh	12	1	1
St. Louis	14		1
UNLV	19
Montana	8
New Mexico	23
St. Thomas (Minnesota)	5
Chicago Kent	25
Gonzaga	4
Indiana-Indianapolis	6
Louisville	8		1
LSU	4	1
Mercer	10		1

School	D	R	Oth
Stanford	$136,819	$8,205
Yale	$57,735
Chicago	$78,264	$7,904
Penn	$85,283
Duke	$46,535	$2,075
Harvard	$366,949	$1,000
NYU	$215,348	$3,470
Columbia	$68,598	$650
Virginia	$80,013	$21,073
Berkeley	$65,097	$500
Michigan	$103,402
Northwestern	$64,460	$167,245
Cornell	$30,666
UCLA	$62,972	$4,525	$2,724
Georgetown	$223,280	$21,325
Minnesota	$37,115	$12,960	$900
Texas	$41,912	$500
USC	$11,794
Vanderbilt	$37,174	$1,000
Georgia	$17,684
Washington University	$18,413
BYU	$3,248	$850
Florida	$28,752
North Carolina	$48,831
Ohio State	$32,457	$1,500
Wake Forest	$19,769
Boston University	$37,609
Notre Dame	$42,164
Boston College	$21,498	$2,500
Fordham	$277,494	$745	$30
Texas A&M	$4,945
Arizona State	$19,899	$3,000
George Mason	$40,509	$18,932
Utah	$20,736
Alabama	$7,461	$250
Emory	$64,257	$500
George Washington	$103,639	$2,350
Iowa	$10,104	$200
Irvine	$55,211	$356
Kansas	$6,235
Washington & Lee	$18,461
Wisconsin	$17,193
Illinois	$61,570	$1,103
Villanova	$3,223
Indiana-Bloomington	$38,198
Pepperdine	$17,660	$3,476
SMU	$34,839
William & Mary	$7,494	$4,421
Baylor	$5,925
Washington	$19,149
Maryland	$40,920	$415
Oklahoma	$7,535	$2,000	$1,250
Tennessee	$10,195	$2,000
Arizona	$9,893
Temple	$32,976
Colorado	$7,160	$3,193
Florida State	$11,286	$50
Seton Hall	$30,759
Wayne State	$16,078	$28,760
Davis	$16,359
FIU	$18,588	$1,565
Hastings	$98,908		$500
Houston	$12,523
Kentucky	$8,853	$1,000
Loyola Los Angeles	$30,281	$1,000
Richmond	$18,044
South Carolina	$24,716	$2,000
St. John's	$14,519	$100
Cardozo	$44,321
Georgia State	$10,763
Connecticut	$12,097	$100
Marquette	$4,492
Miami	$40,449	$4,200	$250
Missouri	$1,763	$77
Northeastern	$24,891
Texas Tech	$3,805	$1,584
Tulane	$4,396	$463
Oregon	$2,744
San Diego	$52,386	$14,450
Case Western	$15,988	$211
Denver	$51,519	$100
Drexel	$24,604
Penn State Law	$8,116
Cincinnati	$2,764
Lewis & Clark	$6,226
Loyola Chicago	$23,904
Stetson	$4,829	$20
Drake	$15,490
American	$199,403	$1,795
Duquesne	$12,098	$4,750
Nebraska	$10,638
Penn State Dickinson	$8,445
Pittsburgh	$10,160	$2,780
St. Louis	$21,462	$5,100
UNLV	$20,659
Montana	$9,529
New Mexico	$20,443
St. Thomas (Minnesota)	$2,184
Chicago Kent	$64,248
Gonzaga	$232
Indiana-Indianapolis	$6,221
Louisville	$5,480	$1,000
LSU	$4,020	$60
Mercer	$11,161	$500

My 2013 blog post that consistently gets the most hits: "Ranking the most liberal and conservative law firms"

It’s not even close. On a given week where I don’t blog, it’s usually the top hit on my site. Even when I do blog, it’s still usually the top. It’s at or near the top of my year-end report, year in and year out.

It’s a post from 2013, “Ranking the most liberal and conservative law firms.”

I used to be way more into rankings on this blog (they’re clickbait-y, and it was a weakness in my early blogging days, I confess). This was an effort (with some help!) to look at campaign finance data, who contributed to the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012, and figure out which firms, based on employee contributions to the candidates, were the most “conservative” or “liberal.” Plenty of open questions about how to use it, of course!

I didn’t update after 2016 because, well, maybe things were different in 2016. And maybe they’ll be different again in 2020. Maybe I should update. After all, seven years is a long time! But people keep coming back to it.

It’s also noteworthy that the bulk of the hits to this page come in as searches for some version of “conservative law firm,” and almost never as “liberal law firm.” It appears there’s some Google appetite among prospective law firm associates to identify the conservative ones.

This piece by Bonica, Chilton, and Sen in 2016 offers a more robust look at the political leanings of American lawyers—also a useful resource.

I don’t know if I’ll do something like this again, or if I did how I might change the reporting or methodology used. But it’s wild to me that after seven years it remains one of this site’s most popular posts. Then again, rankings do tend to hold as clickbait….

Statistics and the Voting Rights Act

​This is the sixth in a series about the oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder.

Nina Totenberg at NPR had a rather provocatively-titled piece after the oral argument in Shelby County​: "In Voting Rights Arguments, Chief Justice Misconstrued Census Data." The piece goes on to explain that Mr. Roberts "was wrong" when he made the claim that Massachusetts had the worst ratio of African-American to white voter turnout, and that Mississippi had the best. The Secretary of State of Massachusetts, William Galvin, agreed that it was "disturbing" "misinformation" and "wrong."

If I may, both Ms. Totenberg and Mr. Galvin are either intentionally misrepresenting Chief Justice Roberts's (and the lower court's dissenting opinion's) data, or they are unaware of an important distinction they've elided over.

For Chief Justice Roberts (I think), the concern is the coverage formula. And the coverage formula was reauthorized in 2006. And the last available voter data was 2004. It's unsurprising, then, that the lower court's dissenting opinion, at 11-14, look at the voting data from 2004. It specifically refers to this Census data, Table 4a.

Within that table, one can see that the turnout rate (and we'll set aside the "ratio" for now, which is the point Mr. Roberts raised, but not the one that Ms. Totenberg addressed; for that, I'll return briefly below) for African-Americans in Mississippi in 2004 was 66.8%, MoE 5.2. In Massachusetts, it was 43.5%, MoE 9.6. So assuming one wants to stretch the MoE, the low end of MS would have been 61.6%, and the high end of MA would have been 53.1%. Ms. Totenberg's calculation to "factor in the margins of error at their extremes" would result in the same confidence that MA African-American turnout was worse than MS.

As to the citizen voting-age population question, one can run a quick check in the MA data to see that it would rise from 43.5% to 46.5%, while MS would remain largely the same--and I'm fairly confident that even a change in the MoE would not put MA in a statistical range in which it would be better than MS.

Now, this is important data because it is 2004 data, the data that Congress would have used (and, taking into account time and space, absent a DeLorean, could have used) when it reauthorized the coverage formula.

Ms. Totenberg and Mr. Galvin use the 2010 Census data, which is not the data that Congress would have had at its disposal in reauthorization.

Mr. Galvin "assumes" it is the 2010 data Mr. Roberts discusses, and is not terribly careful if he says the "only thing we could find" was the 2010 Census, or that "academics" at other institutions "could find no record," when the record is in the lower court dissent itself.

Ms. Totenberg, to her credit, links to the lower court dissent--but then ignores the actual 2004 Census data cited, instead choosing to cite the 2010 Census data, which was not used in the lower court dissent (and which, I assume, was not cited by Mr. Roberts).

On top of this, Rob Anderson (Pepperdine) has identified still more errors in Ms. Totenberg's analysis at a basic statistical level.​​

Now, granted, I understand that one could argue that the question is too narrow, that citing solely the returns from a single election (i.e., 2004) is not enough to sink the coverage formula, that the effectiveness and turnout rates today are important in the Court's analysis, etc. And I think Politifact has a very fair take on the relevance​ of the data Mr. Roberts cited (although I would take issue of putting too much weight in Mr. Roberts's use of the "present tense" to decide which dates he used, as opposed to putting more weight in the record developed below).

Indeed, I'm not terribly sure how relevant the fact Mr. Roberts raises is. As I've mentioned, I think Mr. Roberts is as guilty as many on the Court of using oral argument to raise irrelevant points.

But, these stories glibly rejecting a point Mr. Roberts made at oral argument by using a point he didn't make do not advance the conversation in any meaningful way. If writers and politicians are going to parse oral argument so seriously, I think it's only fair to weigh seriously what was actually​ said rather than what they wish was said, and then address the relevance​.

A version of this post originated as an email on the Election Law listserv.