So far, people listing their occupation as "law professor" have donated $18,365 to Republicans, and $149,542 to Democrats. Those who list their occupation as "professor of law" have donated $500 to Republicans, and $34,565 to Democrats.
A caution on extrapolating from those data points: on the one hand, the Democratic candidates in general [that is, from the public at large] have raised much more money than have the Republicans; on the other hand, given the much smaller number of Republican law professors, donating to a campaign is more likely to help get a Republican professor a future political appointment, perhaps giving an extra incentive to some Republicans to donate.
Ninety-seven self-described law professors have donated to Barack Obama, only thirty-five to Hillary Clinton. Fred Thompson is the Republican favorite, with seven donors, compared to Giuliani's five and McCain's four. Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich have none.
Note that this is not even close to the complete universe of law professor donations. Many, perhaps most, law professors list their occupation as professor, not law professor. At Harvard, for example, Dershowitz, Elhauge, and Singer call themselves "law professor," but Mack, Stone, Tushnet, Wilkins refer to themselves simply as "professors," Tribe lists his occupation as "attorney," and Ogletree doesn't list an occupation. Even more obscure are Michelman and Parker, who don't use the word "law" in describing either their profession ("professor") or their employer ("Harvard University"). Nevertheless, the list of "law professor" and "professor of law" donations is likely representative of the greater universe of law professor donations.
A few other items I noticed: Drew Days, Bill Clinton's Solicitor General, contributed to Tom Vilsack's [???] campaign, but not to Hillary's. Professors sometimes considered "conservative," at least by legal academy standards, such as former Yale dean Tony Kronman, Harvard's Einer Elhauge, and Cardozo's Marci Hamilton, are Barack Obama contributors. Stanford Dean Larry Kramer has donated to both Clinton and Obama.
Plus, a non-law professor tidbit: Colin Powell is backing McCain. And an inside-baseball libertarian tidbit: Lew Rockwell, former Ron Paul chief of staff and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, who is perhaps the most vocal and vehement Ron Paul supporter in the blogosphere and perhaps the world, apparently hasn't given the good doctor at least $200 (the FEC reporting threshold), if anything.
I don't know if this is the case, but it's possible that he didn't contribute because of libertarian opposition to the Federal Campaign Finance reporting system on free speech grounds.
"Law professors" contribute about 8 times as much to Democrats as they do to Republicans.
"Professors of law" contribute about 70 times as much to Democrats as they do to Republicans.
Any guesses on the reason for the disparity? ("Small sample size" is probably the most likely reason, but that isn't any fun, is it?)
(To be clear, I'm certainly not contending that there aren't more Democrats than Republicans among law school professors, and I'm sure there would be some disparity in any event.)
On the other hand, there are faculty members out there who served in the Bill Clinton administration, or went to school with the Clintons. Personal relationships are unlikely to be the sole source of the nearly 3-1 disparity between Obama and Clinton (much less the 19-1 disparity between Obama and Giuliani).
Nick
The disparity of political preferences amongst students at top law schools who want to go into academia probably plays a role.
Seriously, the really shocking part is that the Republicans received $500 from a law professor. I knew one law professor at my entire law school who was Republican. Stunningly, he can't seem to get a tenure-track position.
Law professors have emotional attachments to silly notions like the rule of law, the separation of powers and the writ of habeas corpus.
Though not, it seems, to silly notions like the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property...
Relatedly, people who do not approve of the Bush administration (I don't want to use the fallacious term "left" to describe them as it is about 65-70 percent of the country) are generally much, much, much more motivated than those who support it. AN example can be seen in the Iowa cauceses -- close to 3x as many people showed up for the Dem caucuses than the Repub ones, in a state that Bush carried.
Seriously, how many people out there -- besides fringe nutters in the blogosphere -- are really saying, with a lot of real passion, "we really, really, need to continue the policies of this administration" and then compare to the number who are saying the opposite with passion (whether you agree with the passion or not). That, plus the unique stake of legal "issues" being raised by Bush, should explain the disparity in fundraising here.
Considering that Giuliani is regarded by most Dems as the candidate they least want to see in the White House (given his views on
dictatorialexecutivefiatpower) from the Republican field (with possible exception of Huck), I am surprised by this. But then again, after I learned from Jonah Goldberg that liberals are fascists, it makes sense.Guns. Abortion. Repeat.
1. Identify the law professors who receive a presidential appointment during a four year term.
2. How many total law professors are there?
3. Which ones gave to the President?
4. Which ones gave to someone else and not the President?
5. Does it vary by amount - is a $1,000 contribution five times as effective as a $1,000 contribution.
6. What is the chance that a law professor doing this research ever gets appointed to anything?
Whoa... somehow I missed both of those: his connection to Ron Paul, but even more surprising, his presidency at the Mises Institute. I guess that explains some of their wack-job articles..but they have some really good stuff there too.
No. It is a clever jibe, but in all seriousness, it doesn't sound dumb at all. Your right to property doesn't mean your right specifically to one piece of property which of course you may enter into contract to trade or give up or sell. A right to property in fact protects that choice as well as your choice to purchase new property.
Maybe it was this expansive meaning that led Jefferson to choose "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property" in the declaration.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
"A damning New Republic expose on Ron Paul shows the “libertarian” Republican candidate to be a racist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. Will his diehard supporters continue to defend a man who called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile? Daniel Koffler, a former Paul sympathizer, has a compendium of the Texas congressman’s creepiest hits, pulled straight from his decades-old newsletter."
Call me a chicken, but I have a family and a mortgage (not sub-prime ;-) )