So far we have talked about the normal and generally acceptable methods of working within the political system to achieve public policy goals. However, sometimes groups and specialized interests use illegal actions to get their way or to otherwise call attention to their issues. We describe some of the more common of these techniques including bribery, sit-ins and occupations, and violence and sabotage.

Bribery - One technique for exerting political influence is bribery, which is always done out of public sight. In recent decades Texas has experienced some high profile cases involving the bribery of state officials. One of the most notorious was the 1970s Sharpstown Bank scandal, which led to the conviction of then House Speaker Gus Mutscher and other legislators (as well as some private citizens) for conspiring to accept (or pay) bribes in exchange for passing deposit-insurance bills favored by Houston banker Frank Sharp.

In 1991 House Speaker Gib Lewis was indicted for ethics violations related to alleged illegal campaign contributions, for which Lewis agreed to a plea bargain that gave him a reduced fine. As a result, Lewis did not seek reelection to the House in 1992. Because of this scandal and news reports of high spending by lobbyists, the Texas Legislature created the eight-member Texas Ethics Commission to enforce new legal standards and reporting requirements for lobbyists and public officials.

The Texas Ethics Commission performs an important function. But too often unethical deals and arrangements are only implicit, making them difficult to monitor or prevent. Nods and winks aren't even required within the dense networks of long-time relationships that are common in most political systems, Texas included. The situation in Texas is clouded even more by a porous and weakly enforced system of campaign finance laws and a notoriously weak Ethics Commission.

Sit-ins and occupations - Sit-ins and occupations were widely used during the 1950s and 1960s in the struggle for civil rights in the South and in protest of the Vietnam War throughout the nation. Although such actions are illegal, the participants generally try to avoid damaging property or injuring others. Many such protest are non-violent and rooted in theories of civil disobedience and non-violent protest that have been influential in modern American political dissent.

In spite of the non-violent intent, participants in acts of protest and illegal resistance place themselves in the position of being arrested and charged with trespassing and other offenses. Interaction with authorities can be unpredictable. In the late 1980s students at the University of Texas occupied the office of the president to protest the university's investments in South Africa, which at the time had a system of white-minority rule called apartheid. When the police came to remove the students, office equipment was damaged and the students were charged with criminal destruction of public property. In addition to criminal charges, some of the student participants were suspended from the university for one year.

Violence and sabotage - Texas, like many other states and other countries, has a long history of political violence. The war for independence from Mexico, the Civil War, and the consolidation of a white-dominated political system after the Reconstruction period all involved the use of violence for political ends.

Although history has judged some of these events more favorably than others, it remains true that in all political systems some groups and interests will resort to violence and destruction of property as tools useful in the pursuit of their political goals.

In the modern period, some grass roots organizations in the United States have revived the use of violence and property destruction to shape the political and economic systems. Notable among such groups is the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF). Typically, these groups occupy the extreme ends of the political spectrum, rejecting the accommodations, compromises, and respect for the law that moderates on both sides value in the interest of political peace.