The ghost of Tom Craddick lives on. The once tyrannical House Speaker is still making news. Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission today alleging that the Texas Jobs & Opportunity PAC served as an illegal conduit in 2008 for contributions from then-Speaker Tom Craddick to three Democratic House candidates.
The complaint specifically cites $150,000 in contributions from Tom Craddick to Democrats Kevin Bailey, Kino Flores and Aaron Pena. Rep. Bailey was defeated by Armando Walle in the 2008 primary, Kino Flores has recently resigned, making Pena the only active Representative to receive a $50,000 check from the Texas Jobs & Opportunity PAC.
According to TPJ, the timeline is clear.
Jobs PAC reported that it received $250,000 from Tom Craddick's campaign committee on January 10, 2008. According to news reports, around that time Craddick campaign employee Christi Craddick also provided Texas Jobs with written instructions to distribute the funds to Democratic Reps. Kevin Bailey, Dawnna Dukes, Kino Flores and Aaron Pena. All four incumbents previously supported Republican Speaker Craddick and faced challengers in the 2008 Democratic primary.2 According to its own reports, Jobs PAC wrote three checks of $50,000 apiece to the campaigns of Reps. Bailey, Flores and Pena on January 11, 2008. By its own accounting, at the time Texas Jobs wrote these checks its sole source of funding was the $250,000 that it received the day before from the Craddick campaign. Rep. Dukes, the fourth lawmaker, told the Austin American-Statesman that she rejected an offer to receive $50,000 from Texas Jobs because her opponent already was making her Craddick ties a campaign issue.
"Tom Craddick wanted to move tens of thousands of dollars to his favorite Democrats without letting voters know," said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. "Hiding the true source of campaign funds is illegal. Craddick could have contributed the money directly and openly. Instead, he used Texas Jobs to launder his money and keep Texans in dark."
TPJ alleges the Texas Jobs & Opportunity PAC violated Chapter 253.001 of the Texas Election Code which directly prohibits individuals or political committees from secretly acting as conduits for other donors. Because Craddick employee Christi Craddick gave Texas Jobs & Opportunity PAC with a letter detailing instructions on who and how to distribute the original $250,000 donation, the recipients were obligated to disclose the original source of the donations-- then-speaker Tom Craddick.
According to TPJ, "The Craddick campaign used Texas Jobs to try to keep its large campaign contributions anonymous."
While I haven't yet had a chance to peruse the data within, I want to follow up on my post from last Friday and extend my congratulations and thanks to Rep. Dawnna Dukes. As had been reported by Corrie MacLaggan at the Austin American-Statesman, Dukes had chosen not to file corrected campaign finance reports with the Texas Ethics Commission due to potential fines that would be automatically incurred regardless of her intent to bring closure to a 2007 ethics complaint against her.
As I wrote in that post...
But this is a real catch-22 situation, where the law is not encouraging the right behavior.
...
The issue would be effectively dead if those correct reports were released to the media for review or posted to a campaign website in lieu of going back to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Rep. Dukes did just that, posting the 4 corrected TEC reports on her campaign website under a section titled "Catch-22" which explained the situation. They are now available to the public to download and view here.
While the extended time from the original complain to this resolution could have been truncated, far be it from me to not commend Rep. Dukes for doing the right thing here. It's the right decision and I for one appreciate her for doing it.
Back in early 2008, Burnt Orange Report reported on the filing of campaign finance violations filed against Austin's Rep. Dawnna Dukes for failing to itemize tens of thousands of dollars in credit card expenditures. Last December, Dukes paid $2,800 in fines for failing to report the required information.
While the fine is paid, the reports remained uncorrected- but submitted those corrected reports for prior filing periods would automatically trigger up to $50,000 in new fines ($10,000 per report). As such, Dukes is saying she's going to skip on correcting the reports, even though a waiving or reduction of those fines is possible by the TEC as reported by Corrie MacLaggen at the Austin American-Statesman.
She said that her attempt to "be transparent and rectify" the issue became an "administrative nightmare."
"Even if you want to try to do the disclosure, there is a penalty regardless," said Dukes, adding that she plans to post the corrected reports on her Web site. However, she declined to release the corrected reports to the American-Statesman this week, saying they're not in a sendable format.
Sorrells said that state law, not commission policy, requires fines of up to $10,000 for certain late reports. The law was tweaked in 2007, limiting the types of reports that trigger that maximum fine, Sorrells said.
State law requires officials and candidates to report who gets paid with a campaign credit card so the public can see how officials or candidates are spending political donations. But many state officials didn't follow that law until the commission reminded them about it in 2007.
I don't understand Duke's statement that the corrected reports are not in a sendable format because the TEC filing software generates downloadable PDFs which could indeed be sent to the Statesman.
But this is a real catch-22 situation, where the law is not encouraging the right behavior.
Submitting the 2004 report triggered a $10,000 late fee, Dukes said. The commission waived that fee in February, according to agency documents.
Dukes said it would be impossible for her to know whether she could get any future late fees waived, so she has decided not to submit the other corrected reports. Paying $40,000 or more to submit the documents "is not fiscally prudent," she said.
Sorrells said that although filers can seek waivers for the late fines, "the commission cannot consider a waiver unless a report is filed."
And if a corrected report isn't filed... well, nothing happens at all it appears. It's an unfortunate situation as I agree no one would want to take the gamble of large fines, when they no longer are "legally" required to correct them, other than to solve the political question about what wasn't reported correctly. The issue would be effectively dead if those correct reports were released to the media for review or posted to a campaign website in lieu of going back to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Ed. Note: To see a quick overview of the bills the Texas House considered today -- along with a policy overview of each bill -- read the Texas Legislative Study Group's floor report.
Here is a look at today's calendar in the Texas House -- the first of the session. The hyperlink over the bill number will take you directly to the Texas Legislature Online page for that bill, wherein you can look at the actual text of the bill, the bill analysis, etc.
We hope to do this, as much as possible, every day there is a calendar on the floor of the Texas House. The Texas Legislative Study Group puts out an analysis for each day's Calendar. I'll be linking to them atop the page every day because, well (See Update below.) They do outstanding work and it would be foolish not to highlight their efforts. Their reports are made by a large group of staffers that track the bills through the Committee process, speak to lobbyists about the bill, and work with the individual Member to make sure they understand the bill. Their work is just incredible.
And yes, I used to be Chief of Staff for Rep. Garnet Coleman, who chairs the Legislative Study Group. There's a reason I write so much about policy on BOR -- he taught me about how to talk about policy, and he helped develop my belief that if you focus on the policy, the politics will take care of itself. Anyone should be so lucky to have the opportunity to work for him; I did, and I want to share some of the excellent work he and the LSG produce because I think it will better inform all Texans about the actual laws that our Representatives are working on at the Capitol.
Finally -- I'd link to the conservatives' version of their floor report, but it just says "yes/no" and gives no actual policy analysis. You know -- lock step and all.
Here's today's calendar -- and I promise, future posts won't have the long and winding introduction:
HB 873 by Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D) - Film incentives bill. Want to have more movies made in the state of Texas? This bill will make that easier to happen by allowing grants to be awarded to digital media producers, and it will increase incentives for those who spend more money in the state.
This bill is a lot bigger deal than some of Rep. Dukes critics give her credit for; it's an easy way to bring money to communities while simultaneously encouraging the arts as an important subject. Art/movie/film communities are non-existant in public schools, and this bill at least brings the real deal to town -- so those who want can learn from experience and have the opportunity to see and work in a field of industry they can't gain knowledge about in school.
HB 394 by Rep. Patrick Rose (D) - Allows small businesses to qualify for the Texas Economic Development Fund. First two bills -- Democrats working to improve the the economic issues of the day. I am proud to be a Democrat.
HB 1822 by Rep. Burt Solomons (R) - Gives rulemaking authority to the PUC to unify language on electric bills, thereby creating transparency in the process. freshman Rep. Diana Maldonado (D - Round Rock) is a co-author of the bill.
HB 313 was enacted in 2007 to rectify the abuse of NAFTA in which individuals buy a truck or trailer in another state and use it outside border commercial zones. The unintended consequences of this legislation required Mexican truck operators to obtain Texas registration plates every time they crossed into border commercial zones, even if they were not owners of the vehicle.
HB 782 allows truck drivers passage to and from border commercial zones without having to obtain new registration plates for Texas. The vehicle must have registered plates indicating a reciprocity agreement and must also be registered in the country that the owner of the ehicle is a citizen in or resides in. Canadian provinces that exempt currently registered vehicles owned by nonresidents are also effective in a border commercial zone.
HB 38 by Rep. Franke Corte (R) - Allows for veterans and their families to pay in-state tuition rates regardless of their residency status.
HB 693 by Rep. Vicki Truitt (R) - "Exempts falconers from having to hold a pest control license." For the record, that was two economic development bills, a utility rate bill, a transportation bill, a veterans & higher education bill...then that other big issue, Falcon licensing. Republican State Rep. Vicki Truitt, everyone -- FTL.
HB 968 by Rep. Mark Homer (D) - "Removes the restrictions on hunting with crossbows during bow hunting season." And right behind Rep. Truitt we have Democrat Rep. Mark Homer! Who says good things don't come in pairs!
(I joke around, but I worked for a rural State Rep. for nearly two years, from 2005 through summer of 2006, and these are absolutely the bills that constiuents will write in and demand action on the loudest. So while I joke about their relative importance to state business, both Rep. Truitt and Rep. Homer are still serving their constiuents. If you can survive the crossfire of the bow-hunter shooting down the falcons, you can see a certain amount of democratic beauty in that.)
HB 1695 by Rep. Sylvester Turner (D) - Allows the PUC to require for utilities that experience severe outages due to weather to consider a disaster preparation/management kind of plan. Though it doesn't outright require them, it lays the groundwork for the creation of those plans -- and when it comes to the PUC and utilities, sometimes you need the small moves to set up the big ones.
HB 1637 would improve benefits under the shared work unemployment compensation program for underserved workers and industries by adding greater work schedule flexibility in determining benefits. Currently, benefits are granted based on a consistent 40-hour workweek, which many businesses and employees do not follow, especially in the manufacturing industry.
In manufacturing, for example, facilities operate on a 24-hour, 7 day-a-week basis, so it makes sense to employ workers on a schedule alternating 3 and 4 day weeks. However, under current statute, workers on an alternating biweekly schedule that averages 40 hours per week would be eligible for less benefits than workers who work consistent 40-hour work weeks.
This bill gives affected businesses greater flexibility in retaining their workers, thus preventing layoffs. In this economic climate, this bill is needed to make the shared work unemployment compensation program more effective and equitable when it’s needed most. This bill is favored by a broad array of business and labor groups.
I'm very proud to see two of our freshman members, Rep. Diana Maldonado and Rep. Chris Turner, with legislation on the first day's calendar. Rep. Maldonado and Rep. Chris Turner were the first two candidates that TexBlog PAC endorsed. For everyone who donated to TexBlog PAC and helped us support these candidates -- this is your investment paying off for you.
Update: I forgot that the LSG Floor Reports are subscription-only, and it is the other reports -- their higher ed reports, state school reports, etc. -- that are open to everyone. I should have remembered this since I worked with them so much, but I think I just got excited at reading the first Calendar of the session and their first Floor Report of the Session. And yes, I'm a policy dork that gets excited about stuff like that -- why do you think I'm spending my Spring Break posting on BOR? Deal with it.
Since they sell subscriptions -- a la Quorum Report & Texas Weekly -- I won't be able to link directly to it every day. Though, like I do with QR, I will crib from my subscription if/when it is necessary and appropriate, and I will still use their excellent research to form and shape these calendar posts.
Bottom line: you'll still be able to come to BOR for coverage of what is happening at the Capitol. So keep reading!
It appears Rep. Dawnna Dukes's passionate letter to the Austin City Council rebuking their 4-3 decision to retain regulation and taxation over the proposed Villa Muse entertainment and film development in the east side has another side to it- one that benefits Dawnna Dukes.
The Austin American Statesman reported it as follows.
Texas Representative Dawnna Dukes is an outspoken supporter of the proposed Villa Muse entertainment studio and production studio. It turns out that support goes both ways.
Villa Muse founder and CEO Jay Podolnick has given $4,000 to Dukes in the last two years, including travel expenses for a film industry conference in Los Angeles.
The proposed site of the 1,100-acre Villa Muse project is in Dukes' eastern Travis County district.
Dukes was also the author of a 2007 House bill that created an incentives program designed to bring more movie industry projects and jobs to Texas.
Curious. Would Rep. Dukes benefit from any of the contracts made for such a development?
Here in Texas, there's been a major split around the controversial Speaker of the House, Rep. Tom Craddick. These four Democrats (highlighted in red), who supported Speaker Craddick, drew challengers, and whether or not they win or lose -- coupled with other key TX House races we're watching in other threads -- could signal the potential defeat of Speaker Craddick.
To see a full list of how the TX House candidates are doing tonight, follow this link:
Dukes just filed a telegram report showing $67,880 in contributions from one donor: trial lawyer Mikal Watts.
Ironically (or hypocritically) she fired off a press release last week that criticized Thompson for taking money from a trial lawyer, and Quorum Report posted the Dukes press release:
DUKES: THOMPSON SELLS OUT IN DISTRICT 46
This morning voters in District 46 got a rude awakening, learning that Brian Thompson... has received over 50 percent of his campaign funds in this period from one, mega-rich Houston trial lawyer...
"This is a major red flag for voters," Dukes stated. "Thompson has sold his independence and the best interests of this district to the highest bidder. He's trying to turn the people's House into an auction barn."
The release also posed this question..."The biggest question for voters now is, 'What votes did Brian Thompson have to sell to get this money?
Glass house? Hypocrite?
So now that Dukes just took 67k from a certain trial lawyer, how would Dukes answer her own question? This is just slightly more than Dukes received from Republican donors before the 8 day reporting deadline.
In addition, the Thompson campaign has released a new, hard hitting ad asking the same questions we have been posing since 2007.
Wilhelmina Delco and the Texas Ethics Commission dismissed the Dukes Campaign frivolous complaint filed against Brian Thompson.
"I would like to thank Ms. Wilhelmina Delco and the other members of the Texas Ethics Commission for acting quickly to dismiss this frivolous and politically motivated complaint in a prompt and professional manner," said Democrat Brian Thompson. "The complainant all but acknowledged to a member of the media last week that he had ulterior motives for filing the bogus complaint. It is very reassuring that Ms. Delco and her fellow Ethics Commission members acted so quickly to ensure that a bogus ethics complaint did not impact this election."
The Dukes campaign asserted "Thompson did not clearly state his ads were political ads and who paid for them, even though his commercials ended with a message saying 'political advertisement paid for by the Brian Thompson campaign'"
In contrast, the Dukes campaign still has questions looming on an ethics complaint that was filed against Rep. Dukes for not reporting 8 years and $89,000 worth of credit card expenses is still pending before the Texas Ethics Commission. Despite repeated promises by Ms. Dukes to correct her 8 years worth of improper ethics reports, she still has yet to file a single corrected ethics report.
According to a Thompson press release this bogus complaint filed by a Dukes supporter against Thompson is just one more example of the misleading tactics being used by a desperate campaign. Dukes's record of deception includes:
continuing to run ads that lie about Thompson's voting record
denying voters the opportunity to see how she spent $89,000 on 18 different credit cards, for which a legitimate ethics complaint is still pending
offering three different excuses for why she failed to pay her taxes.
It's a shame that a seven-term incumbent has resorted to lying about everything from my voting record to the reason why she didn't pay her taxes," said Thompson. "She needs to be held accountable for not telling the truth."
Brian Thompson proclaims he won't be "swift-boated" and on face that seems odd in a Democratic primary. However, looking at the 8 day out report, it seems Republicans are just as interested in the outcome in House District 46 as the Democrats who want to get rid of Tom Craddick.
From Brian Thompson's press release yesterday Dawnna Dukes has received a late and massive infusion of campaign funds from Republican donors across the state.
$24,000 from Bob Perry - largest Republican donor in Texas - contributed more than $4,000,000 to the 'Swift Boat' attack ads
$10,000 from Michael Stevens - one of the largest Republican donors in Texas - TPPF Board Member - gave to the controversial Craddick-funded Tx Jobs PAC - Republican appointee to Sunset Advisory Commission
$2,500 from Harold Simmons - Republican donor who gave more than $3,000,000 to 'Swift Boat' attack ads - largest importer of nuclear waste in Texas
$2,000 from Texas Lobby Group - run by Craddick confidant, Bill Messer, and former Chief of Staff to Republican Governor Rick Perry, Mike Toomey
$2,000 from Donald Wood - Republican donor from Odessa - gave to Craddick's Stars Over Texas PAC - appointed by Dewhurst to a state board at Craddick's recommendation
$2,000 from Jack Wood - Republican donor from Odessa - gave to Craddick's Stars Over Texas PAC
$2,000 from Clay Wood - Republican donor from Odessa - gave to Craddick's Stars Over Texas PAC
Democratic primary voters in House District 46 need to know that Rep. Dukes is being funded by the same Republican moneymen who funded the 'Swift Boat' attack ads, and continue to give millions of dollars to the Republican Party of Texas, Tom Craddick, and Rick Perry," said Brian Thompson, Democratic candidate for HD 46. "I don't care how much Republican money Rep. Dukes takes, I will not be swift-boated."
As the Austin Chronicle reports, Dukes Campaign Consultant Colin Strother had another misplaced attack on the Thompson campaign.
This morning, Dukes' campaign manager Colin Strother sent out an angrily-worded press release that sounded like it was meant to be a killer blow. In it, he accused Thompson of "selling out" because of $48,588.25 in campaign contributions from attorney Steve Mostyn. This, Strother writes, means that 51% of the money Thompson raised and reported in his latest campaign finance filing came from a "mega-rich Houston trial lawyer." While the number is right, Strother omits to mention that this was actually payment-in-kind, since Mostyn has been paying for Thompson's anti-Dukes TV ads, and getting them a lot of air-time.
This seems an odd attack given the above mentioned donations from Republicans and John Kerry swift-boat mastermind Bob Perry. The Chronicle agrees:
Strother may also regret opening up the campaign finance can of worms, since his own candidate's latest filing is knee-deep in contributions from business PACs and even a few lawyers (including $250 from the Houston-based Baker Botts Amicus Fund,) plus the last-minute transfusion of $24,000 from GOP sugar-daddy Bob Perry.
The Dukes campaign has been focused on attacking the intellect of voters, the strong support Thompson has throughout Texas, and has refused to denounce Tom Craddick or his failed leadership.
Accepting these contributions indicate an implicit an endorsement for Tom Craddick. As Richard Whittaker points out, "This also comes the day after the Dukes campaign proudly proclaimed that they had been endorsed by TEXPAC, the Texas Medical Association's PAC. The same group has also endorsed her fellow Democrat reps Kevin Bailey, Byron Cook and Aaron Pena, all of whom have been called Craddick Ds. Not so helpful when Dukes is trying to distance herself from the speaker controversy."
Texans want change. Austin wants change. Burnt Orange Report wants change. Brian Thompson represents a new district for both the people of House District 46 and all of Texas. It's not to late to donate or volunteer. We hope you will do so today.
In just 15 days, our Too Close to Craddick Political Committee has raised over $30,000 ($30,510 to be exact) to help good Democrats challenge three Craddick Democrats--Democratic state representatives who turned their backs on their Democratic leadership to support Republican autocrat Tom Craddick for Speaker instead.
At this point in the campaign, we're sending funds out to the challengers as fast as we're taking them in. And they're spending it for blockwalkers, phones and television. Following are the challengers and their needs:
Brian Thompson (challenging Craddick D Dawnna Dukes in Austin)
Boost last week of television (Field program covered)
Armando Walle (challenging Craddick D Kevin Bailey in a Houston district that is 2/3 Hispanic)
Bilingual canvassers
Bilingual phoners
Spanish/English doorhanger
Canvassers for African-American areas (10% of district) (TV not affordable in Houston market)
Sandra Rodriguez (challenging Craddick D Kino Flores in McAllen and Pharr)
Spanish-speaking canvassers
Boost last week of television
For the next week, every dollar that we deposit in the morning will be sent out to our three Democratic challengers that afternoon. Let's keep the heat on and the momentum going. Mail your check payable to "Too Close to Craddick" to
Too Close to Craddick
PO Box 5674
Austin, TX 78763-5674
