Texans for Public Justice filed an ethics complaint alleging that Rick PErry's campaign has "violated camapign discloser law by failing to itemize how it spent $816,000" on Perry's rental mansion.
Since 2001, the campaign reported 145 “Mansion Fund” expenditures totaling more than $816,000. TPJ’s complaint alleges that the campaign is required to itemize each underlying “Mansion-Fund” expenditure, reporting the name of the vendor, as well as the amount, date and purpose of each transaction. The Ethics Commission similarly prohibits campaigns from reporting lump-sum expenditures for credit card bills because this prevents the public from seeing when the campaign paid what to whom. The Ethics Commission has treated campaign disclosures containing unitemized credit-card expenditures as late or incomplete reports subject to a penalty of $500 per report.
[...]
Under the Public Information Act, TPJ obtained a copy of a related “Mansion Fund” expense ledger that the Governor’s Office initially provided to the Associated Press. The ledger contains entries for several hundred payments from October 2007 through December 2009 totaling $129,020. The ledger lists payments to vendors of food, alcohol, flowers, cable television, entertainment and other expenses. The campaign-related ledger is covered by the Public Information Act because it was maintained by a state employee. Campaigns are required to disclose such itemized expenditures in regular campaign reports that the Ethics Commission posts on the Internet.
A government watchdog group is filing a complaint against GOP Gov. Rick Perry's campaign for failing to disclose how it spends money at the governor's mansion and at his interim residence.
Since 2001, Perry's campaign has spent more than $800,000 on "mansion expenditures."
Texans for Public Justice said in a complaint Tuesday that Perry's campaign violated disclosure laws by failing to itemize the spending.
Records obtained this year by The Associated Press show Perry has used campaign money to throw parties, buy food and drink, and pay for cable TV and other services at his official residence.
The story has been out for months, and Perry can't shake it. If anything, its only going to continue to bring him down.
For old time's sake -- Rick Perry's rental mansion:
One of the powers of being Governor is the ability to appoint individuals to key agencies, commissions, and institutions with little say from the legislature. Rick Perry has appointed a lot of people since taking control of the Governor's mansion in 2000. According to Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), he has made it a lucrative practice for his campaign.
According to TPJ's new report, "No Donor Left Behind: Gov. Perry Reaps $6 Million from Regent Appointees", Rick Perry has collected almost $6.1 million from the 155 people whom he has appointed to be non-student regents since becoming governor in late 2000. Over the past decade, 97 regent appointees gave to Perry's campaign-or 63 percent of Perry's regent appointees.
The average Perry-appointed regent overseeing a public university contributed $39,251 to the campaign of the Regent-In-Chief. Regents at the elite University of Texas and A&M University contributed average amounts approaching $100,000. Just the regents whom Perry appointed to UT, A&M and Texas Tech dumped $4.1 million into Perry's campaign coffers. At the other end of the spectrum, Texas Woman's University regents contributed an average of $234 to Perry's campaign.
Complaints about politicized regent appointments surfaced last fall after two Texas Tech appointees told the Austin American-Statesman that Perry campaign intermediaries pressured them to resign their posts after they endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison's campaign to unseat the governor. Ex-Texas Tech Regents Mark Griffin and Windy Sitton previously had contributed to Perry's campaign, though their donations fell well below the average Texas Tech regent contribution of $88,092.2
Michele "Mica" Mosbacher was the top overall regent donor. This appointee to the University of Houston Board of Regents has contributed $440,400 to Governor Perry's campaigns. Paul Foster, vice chair of the University of Texas System Board of Regents, contributed $370,157. There are 21 regent appointees who contributed more than $100,000 apiece to Perry's campaign.
Looking at the TPJ report, it is terrifying to see Regent Appointees from the University of Texas, A&M University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, and Texas State University all had more than 80% of the regents donate to the Perry campaign between 2001 and February 2010.
The totals from these schools range from ~$250,000 to over $1.5 million.
Perry is using institutions of higher education and the power of appointment to pressure individuals to donate to his campaign.
To see the full report and a complete list of who donated visit the TPJ website.
Texans for Public Justice has filed an ethics complaint alleging Melissa Goodwin may have violated state election laws by accepting political contributions that exceeded campaign limits.
Texas' judicial campaign laws restricted Goodwin's campaign to taking no more than $5,000 from a single donor during the recent Republican Primary. Yet Goodwin's campaign reported that it accepted a total of $25,274 from Bob and Paca Goodwin of Marble Falls, Texas, exceeding the limit by $20,274.
The apparently illegal contributions may have shaped the outcome of the race for an open seat on the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals. Goodwin won 53 percent of the vote on March 2, defeating opponent Scott Field (who got 47 percent). The disputed $20,274 accounts for 42 percent of Goodwin's total primary expenditures ($48,587)--including the $34,400 in media buys that she initiated on February 12, 2010.
The Judicial Campaign Fairness Act limits 3rd Court of Appeals candidates from taking an aggregate of more than $5,000 in contributions from individual donors during the primary. The law defines loans from individuals as campaign contributions subject to these limits (bank loans are treated differently). The Goodwin campaign reported that it received a $25,000 loan from Bob and Paca Goodwin on January 21, 2010. Goodwin's campaign then reported receiving a $274.26 in-kind contribution from the same source on February 12, 2010. Bob and Paca Goodwin's total contributions to Melissa Goodwin's primary campaign appear to have exceeded the legal limit by $20,274.26.
Goodwin ran against Jim Coronado in 2008 in the 427th District Court in 2008 and lost handily. After voters in Travis County made a resounding statement that they do not want Goodwin to serve as their judge, she decided to run for a promotion. She is running against Kurt "Best Qualified" Kuhn (his campaign can be found here).
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."
Once a State Representative or Senator is done serving in the Texas legislature, it doesn't mean they are done working in the pink dome.
Texans for Public Justice has looked at 10 formerly elected officials including 8 Republicans and 2 Democrats. All 10 of these former State Representatives were serving in the House just this last session and now have gone through the revolving door to get huge payouts to lobby.
Texans for Public Justice looked at the 68 lobby contracts held by Mike Krusee, Fred Hill, Kyle Janek, Pat Haggerty, Corbin Van Arsdale, Dianne Delisi, Kevin Bailey, Robby Cook, Tony Goolsby and James Murphy currently have. Because of reporting laws, lobbyist are only required to disclose whether they fall within a range and not the specific amount the actual revenue from each lobby contract.
Lobbyist are only required to specify if they make less than $10,000, $10,001 to $24,999.99, $25,000 to $49,999.99, $50,000 to $99,999.99, $100,000 to $149,999.99, $150,000 to $199,999.99, $200,000 to $249,999.99, etc.
This makes it difficult to determine how much these 10 formerly elected officials are actually making.
Needless to say, these 10 men have 68 contracts and are currently getting paid anywhere from $2,025,000 to $3,890,000. Mike Krusee and Fred Hill appear to be the two highest paid former elected with Tony Goolsby and James Murphy rounding out the bottom.
In case any one is concerned how former lobbyist Todd Hunter is doing after taking a pay cut to work at the capitol again, don't worry too much. In 2007, Hunter had 4 lobby contracts that could have made him as much as $225,000. He should be okay for a little bit.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in a case that could have widespread implications for the way Texans elect judges.
In Caperton v. Massey, the court will determine whether the millions of dollars in special interest money flooding state court elections creates an unacceptable risk that justice is for sale.
Texans for Public Justice has more here, but the question is simple, "Can two sides in a lawsuit receive equal justice - when one side has spent $3 million to elect the judge deciding the case?"
Who has $200 million dollars, is required to file a personal financial statement and failed to do so? That's right, Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst!
Travis County Attorney David Escamilla said he is reviewing a formal complaint against Dewhurst by a campaign watchdog group. The complaint followed an Associated Press report about Dewhurst's personal financial statements, which don't reveal his riches, estimated to be worth as much as $200 million.
The Dallas Morning News reports Dewhurst is said to be the richest man in Texas politics, but most of his wealth is contained in a trust whose major assets are not disclosed. As lieutenant governor, he presides over the state Senate and wields tremendous influence over legislation. He is considering a run for higher office as early as 2010.
Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group, called for a probe of Dewhurst earlier this year, alleging that Dewhurst may have violated disclosure laws by allegedly filing incomplete and misleading reports at the Texas Ethics Commission - a Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $2,000 and up to 180 days in jail.
Dewhuest's personal financial disclosure does not mention more than a few things. It doesn't disclose:
Dewhurst is a major shareholder in a Houston energy and investment company.
Dewhurst's cattle ranches
No mention of Dewhurst's private bank investments.
Fails to disclose Dewhurst's luxury condo.
Dewhurst does not list any word of his hedge funds
There is no disclosure of any of the stocks he owns.
Not a peep about any of his bonds.
Dewhurst fails to disclose any of his publicly traded fuel distribution company he acknowledges are or have been part of a trust fund estimated to be worth up to $200 million.
Dewhurst does say the David Dewhurst Trust is valued at "$25,000 or more."
The law requires the "identification of each trust asset, if known to the beneficiary, from which income was received by the beneficiary in excess of $500."
Pro-corporate bias and corruption in the Texas judiciary has reached dangerous levels, and there's a new web site documenting some of the scandals and troubles.
Texans are still living the ethical, political and economic nightmares left to us by former U.S. Rep Tom DeLay. Now, there's a fast-growing DeLay-related scandal darkening the already tainted reputation of Texas judges. Texas courts are dominated by the same special interests who purchased the legislature and the governor's mansion - homebuilders like Bob Perry, anti-public school millionaire James Leininger, swift-boat finance captain Harold Simmons.
The sewers have backed up into Texas courtrooms. They need draining and cleaning. Sadly, it's not the special interests or their bought-and-paid-for judges who are drowning in the unethical effluent of one-sided rulings that make a mockery of impartial justice. It's the people of Texas who suffer.
Three members of the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court are up for election in 2008: Wallace Jeffferson, Phil Johnson and Justice Dale Wainwright. Jefferson is opposed by Democrat Jim Jordan of Dallas. Democrat Linda Yanez opposes Phil Johnson, and Democrat Sam Houston is running against Dale Wainwright.
The name "CourtsOnFire" is an obvious reference to Republican Supreme Court Justice David Medina, who was indicted then suspiciously un-indicted by a Houston DA who subsequently resigned in disgrace. The indictment involved arson and the burning of Medina's home. His wife remains indicted in connection with the fire. CourtsOnFire and the Texas Progress Council are helping educate voters about the Texas judiciary's biases against Texas families. The Supreme Court sides with corporate defendants about 90 percent of the time. Ethical difficulties plague sitting judges throughout the system, and it's time the halls of justice were cleaned out.
Pay attention to these races. The Democratic candidates for the Supreme Court are widely respected, tough and honest folks leading the charge against the unbalanced courts. CourtsOnFire and the Texas Progress Council are providing critical information and education about the state of our judiciary. You can also visit TPJ.org and Texas Watch.org.
Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) filed a pair of complaints alleging that Third Court of Appeals Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law repeatedly violated the Texas Election Code in the course of his current reelection campaign.
TPJ alleges Law illegally collected more than $66,000 in political contributions without appointing a campaign treasurer and taking $10,000 from GOP Swift-Boat activist Harold Simmons-twice what the state Judicial Campaign Fairness Act permits.
Judge Law recently participated in a divisive ruling in the criminal case against Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC). The ruling stated that "checks" are not subject to Texas' money laundering prohibitions.
Central Texas voters elected Law Chief Justice in November 2002. Last month he and two other Republican members of his court issued a divisive ruling in the criminal case against Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC). The ruling uses technical distinctions between "funds" and "checks" to suggest that TRMPAC did not illegally launder corporate political funds. To protect DeLay and two cronies, the justices wrote that TRMPAC's checks were not money-laundering "funds."
"As Judge Law labored over the TRMPAC ruling, he appears to have raised tens of thousands of campaign dollars in violation of Texas election laws," said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. "The chief justice even may have cashed these ill-gotten campaign 'checks' into 'funds.' So many violations represent incompetence or indifference on his part."
TPJ alleges that Chief Justice Law appears to have:
Accepted $66,850 in campaign contributions at a time when he did not have a duly appointed campaign treasurer.
Accepted $66,850 in campaign contributions without filing his intention to opt in or out of the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act's voluntary expenditure limits.
Violated the cap on judicial candidates taking more than $5,000 from an individual per election by accepting $10,000 from nuclear-dump owner Harold Simmons.
Accepted $1,000 from an out-of-state political committee without following the disclosure requirements prescribed for receiving large contributions from out-of-state PACs.
Used his campaign to reimburse himself for approximately $21,576 of campaign expenditures that were not properly designated as reimbursable expenses.
Failed to include required disclosure information about the occupation, employer, or job title of more than 50 contributors.
Yesterday, Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint with Travis County Attorney David Escamilla urging the prosecutor to determine whether Lt. Governor David Dewhurst violated state disclosure laws by failing to publicly disclose assets held in the David Dewhurst Trust.
"The Dewhurst Trust is blind to the public but not to the Lt. Governor," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "The Lt. Governor should fulfill his disclosure obligations under the law. One of the most powerful state officials should not be allowed to hide his assets from the public. When you're the Lt. Governor, the public has an absolute right to know how many cattle or other assets you own. It's time for Lt. Governor Dewhurst to drive his cattle out of the shadows and into the sunlight."
Lt. Gov. Dewhurst responded by saying simply:
"The people of Texas deserve to know whether elected officials are performing their duties with integrity and in the people's best interest," said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. "Since I was first elected to public office, for the past 10 years I have consistently followed the advice of my expert legal counsel in filling out and filing my political financial statement to fully comply with the letter and spirit of the law, and it is a fact I do not know the assets in my trust from which I have received in excess of $500."
It is important to know the difference between a blind and non-blind trust.
Blind Trust (noun)-- Trust where the assets are not revealed to their owner. Definition: {crh} A trust in which a fiduciary third party has total discretion to make investments on behalf of a beneficiary while the beneficiary is uninformed about the holdings of the trust. Source : Financial Web
Trust (non-blind) (noun)-- Arrangement whereby a trustee, holds the title to property, and manages it for the beneficiaries. Definition: {crh} A fiduciary relationship calling for a trustee to hold the title to assets for the benefit of the beneficiary. The person creating the trust, who may or may not also be the beneficiary, is called the grantor. Source: Financial Web
The difference is simply, the beneficiary does not control or manage a blind trust. A traditional, or non-blind trust is at least managed in part by the trustee. A blind trust prevents the trustee to even be involved and is often used as a shield.
Texans for Public Justice stated in their inquiry, under Texas law public officials with non-blind trusts have certain disclosure obligations. Namely, they must list in their personal financial statement every asset in the trust that earns more than $500 a year. TPJ believes that Dewhurst's trust, which is a non-blind trust earning more than $25,000 per year, likely contains assets that are earning more than the disclosure threshold of $500 per year.
It appears the real question is whether Dewhurst knowingly deceived Texans or not.
