BOR: - Texans for Lawsuit Reform

Why is Texans for Lawsuit Reform Negotiating Public Education Legislation?

Katherine Haenschen — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:31 GMT

With only days to go in the 83rd regular session, the Legislature still needs to come to an agreement on the budget and pass an education bill. Negotiations on HB 5, the bill that sets curriculum and requirements for high school graduation, among other things, continued late last night.

Today, the Texas Tribune reported that the lawmakers working on the bill were joined by some very special, very sleazy guests: Texans for Lawsuit Reform!

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst; House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio; Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston; and Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, were among the elected officials present for the negotiations. The meeting also included staff from Gov. Rick Perry's office, and Texans for Education Reform lobbyists Mike Toomey, Dick Trabulsi and Florence Shapiro, a former senator who preceded Patrick in leading the upper chamber's education committee.

Texans for Education Reform is a group of folks from Texans for Lawsuit Reform who have decided to focus their efforts this session on promoting charter schools and school "choice."

TLR, as y'all well know, is also the group dedicated to the defeat of Democrats, both through their funding of predominantly Republican candidates. They also take a more round-about way of doing this through their lobbying and efforts to weaken the rights of citizens to seek justice in our civil courts, which is intended to hurt the financial success of trial lawyers, traditionally donors to Democratic candidates.

And what lobbyists did TLR -- excuse me, TER -- send to the Capitol? None other than Mike Toomey, Perry's former Chief of Staff and BFF and noted corporate lobbyist,; former State Senator Florence Shapiro, who left public service to chase big dollars as a lobbyist; and Dick Trabulsi, a founder of TLR and chairman of the group's PAC.

Right-wing pro-corporate lobbyists should not be writing our public education legislation. We need education policies that focus on educating all of our Texas children to succeed in a competitive 21st century economy.

I have my doubts about whether an organization dedicated to representing corporations' interests in dodging legitimate lawsuits should really be shaping public education policy. TLR erects barriers to justice for regular Texans who deserve their day in court. They aren't qualified to represent the best interests of the over 4.9 million students in our Texas public schools.

As long as Republicans are in charge of our state, we can expect this business to continue. While Democrats are fighting to restore $3.9 billion to public education, Republicans are letting corporate lobbyists shape our education policy. It stinks, and it's another reminder that it's high time we took back this state and let real leaders make the decisions.

TLR Trying to Buy Democratic Senate Seat With Carol Alvarado

Katherine Haenschen — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:15:18 GMT

The ethics commission financial reports for the SD-6 runoff were released earlier this week, making clear where Carol Alvarado's financial support has come from in the last month of this expensive race to replace Sen. Mario Gallegos.

Carol Alvarado raised almost half of her run-off money from Texans from Lawsuit Reform, Stand for Children PAC, a teacher's union-busting organization, payday lenders, and several Republican PACs and mega-donors.

Her campaign is being heavily funded by organizations and individuals that work every day to block our core Democratic values.

Sylvia Garcia, on the other hand, is primarily funded by trial lawyers and labor organizations, the tradional donors to our Democratic candidates and causes.

Before we get into the details of who's giving to who, here's a quick run-down of the notable donors and links to each candidate's runoff report.

February 22 Runoff Reports for SD-6 Special Election Covering January 17-February 20
Carol Alvarado Runoff Report Raise: $581,969 Spend: $463,496 COH: $99,432 Report available here. Alvarado's Major Donors: $184,000 from TLR PAC $54,317 from Stand for Children PAC (in-kind) $20,000 from Barbara and John Nau $14,000 from payday lenders $10,000 from HillCo PAC $10,000 from Ryan Texas PAC	Sylvia Garcia Runoff Report Raise: $662,686 Spend: $641,435 COH: $119,227 Report available here. Garcia's Major Donors: $356,750 from the Mostyn Firm $117,000 from Texas Organizing Project (in-kind) $8500 from AFSCME's federal PAC $5000 from the Teamsters $5000 from the Plumber's union $2500 each from ILA Local 24 & 28 $2000 from SEIU's federal PAC

Below the jump, find out more about Alvarado's donors and their long history of working against Democratic ideals and -- and usually candidates, too.
Who Are Garcia's Donors?

Reading Sylvia Garcia's report, it's clear that the bulk of her support comes from the trial lawyers and labor groups, the traditional source of funding for Democratic candidates here in Texas. She also has some solid support from engineering firms. Texas Organizing Project also in-kinded an extensive field organizing campaign to boost their endorsed candidate. There isn't much that's too surprising here, and nothing that gives me serious qualms about who wants her to get elected.

Who Are Alvarado's Donors?

Not familiar with all of the players on her list? HillCo PAC has a primarily Republican donor history, is primarily funded by Republican mega-donor Bob Perry, to the tune of $2 million. Ryan Texas PAC supports primarily Republican candidates. Perry appointee John Nau is a major donor to Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and David Dewhurst, as well as to the Beer Alliance of Texas PAC in efforts to maintain his corporate interests as one of the Big Beer distributors.

Alvarado also seems to have won the support of the vast majority of corporate donors here in Texas. She's receiving substantial money from the oil industry, namely BP Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Company, Valero. She received $7,500 from Cash America International, $1500 from EZCORP, and another $5000 from Texas Consumer Lenders PAC. She's even taking money from "Big Beer" -- i.e. the wholesale distributors that have worked hard to block deregulation of Texas beer laws to enable craft and microbreweries to flourish and expand their market.

Earlier today, Texans for Public Justice reported that Alvarado's #2 cumulative contributor is Stand for Children PAC, which gave over $54,000 to Alvarado. The organization's founder boasted about spending millions to destroy teachers' collective bargaining rights in the Illinois legislature.

Then, of course, there's TLR.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform, or TLR, is dedicated to "tort reform," which has delivered none of its promised cost savings, and so far only managed to deny individuals the opportunity to seek redress in our civil court system.

TLR wakes up in the morning dedicated to serving the interests of corporations over the individuals who might have cause to pursue legal action against them. They're also dedicated to shutting down the trial lawyers themselves -- traditionally the most significant donors to Democratic candidates and causes in Texas -- preventing from making any money off jury verdicts. The direct result of their efforts is that Democrats have a harder time getting elected.

Whether barriers to justice or destruction of the Democratic party rankles you more, we can agree that TLR doesn't have Texans or Democrats' best interests at heart.

Look at TLR's 2012 General Election endorsements. This is the very group that specifically endorsed the likes of Donna Campbell for State Senate and Debbie Riddle for State Representative. They endorsed Mark Shelton over Wendy Davis. They endorsed Robert Thomas over Donna Howard. Dee Margo over Joe Moody. They didn't endorse in every race, but when they did they overwhelming endorsed Republicans over Democrats in crucial races.

Earlier this week we reported that State Senator Larry Taylor, a Republican Senator, was blockwalking for Carol Alvarado. It appears that we have the answer: Taylor, a TLR stooge, apparently wants Alvarado in the Senate as bad as their shared financial backers do.

For TLR and the special interests listed here, it's all about their bottom line, and they think their interests will be better served with Carol Alvarado in the State Senate.

This is a staunchly Democratic district. Strong districts like this are where we as partisan Democrats can elect those who will be most true to our principles and stand up for what we believe in. The finance reports make clear that Alvarado has taken substantial cash from individuals and organizations that usually devote their efforts to defeating Democrats or fighting our core progressive values. That gives me serious pause about her ability to advance our Democratic goals.

Not all of Alvarado's donors and supporters oppose our Democratic causes. I like and respect many of the Democrats lined up behind Alvarado. But I have serious qualms about the willingness of anti-Democratic causes to line up behind her and marshal such substantial resources -- resources that are usually directed at defeating Democrats.

Some people seem to think that compromise is the best we can do as Democrats. I disagree.

On the backs of which Texans do we make these compromises? Our core values and constituencies are not to be sold to the highest bidder. Especially now, with renewed interest and support for turning Texas blue, we have an obligation to build the strongest, most progressive caucus we can, and grow it every step of the way, so that when we are in the majority, we have leaders ready to fight for our core values and never back down.

This is a strong Democratic district, and it's our duty to fight like hell to elect the best Democrat that we can, one who will stand up for her constituents and against the special interests who care only about profit and not our shared public good. It's clear that the worst special interests have chosen their side.

Let's hope Democratic voters know who's more likely to be on theirs.

Did Dee Margo Pay Off Naomi Gonzalez and Marisa Marquez to Support Him Over Joe Moody?

Katherine Haenschen — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:30:00 GMT

Something's rotten in the legislative districts of El Paso.

Back in the fall, in the battle for HD-78, Democratic state representatives Naomi Gonzalez (HD-76) and Marisa Marquez (HD-77) endorsed Republican incumbent Dee Margo over Democratic challenger and previous officeholder Joe Moody.

That wasn't smart politics and it wasn't responsive to the needs of their constituents -- any Democrat is going to be more responsive to the needs of El Paso residents than a Republican, and Joe Moody is an exemplary public servant dedicated to making life better for all Texans.

As part of the endorsement, Gonzalez and Marquez appeared in at least three direct mailers supporting Margo. One is seen at right (click to open in new window). Turns out their opinion evidently didn't sway a lot of voters, as Moody was returned to office with 53.82% of the vote, ousting Margo.

Now, thanks to their January 15th semiannual reports, it is clear that Gonzalez and Marquez each took a $2500 donation from Margo's personal account, just days before the mailer went to print.

They also received another $2500 each from Margo's personal account after he lost. That's a total of $10,000 from Margo's personal bank account to the two Democrats.

Did Dee Margo give Naomi Gonzalez and Marisa Marquez $5,000 each to endorse him? Or are they actually just bought and paid for by Republican mega-donors?

See the details below the jump and decide for yourself.
Now, I'm not directly claiming that Dee Margo paid off Naomi Gonzalez and Marisa Marquez to endorse him and appear on three of his mailers. (The history of the two "Democrats" is shady enough that they may have gone along with an effort to hurt their own party and constituents.) I just want to put the evidence out there and let people decide for themselves.

First, let's consider the timeline for the mailers.

9.24.12 -- The first piece of mail in which Gonzalez and Marquez endorse Margo hits mailboxes.
9.20.12 -- Mail piece with Gonzalez and Marquez is printed and mailed*
9.20.12 -- Margo donates $2500 to Naomi Gonzalez from personal account
9.19.12 -- Margo donates $2500 to Marisa Marquez from personal account

* My estimate is based on backing out two days from the first mailer's "hit" date for our fine friends at the postal service and two days to print and ship.

Now, let's consider the TEC reporting timeline.

TEC Reports

Margo had a contested race, so he had to file semiannual TEC reports on July 15 and January 15, as well as a 30-Day report on October 9 and a 8-Day report on October 29. The "Amigos for Dee Margo" also filed a series of special telegram reports.

Neither Gonzalez nor Marquez had any opponent in 2012, so they only had to file semi-annual reports. Their most recent fundraising report came out on January 15, which detailed contributions and expenditures from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.

Both Gonzalez and Marquez received $5,000 from Margo's personal bank account, not his campaign (or "Amigos of Dee Margo"), since contributions to either Democrat do not appear on their reports, and the contributions are listed as coming from Dee himself, not a campaign account.

While Dee Margo had to report all transfers of money in and out of his campaign account, he was under no such rules pertaining to his personal bank account. Since neither Gonzalez nor Marquez had November 2012 opponents, they would not be required to report any donations between July 1 and December 31 until January 15, 2013 -- over two months after the election was over. Dee Margo's donations were a secret until this month's TEC filing.

And why did Margo give them money in the first place?! Neither of them had a general election opponent. They were unopposed on the ballot, guaranteed to win. Why would a Republican bother giving two Democrats such hefty donations?

Why would Gonzalez and Marquez do such a thing?

I can understand folks wanting to make an argument that with a Republican majority, El Paso might be better off with one Republican speaking up for the county and city's needs in this legislative session. But given the spectacularly lackluster legislative efforts of Dee Margo, that argument doesn't hold water. He was barely capable of the legislative equivalent of renaming post offices, and campaigned on supporting the sonogram law and allegedly increasing funding to education after the legislature cut $5 billion from Texas public schools.

Meanwhile, in the 2009 session, Joe Moody passed actual legislation to prevent gang violence, provide property tax relief to disabled veterans, and fund domestic violence centers across Texas. He was honored as "Freshman of the Year" by two non-partisan groups, including the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. This line of errant reasoning simply doesn't make sense.

Follow the money from Republican donors to Gonzalez and Marquez.

Gonzalez is basically in the house because Texans for Lawsuit Reform wanted to unseat former Representative Norma Chavez, and funded Gonzalez's campaign. To date, Gonzalez has taken $336,065 in her career from TLR. TLR is no friend to Democrats. Marquez, meanwhile, has taken almost $80,000 in her career from TLR. The group is her most significant donor.

The rest of Gonzalez's and Marquez's money comes heavily from Republican mega-donors who were also significant supporters of Dee Margo and Amigos of Dee Margo, not to mention our current statewide Republican officeholders.

"Dee" Margo (all-time)
TLR PAC: $209K (1st)
Woody Hunt: $200K (2nd)
Paul Foster: $168K (3rd)
Frederick Francis: $12,500 (28th)

Amigos of Dee Margo (all-time)
Paul Foster: $27,047 (2nd)
Woody Hunt: $25,000 (3rd)
TLR PAC: $15,000 (6th)
Frederick Francis: $5,000 (7th)

Marisa Marquez (all-time)
TLR PAC: $79,644 (1st)
Woody Hunt: $13,500 (3rd)
Paul Foster: $11,500 (4th)
Frederick Frances: $6,000 (8th)

Naomi Gonzalez (all-time)
TLR PAC: $336,065 (1st)
Woody Hunt: $6,500 (4th)
Frederick Francis: $4,500 (5th)

Who are these donors? What's the big deal? Well, basically Gonzalez and Marquez get their money almost entirely from Republican mega-donors, the same folks funneling money into Dee Margo and "Amigos of Dee Margo," and statewide Republican candidates.

Woody Hunt has given over $190K to Texans for Rick Perry, $150K to Associated Republicans of Texas, $100K to David Dewhurst, and substantial sums to Friends of Susan Combs and other statewide Republican efforts. L. Frederick "Rick" Frances is a Perry appointee to the Texas Tech Board of Regents who has given heavily to Texans for Rick Perry ($50K), David Dewhurst ($22K), and Texans for Joe Straus ($15K). Paul Foster is also a Perry appointee -- to the UT System Board of Regents -- and El Paso's only billionaire. He has given over $400K to Texans for Rick Perry, $168K to Dee Margo, $126K to David Dewhurst, $117K to Texans for Greg Abbott, and $77K to Friends of Susan Combs. The Texas Tribune reports that Hunt and Foster were instrumental in rallying business community support for Dee Margo in his 2010 Republican primary against Jay Kleberg.

Watch Gonzalez and Marquez this legislative session and see where their loyalty really resides.

These two Democrats endorsed a Republican and take primarily Republican money. Thankfully Margo lost, so clearly the endorsements of Gonzalez and Marquez weren't game changers. And El Paso residents are lucky to have Representatives Joe Moody and Mary Gonzalez working hard for their needs every day.

Now, it all comes down to how they vote this session in the legislature. If Naomi Gonzalez and Marisa Marquez hold the Democratic line, especially on issues such as the budget, education, women's health, and healthcare, then maybe this can just be chalked up to one bad episode of really poor decision making. They would be wise to redeem themselves and work hard next cycle.

If, on the other hand, Gonzalez and Marquez repeatedly vote against Democratic priorities or undermine or weaken our efforts as a minority, then it's time to look for new candidates who will give the people of these districts what they want and deserve -- actual Democratic representation, in the Legislature and in the campaign seasons that precede them.

Justice DeLayed

Glenn Smith — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:21:24 GMT

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.

Before going on, let me say quickly that that not all Texas judges are lost in this swamp. There are good judges. There are courtrooms where fair trials still take place. God bless them. They know who they are, and the lawyers who practice in their courts -- and the citizens who seek justice there -- they also know fairness and impartiality when they see it.

Still, the overall situation is so bad that the editorial writers of the Austin American Statesman must ask the question they asked in today's editorial:

Have judicial ethics in Texas fallen so far that it is considered proper for a judge to rule on a motion involving defendants he previously counseled in a case he criticized?

The answer is yes, judicial ethics have fallen that far. On Tuesday, as Laylan Copelin of the Statesman reported today, Travis County District Attorney formally asked Third Court of Appeals Judge Alan Waldrop to recuse himself from a money laundering case against two DeLay associates. Waldrop had represented Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a group implicated in the scandal, and criticized the criminal investigation and indictments in the campaign finance scheme. Now on an appeals court, he sits in judgment on the case

As we noted yesterday, Waldrop and his colleagues have received a good deal of money from people who'd like to see the criminal cases go away. After all, the alleged crimes -- the pursuit of which at least led to DeLay's resignation from Congress -- also led to the speakership of their errand boy, Tom Craddick, who hasn't been forced from office. Yet.

As we've seen, the corruption is not limited to the Third Court of Appeals. No, it's system wide. It's time for those who care about justice, who know that democracy depends upon it, to drain the swamp. Maybe, finally, DeLay will be pulled down the drain along with the rest of the ugly special interests who have nearly ruined our state.

T. Boone's Power Play

Glenn Smith — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:33:34 GMT

T. Boone Pickens, the conservative tycoon whose money comes from oil and gas and other investments, has always been part of the anti-government Right. He helped fund the Swift Boaters. He contributes to anti-democratic groups like Texans for Lawsuit Reform. He is the enemy of progressive government. So it is a bit head-turning to see Pickens make Texas government his investment partner in his wind power plans.

Equally disturbing are signs that Democrats in Congress and elsewhere appear willing to forget Pickens' attacks on them if he blows enough wind up their skirts.

Pickens will build a billion dollars worth of wind-driven generators in West Texas. The Texas Public Utility Commission has approved a plan calling for spending more than $4 billion in taxpayer money for transmission lines that will get the electricity from those windmills to consumers. Without government's extraordinary help, Pickens can't sell his electricity. He can't earn a profit.

Our governments should be investing in clean sources of energy. That is not the issue. And private investors who have awakened to the opportunities in alternative energy sources should also be encouraged.

The issue is hypocrisy. For too long the Right has bashed government as a destructive barrier to private enterprise and individual initiative. That broad-brush message has appealed to individualistic voters -- especially in the South where some voters have long resented such laws as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The wealthy have long used the message to drive their anti-tax agenda.
What the anti-government types ignore is the role government plays in making capitalism possible. Without a Securities and Exchange Commission the stock market would be chaos. Without government-built highways there is no transportation industry. Without courts there is no place to resolve business disputes. Without public schools there are no workers smart enough to fill necessary jobs.

And, now we see that without government and its supportive taxpayers there is no way to get your electricity to market. In a democracy, government has two legitimate functions: protection -- law enforcement, military, honest, open, accessible and fair courts -- and empowerment. The latter means government is simply the vehicle we operate to facilitate certain collective, necessary endeavors. Our stocks can earn money because government keeps the players honest.

There has never been much logical consistency in the the Right's attacks on government. What they have always meant is that they want government to do only what they want it to do. The same people who demand the shrinking of government argue that should be able to intervene in our private lives -- so long as the intervention advances their personal agenda. Broadly speaking, it's not small government they want, it's control of the government they want. They are authoritarian. For them, telling individuals what to do is a legitimate function of government. So long as they are doing the telling.

Let's see if Pickens -- and Gov. Rick Perry and others on the Right who back the plan -- have the character to admit the role government will need to play to make his business plan's like Pickens' work. Or whether they are simply selfish opportunists willing to bend with the wind to advance their selfish interests.

At Pickens' request, the Texas Legislature passed a bill that allows him to set up a water district with the right of eminent domain. In other words, he can take privately-held land if his private water business needs it. How do they square that with their "Take Back Texas" property rights rhetoric? Unless they mean what many of us always knew they meant: it's not our property rights they want to protect. It's theirs. At the expense of ours.

Cross posted at Texas Progress Council Speaking Texan.