(An important race going on in Houston. - promoted by Mark Duncan)
Kevin Bailey is in the race of his life in Houston right now. Having neglected his district and declared his support for Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick for the last 5 years, he's facing a well organized opponent with deep roots in the district.
Without grassroots Democratic support in a heavily Democratic district, what's a Craddick D to do? Start calling on Republicans and Craddick allies with deep pockets that can help give the illusion of grassroots support. Call it an astroturf campaign.
Bailey's 8 Day Before the Election Report(pdf) is fascinating. By now you know that he took $50,000 straight from Tom Craddick's PAC. Now Craddick's buddies are following the lead, so Bailey can buy as many billboards as possible, send as much mail as possible, and put up as many signs in vacant lots as possible. Astroturf campaigning.
First on the list of donors - Former members of the House that remember Bailey and remember Craddick. Al Luna gave $500, Craddick D Vilma Luna gave $1,000, Ron Lewis gave $500, and Dan Shelley gave $500(he's Rick Perry's personal toll road lobbyist).
Next off - Statewide Republican support. As was mentioned earlier, Perry's toll road lobbyist gave Bailey some cash. One of Perry's biggest financiers is billionaire Harold Simmons who chipped in $2,500.
Next - John Cornyn support. John Nau chipped in $5,000. Who is John Nau? From JohnCornyn.com:
"An all-star statewide finance team for Sen. Cornyn's 2008 re-election will be headed by John Nau of Houston, the Cornyn Re-elect committee announced today."
Craddick's Usual Suspects: Bob Perry chipped in another $23,500 while Texans for Lawsuit Reform topped that with another $25,000 contribution.
West Texas Oilmen: Clay Wood, Donald Wood, and Jack Wood of Odessa each chipped in for $2,000 each. Interesting enough, the brothers Wood also cut individual $2,000 checks for Craddick supporters, both D and R, facing primary challengers, 13 in all. These guys don't seem to care about party, as long as Tom Craddick is reelected.
That's a lot of Republican money going to one Democrat in a heavily Democratic district. Wonder why they would go to such extremes to help a member of the other party? Help put an end to Tom Craddick's absolute power and Kevin Bailey's absolute fealty. Visit Armando Walle on the web and give him some money.
(I promoted David's post yesterday, and I'm posting this response to his post today. I don't have any preferred candidate in this race -- I'm just trying to raise the discussion. It's an incredibly important one to watch as we go forward to the primaries. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
In response to David Holmes' post yesterday regarding Mindy Montford and her lobbyist connections I did a little more research on the race. This post from the Texas Observer blog clarified many things -- The Texas Observer is well known for its progressive slant on politics, and its not surprising to see their emphasis on the role of rooting out corporate influence on the public process:
"The Texas Legislature is infamous for its pay-to-play culture. Most of the time, we suspect, corruption operates just below the surface, silently poisoning the democratic process. There is but one check on this process. State law gives a single prosecutor, the Travis County district attorney, the power to criminally investigate state officials...
Ronnie Earle has held the office for 31 years. Earle often remarked hat while prosecuting drug dealers and burglars was necessary, his most important work was protecting the democratic process from malignant special interests. As the role of corporate money has grown in recent years, Earle has become more visible, the Eliot Ness of Texas politics. Unlike other oversight bodies in Texas--particularly the diffident Texas Ethics Commission--Earle and his stable of attorneys have shown an appetite for enforcement. His office includes a division--known as the Public Integrity Unit--devoted to rooting out political corruption.
I've made myself pretty clear about how I feel about money in politics -- I don't like it. Our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to running for office, and those who are in charge of prosecuting our elected officials need to be held to the highest of standards. David's argument that Earle receiving contributions means its OK for Montford to receive contributions is a terrible analogy-- most notably, Earle earned our trust. Montford has earned nothing -- not even Earle's endorsement. All I have to trust Montford, as a general member of the public, is her words. And her words give me no real reason to trust her:
"Among the four candidates, none is as close to the Legislature as Mindy Montford. She served as general counsel for state Sen. Eddie Lucio, a Brownsville Democrat, from 1997 to 1999. Her father, John Montford, is a former state senator who's now head lobbyist for AT&T Inc. Mindy Montford, 37, worked in the Travis County DA's office for the past eight years, two of them in the Public Integrity Unit on the DeLay case...
Montford would like to build a closer relationship with state politicians than Earle has had. "We've got to educate the Legislature and the lobby that, 'Look you've got nothing to be afraid of if you're following the law.' We're not on a witch hunt here," she said. "I think you have to be visible and have constant meetings with people who could be before you as a witness or a suspect, and let them know how the unit operates. Then they will trust what you do, and they won't care what political party you are. It's going to the Capitol and meeting. You've got to be able to be welcomed down there. It obviously wouldn't be possible to meet with every elected official, but it wouldn't be bad to have a forum where we explain to them how the process works and ask them what improvements they want to see."
So to recap -- the candidate whose dad is AT&T's top lobbyist in Texas, the candidate who's already spending $50,000 a week on TV, is saying "you've got to have a balance" -- presumably because prosecuting Tom DeLay -- the most corrupt member of the US Congress in history -- was too much. And then she wants to go to the Texas Legislature and ask --THEM-- what "improvements they want to see" in the public integrity unit.
Yeah, that's just what we need, another elected official who wants to ask the foxes how to secure the henhouse.
As Karen Brooks points out, Abbott released it at the latest hour on a Friday night to avoid media coverage. Could it get any sketchier? Read the full opinion here (pdf) and let us know what it means in the comments. For background on the briefs provided by other sources, check out Capitol Annex's breakdown, the brief filed by Texas bloggers can be found here (pdf). We'll fill in the gaps later after we digest the 31 pages.
----Update---
Surprise, surprise, Abbott sided with Craddick. For some brief insight check out Brooks & Kronberg
Chris Bell has filed suit against Texans For Rick Perry and the Republican Governors Association. About a month before the 2006 election, Bob Perry gave the RGA $1,000,000 to funnel in to Rick Perry's campaign. It turns out they didn't file any paperwork, and weren't eligible to contribute to Perry's campaign. Let's see - national Republican organization funnels illegal contributions into Texas elections and gets sued. Looks like Perry took a page straight out of Tom Delay's 2002 playbook. Bell can get double the value of the contribution from both Perry and the RGA - or $4,000,000. Download the (pdf) lawsuit here from the EP Times.
Victor Morales - he of the white pickup and US Senate campaign - has confirmed he will take on voter disenfranchiser Betty Brown in HD - 4. She's also being targeted by Wade Gent in the Republican primary, who nearly knocked her out with the help of the education community in 2006. Morales told QR that he plans to make education a top priority. Seeing how she distributed a letter attacking the education community recently for spending money, this should be a race to watch. I'm not sure how long this has been up, but I just stumbled upon it. Betty Brown: Putting Austin First.
In two recent articles, Republican Representative Pat Haggerty of El Paso seems to be flirting with the idea of switching parties. Under constant fire from Speaker Craddick and voucher money man James Leininger, he also happens to represent a district that is very kind to Democrats. It's interesting to note how openly he is talking about the prospect of switching parties, Craddick and the Republican leadership don't seem to hold much worth in his district.
According to Capitol Inside (subscription req'd) angry Republicans in HD 97 are asking for an investigation into mudslinging anonymous telephone calls in the district that seem to have given voucher supporter and Craddick supporter Mark Shelton the edge he needed to get into the runoff against vote leader Democrat Dan Barrett. A disaffected and fractured GOP does not bode well for Shelton who is hoping to pick up votes for the runoff.
Ed. note: In other 3rd quarter news -- for those who missed Matt's story earlier -- Rep. Mike McCaul (TX-10) is in debt. Read more by clicking here. -- Phillip
Noriega raised about $508,000 from individuals, not including refunded contributions, for next year's elections. Watts pulled in about $443,000, Federal Election Commission reports showed.
Both hope to challenge Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who will seek a second six-year term. He collected $1.3 million from individual contributors.
"It definitely creates the question whether his first report was kind of a gimmick and really whether he was going to be a self-funded campaign," James Aldrete, Noriega's campaign manager, said of Watts' fundraising.
Watts reported raising $1.1 million in June, when he launched his campaign. In September, he loaned $3.7 million to his primary campaign and vowed to dedicate future contributions to challenging Cornyn.
Kim Devlin, a spokeswoman for Watts, said there was no gimmick. She said about two-thirds of Watts' donors contributed $100 or less each, showing he has true support from everyday voters.
"Mikal's support from a broad spectrum of Texans means we will be able to run an aggressive campaign that hits on all cylinders all over the state."
Here's what we know from the 3rd quarter numbers:
1) Cornyn has lots and lots of money (duh).
2) Watts loans lots and lots of money to himself (duh).
3) Noriega raised more in individual donations than Watts (wow).
I say "wow" because Noriega is working from a much smaller base of supporters (presumably) than Watts, as Watts has hosted and attended prominent fundraisers across the state. I'm certain that Noriega's contributions from the netroots are what pushed him over the edge (and what accounts for his higher percentage of out-of-state contributions).
In any case -- raising over $500k is a great deal from either candidate. Not including Watts' personal checkbook, well over $1 million has been raised to beat Senator Cornyn over a year away from the election. This statewide challenge is already more serious statewide efforts from Democrats in the past.
**Update**Hadn't read the papers before I wrote this, but it looks like R.G. Ratcliffe of the Houston Chronicle agrees that Noriega is doing well. From his column, which is titled, "Wealth may not be enough for Watts in Senate race":
Finance reports filed Monday show San Antonio lawyer Mikal Watts is the wealthiest candidate in the race for the U.S. Senate, but in a heavily Hispanic Democratic primary that money may not give him a huge advantage over state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston.
The Hispanic voter turnout in Texas still is not heavy enough to have a major impact on a general election, but in the Democratic primary, Latinos make up as much as 35 percent of the vote. And their vote in the past has favored candidates of the same ethnicity.
During the 2002 Democratic U.S. Senate runoff, Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk spent $2 million and had the support of the Democratic Party establishment. Kirk won, but one-time Senate nominee Victor Morales captured 40 percent of the vote while spending just $8,763.
I wrote once that money wasn't as important for Watts as issues were, and that he needed to do better to develop his issues and persona. Fair enough?
Washington Insider: I can't believe John Edwards is accepting public financing. Prominent Political Blogger: I know -- his campaign is over. WI: He's admitted that he can't compete with Hillary and Obama. PPB: There's no way he can compete nationally -- even if he wins Iowa and is still competitive Feb. 5, how will he afford the television? WI: And then if somehow, by a miracle, he does win the nomination... PPB: ...yeah, he's got no money to counter to Republican attacks after the spring. WI: They can swift-boat him for three months, and he'll be handcuffed from responding. PPB: It's a shame, too -- because he's great on policy. But he's running an amateur campaign. WI: Clinton's got it locked. PPB: Absolutely.
Conversation #2:
Taxi driver: Who you like for President? Guy on the street: I don't know. Not Hillary. TD: Obama? GotS: I heard about him, don't really know much, though. I don't know, I'm not really into politics. TD: They all just buy each other off. GotS: It's all rigged. Not an honest one in the bunch. Too much money. TD: That, uh, Edwards guy though -- I was listening on the radio -- he apparently is taking public money. GotS: For the campaign? TD: Yeah. He doesn't take lobby money, and now he's doing this thing where it's public financing. GotS: What the hell is that? TD: No idea. But the news guy on the radio said Edwards was doing it because there's too much money in politics. GotS: Oh, well good. I'll vote for him, then. Maybe there is an honest bastard in the bunch.
I've made it pretty clear that I'm not a fan of big money in politics. Most people site it as the #1 problem in politics -- the influence of money. And now there's a presidential candidate taking public financing --- regardless if it's strategic or out of principle, bottom line is he's doing it --- and all the "smart people" in politics want to jump on him for it. Not me.
Oh, and by the way --- Edwards is going to be endorsed by the Iowa SEIU on Monday, which means people willing to knock on doors in January. When he wins Iowa in January, finishes 1st/2nd in New Hampshire, and it's down to him vs. Clinton on February 5th, which of those two conversations above is going to happen in the homes of voters?
Somehow, someway, Democrats in the U.S. Senate finally found a backbone this week. After weeks of hesitating on whether or not there should be a hard deadline for removal of troops from Iraq tied to war funding, Senate Leader Harry Reid announced yesterday that there must be "definite timelines" for troop withdrawal. As Daily Kos said, "Hallelujah."
Now that Democrats have finally found the strength to lead follow the 2/3 of Americans that have wanted real troop withdrawal for months, the problem will be how to make troop withdrawal a reality. There will be many amendments to the Iraq war funding bill that make an attempt at bringing the troops home. One amendment, which has a strong likelihood of passing, has been proposed by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hegel and is called the "Dwell Amendment."
We will be offering an amendment that requires our troops have a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio for active units and members. This is a minimum floor. The Department of Defense's historic policy and current goal is a ratio of 1:2. Currently, Army units are deployed for 15 months with 12 months at home...
This Dwell Time Amendment provides a safety net under our troops. However long a servicemember has been deployed, they deserve at least that much time at home. It is a very simple, common sense amendment.
In July, my amendment received 56 votes. We need just 4 more votes this time to pass this amendment, and I am asking for your help.
Senator John Cornyn voted against this amendment in July (no surprise). Both of our Democratic candidates to replace Cornyn -- Noriega and Watts -- support troop withdrawal. In his responses to the DFT questionaire, Noriega even specifically mentions his support for the Webb-Hegel amendment. We could count on Noriega or Watts for one of those needed four votes.
Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive women persons in politics today. Her lifelong leadership is unmatched by almost any other living public servant. She's experienced, she's intellectual, and her husband just happens to be one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United States.
Why, then, am I having so much trouble gearing up to support her? At times I want to donate the next year of my life to her campaign, and other times I wish she would go away. When I really sit down and think about it, here are the questions I wrestle with:
1) Is Clinton's experience in Washington D.C. -- including her close relationship with U.S. Senators, lobbyists, and D.C. insiders -- a positive or negative in her campaign?
Reasons her experience is positive - In 1993, President Bill Clinton put then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in charge of health care reform. The policy itself was incredible -- a plan for the ages. It failed miserably, though, because it was crafted without consultation with Congress. It failed to ever get its feet off the ground because the Clinton administration had no real relationship with Congress.
That won't happen if Hillary is elected President. She has gone out of her way to build strong relationships. Her experience is a highlight for her campaign, as she states in her newest stump speech she unveiled:
"I've learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution. You can't pretend the system doesn't exist..."
Reasons her experience is negative - As a result of her willingness to work within the system, Clinton appears impotent to accept or work towards any drastic change. There is a line of thinking -- which I agree with sometimes, sometimes I don't -- that if Clinton & Obama spoke out as aggressively against the war as Edwards, Richardson, and others did, that we'd be out of it. The argument is that their platform is so strong if she made a full-blown call for the end of the war in Iraq, Congress would be hard-pressed not to follow her lead. She hasn't taken that stance, however. On other issues, she also appears to "jump on the bandwagon" whenever policy proposals make their mark, signing onto legislation and endorsing progressive policies only after the real fight has won.
Is that because she's smarter than all of us, and knows how to work the system quietly on the inside instead of loudly through headlines...or is it because she is a true moderate who tries to minimize political risks? I just can't decide.
2) Do I really want to look back in 30 years and tell my children, "from 1980 through 2012 (or 2016) a member of the Bush or Clinton family was either President or Vice President of the United States"? (continue reading below)
Is the Texas "moment of silence" law constitutional? A federal court in Dallas began hearing the case yesterday, which revolves around the Texas law passed following the Bill HammondTom Delayillegal Republican takeover of the Texas House in 2003.
According to the Dallas Morning News, the case will revolve around the plaintiffs/atheists trying to prove the moment of silence is religious in nature, while the state/church tries to prove that the law is secular in nature. Former Texas Education Agency Commissioner, Shirley Neeley, had this to say in support of the law:
"The moment of silence statute was passed to encourage thoughtful contemplation at the start of the school day, to promote patriotism through the students' quiet reflection following the pledges of allegiance, and to protect individual religious freedom," Dr. Neeley said in the memo.
In that memo, Dr. Neeley also argued that the minute is calming at a time when students are confronted with violence and that the "air of solemnity" fosters discipline.
I always tried to use moments of silence to finish the last few questions on a homework assignment, to tie my shoes, or to see how quietly I could blow a bubble with my gum. I remember classmates using that time to fidget with their backpacks, flirt with each other, and see who could win a staring contest. Never once did the class break out into a spontaneous chorus of the Star Spangled Banner.
Moments of silence are most effective when there's something to do with that time -- think of a sick or gravely ill student, remember a loved one or friend who has died, etc. But a daily moment of silence just creates another meaningless function of the morning. It's a worthless moment of silence -- another example of the government trying to force behavior on its supposedly free people.
As Matt mentioned, there is a group of House members rumored to be approaching Rep. Warren Chisum about a possible run for speaker. And again as Matt said, such a move reflects the misplaced priorities of Republican House members and how increasingly out of touch the Republican leadership is with Texas families.
Rep. Chisum wasted precious legislative time this session as he fought tooth and nail to pass two bills (HB 2683 & HB 2685)that sought to regulate and tax marriage using funds designated for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These bills were killed many times throughout the session, but somehow Chisum kept reviving them and dragging them along. As Miss Thompson said, "Even Lazarus only came back from the dead once".
At any rate, Chisum and the Republican leadership set forth and passed these bills that would "alleviate poverty" by promoting "healthy marriage". The state is directed to take money intended for needy families and dole it out in the form of grants to marriage counselors. Couples that take counseling can then receive a discount on their marriage license. Taking classes run by the clergy also qualifies you for a discount from the marriage tax. The thinking goes that if poor people just get married and get a little counseling, then they won't be poor anymore. Never mind investments in job training or public and higher education, taking money from needy families and spending it on marriage counselors should do the trick.
A recent ruling from the Republican Texas Supreme Court found that a clergyman is also allowed to divulge secrets from counseling sessions without any sort of repercussion. A woman confided in her clergyman that she had had an extramarital affair, and the clergyman then turned around and told the entire congregation. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that she would not be able to sue him in order to hold him liable for divulging facts told in confidence during counseling sessions. Rep. Chisum, Speaker Craddick and the rest of the Republican leadership in this state prefer to take money from needy families to send it to people that will not be held accountable if they violate the trust of those who come to them for marriage counseling.
Tell me again how that alleviates poverty? I'm ready for some leadership in this state that has mainstream, sensible solutions to the issues facing Texas. The current far right wing agenda was crushed on the national level, it's time for some of that change to trickle down to our state.
