At a time when Texas’ water supply is stretched to the breaking point, the state has converted Central Texas’ Edwards Aquifer into a multi-million dollar commodity that is being auctioned off for private gain.Read the report
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thursday, April 26, 2007
'Til Your Well Runs Dry: How the State of Texas Converted the Edwards Aquifer Into a Multi-Million Dollar Commodity
At a time when Texas’ water supply is stretched to the breaking point, the state has converted Central Texas’ Edwards Aquifer into a multi-million dollar commodity that is being auctioned off for private gain.Read the report
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
El Paso Times: El Pasoan gave Gov. Perry $56,000 in travel gifts
Texans for Public Justice, a government watchdog group, released a report analyzing the travel expenses lobbyists and campaign donors footed on behalf of elected officials. Though it is legal for lawmakers to accept travel gifts, Andrew Wheat, research director for the group, said the practice creates questions about what gift givers expect in return for their generosity. "The problem is, one of the best ways to get someone to do you a favor is to do them a favor first," Wheat said.
4/25/07
AUSTIN -- El Paso businessman Paul Foster gave Gov. Rick Perry more than $56,000 in travel gifts during 2005 and 2006, making Foster the second-largest contributor in travel money to the governor, according to a report released Tuesday.
State lawmakers, including Sens. Eliot Shapleigh and Carlos Uresti and Reps. Norma Chávez, Pat Haggerty and Joe Pickett, also took trips paid for by lobbyists and campaign donors, the report stated.
Texans for Public Justice, a government watchdog group, released a report analyzing the travel expenses lobbyists and campaign donors footed on behalf of elected officials.
Though it is legal for lawmakers to accept travel gifts, Andrew Wheat, research director for the group, said the practice creates questions about what gift givers expect in return for their generosity.
"The problem is, one of the best ways to get someone to do you a favor is to do them a favor first," Wheat said.
Perry's spokesman and area lawmakers who accepted travel gifts said that the expenses were legitimate and that campaign donors and lobbyists who provide travel do not seek special treatment.
"The governor has always made policy decisions based on what he believes is in the best interest of Texans," Perry spokes man Ted Royer said. "He always has and he always will."
Lobbyists and campaign donors paid more than $205,000 for Perry's travel between January 2005 and November 2006, according to the report.
Foster, president of Western Refining, was the second-largest contributor of travel dollars to Perry during the time the report covered, spending $56,637. Danny Janecka, a Flatonia, Texas, sausage magnate, was the largest contributor, with $56,909 in travel gifts.
One of those trips was a February 2006 trip Perry took with three of his staff members and Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw to Center in East Texas and then to Washington, D.C.
Royer said Perry's general policy when it comes to travel is to use campaign dollars rather than spend taxpayers' money.
"All of his campaign contributions are fully disclosed," Royer said. "Texans are fully capable of deciding what is appropriate and what isn't."
Foster, who is on two powerful state boards to which he was appointed by Perry, could not be reached for comment.
J. Robert Brown, president of Desert Eagle Distributing, who, the report shows, gave Perry about $5,000 for air travel in 2006, said he considered the travel gift like any other campaign contribution he would make.
"It certainly hasn't provided me any additional access" to the governor, said Brown, whom Perry appointed to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Wheat said Texas lawmakers should follow the example of Congress and outlaw lobby-funded travel. He also said lawmakers should clarify how they report travel expenses and provide more detail about those with whom they travel.
"It's just not clear there's an overwhelming need for politicians to be taking these kind of handouts," Wheat said, "and if they do they shouldn't be ashamed to provide detailed disclosure of who went where when with whom."
Sen. Uresti accepted more than $4,700 from a lobbyist and campaign donors in 2005 and 2006. Most of those trips came during his campaign last year.
Traveling the vast district that stretches from San Antonio to El Paso, he said, would be impossible without help from campaign donors. Those trips, he said, were made on far-from-luxurious two-seater planes.
"I'm not on a fancy plane," he said. "There was no one with me -- just me and the pilot."
Sen. Shapleigh said the $500 campaign donors contributed for travel weren't trips he took. One was for a campaign consultant to film a commercial, and another was for a band that traveled to El Paso for get-out-the-vote efforts.
He said voter mistrust in politicians would be better addressed with limits on campaign contributions to Texas candidates.
A lobbyist paid for Rep. Pickett's 2005 trip to a posh Arizona hotel for a conference of Texas Council of Engineering Companies.
Pickett said that he was a speaker at the conference and that he hasn't carried any legislation for the engineering companies.
Most trips like that, Pickett said, he pays for himself.
He rejected a suggestion from the watchdog group that lawmakers should use state planes for travel.
"It would look like it was more of a corporate special thing," he said, "and it would also come out direct tax dollars."
El Pasoan gave Gov. Perry $56,000 in travel gifts
By Brandi Grissom / Austin Bureau El Paso Times4/25/07
AUSTIN -- El Paso businessman Paul Foster gave Gov. Rick Perry more than $56,000 in travel gifts during 2005 and 2006, making Foster the second-largest contributor in travel money to the governor, according to a report released Tuesday.
State lawmakers, including Sens. Eliot Shapleigh and Carlos Uresti and Reps. Norma Chávez, Pat Haggerty and Joe Pickett, also took trips paid for by lobbyists and campaign donors, the report stated.
Texans for Public Justice, a government watchdog group, released a report analyzing the travel expenses lobbyists and campaign donors footed on behalf of elected officials.
Though it is legal for lawmakers to accept travel gifts, Andrew Wheat, research director for the group, said the practice creates questions about what gift givers expect in return for their generosity.
"The problem is, one of the best ways to get someone to do you a favor is to do them a favor first," Wheat said.
Perry's spokesman and area lawmakers who accepted travel gifts said that the expenses were legitimate and that campaign donors and lobbyists who provide travel do not seek special treatment.
"The governor has always made policy decisions based on what he believes is in the best interest of Texans," Perry spokes man Ted Royer said. "He always has and he always will."
Lobbyists and campaign donors paid more than $205,000 for Perry's travel between January 2005 and November 2006, according to the report.
Foster, president of Western Refining, was the second-largest contributor of travel dollars to Perry during the time the report covered, spending $56,637. Danny Janecka, a Flatonia, Texas, sausage magnate, was the largest contributor, with $56,909 in travel gifts.
One of those trips was a February 2006 trip Perry took with three of his staff members and Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw to Center in East Texas and then to Washington, D.C.
Royer said Perry's general policy when it comes to travel is to use campaign dollars rather than spend taxpayers' money.
"All of his campaign contributions are fully disclosed," Royer said. "Texans are fully capable of deciding what is appropriate and what isn't."
Foster, who is on two powerful state boards to which he was appointed by Perry, could not be reached for comment.
J. Robert Brown, president of Desert Eagle Distributing, who, the report shows, gave Perry about $5,000 for air travel in 2006, said he considered the travel gift like any other campaign contribution he would make.
"It certainly hasn't provided me any additional access" to the governor, said Brown, whom Perry appointed to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Wheat said Texas lawmakers should follow the example of Congress and outlaw lobby-funded travel. He also said lawmakers should clarify how they report travel expenses and provide more detail about those with whom they travel.
"It's just not clear there's an overwhelming need for politicians to be taking these kind of handouts," Wheat said, "and if they do they shouldn't be ashamed to provide detailed disclosure of who went where when with whom."
Sen. Uresti accepted more than $4,700 from a lobbyist and campaign donors in 2005 and 2006. Most of those trips came during his campaign last year.
Traveling the vast district that stretches from San Antonio to El Paso, he said, would be impossible without help from campaign donors. Those trips, he said, were made on far-from-luxurious two-seater planes.
"I'm not on a fancy plane," he said. "There was no one with me -- just me and the pilot."
Sen. Shapleigh said the $500 campaign donors contributed for travel weren't trips he took. One was for a campaign consultant to film a commercial, and another was for a band that traveled to El Paso for get-out-the-vote efforts.
He said voter mistrust in politicians would be better addressed with limits on campaign contributions to Texas candidates.
A lobbyist paid for Rep. Pickett's 2005 trip to a posh Arizona hotel for a conference of Texas Council of Engineering Companies.
Pickett said that he was a speaker at the conference and that he hasn't carried any legislation for the engineering companies.
Most trips like that, Pickett said, he pays for himself.
He rejected a suggestion from the watchdog group that lawmakers should use state planes for travel.
"It would look like it was more of a corporate special thing," he said, "and it would also come out direct tax dollars."
Austin American-Statesman: Report: State officials accepted 348 travel gifts in 2005-06
Gov. Rick Perry and 68 other high-level state officials partook of 348 travel gifts funded by lobbyists in 2005-06, according to a report by Texans for Public Justice. The Austin-based watchdog group doesn't say laws were broken by lobbyists giving or officials taking the trips, which were identified in reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. But the group, which tracks and questions the influence of money and corporate power in Texas politics, suggested that lobby-funded trips or gifts amount to an unseemly way for interests to curry officials. "The public would be better off without this kind of thing occurring," Andrew Wheat, the group's research director, said. "Most Texans don't have a corporate jet to offer public officials."
Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman
Group calls Williamson County lawmaker a 'lobby favorite.'
By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Gov. Rick Perry and 68 other high-level state officials partook of 348 travel gifts funded by lobbyists in 2005-06, according to a report by Texans for Public Justice.
The Austin-based watchdog group doesn't say laws were broken by lobbyists giving or officials taking the trips, which were identified in reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. But the group, which tracks and questions the influence of money and corporate power in Texas politics, suggested that lobby-funded trips or gifts amount to an unseemly way for interests to curry officials.
"The public would be better off without this kind of thing occurring," Andrew Wheat, the group's research director, said. "Most Texans don't have a corporate jet to offer public officials."
As in Congress, the group said, state lawmakers should ban lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts of more than a nominal value to candidates, officials or their staffs.
The group also opposes "noncommercial aircraft furnished by outside private interests."
State law bars lobbyists from paying for strictly ceremonial or pleasure trips. Lobbyists can pay for transportation and lodging for officials or state employees to explore matters directly related to duties.
Perry, who doesn't favor banning privately funded travel, almost always pays for his state travel from campaign donations. But his March trip to the Middle East was funded by TexasOne, a foundation started on Perry's watch to market Texas.
Perry spokesman Ted Royer said campaign contributions are public, "unlike donations to this trial-lawyer-funded front group," referring to Texans for Public Justice.
Director Craig McDonald said Texans for Public Justice discloses foundations that back it but, as a nonpartisan nonprofit, it's not required to name donors.
In the report, the group calls state Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County, a "lobby favorite." Krusee, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation, took nine lobby-funded trips in the period reviewed, 2005 and 2006 through the eve of the November elections, the report said.
J. McCartt, a lobbyist whose clients include contractor Fluor Corp. and PBS&J, an engineering firm, flew Krusee to Washington in October 2005 to address a conference on public-private transportation ventures held by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, according to the report.
McCartt also flew Krusee to Las Vegas to deliver the keynote address at a PBS&J toll summit after the 2005 regular session.
And lobbyist Brian Cassidy, whose clients include the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, sent Krusee to New York in December 2005 to attend an awards ceremony held by the Bond Buyer newspaper, which had given the authority a Deal-of-the-Year award. Krusee had authored the 2003 legislation that authorized mobility authorities to issue bonds.
Krusee's office issued a statement Tuesday stating that he "learns from other parts of the country and innovative industries about how to get traffic moving, how to improve safety and how to build roads in cost-effective ways."
Krusee said last week that he'd be happy to have the state pay travel costs.
"I vote and advocate for the people of my district," he said. "I don't even know who funds these trips. People can criticize if they want; they do it every day."
Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman
Report: State officials accepted 348 travel gifts in 2005-06
Group calls Williamson County lawmaker a 'lobby favorite.'
By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Gov. Rick Perry and 68 other high-level state officials partook of 348 travel gifts funded by lobbyists in 2005-06, according to a report by Texans for Public Justice.
The Austin-based watchdog group doesn't say laws were broken by lobbyists giving or officials taking the trips, which were identified in reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. But the group, which tracks and questions the influence of money and corporate power in Texas politics, suggested that lobby-funded trips or gifts amount to an unseemly way for interests to curry officials.
"The public would be better off without this kind of thing occurring," Andrew Wheat, the group's research director, said. "Most Texans don't have a corporate jet to offer public officials."
As in Congress, the group said, state lawmakers should ban lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts of more than a nominal value to candidates, officials or their staffs.
The group also opposes "noncommercial aircraft furnished by outside private interests."
State law bars lobbyists from paying for strictly ceremonial or pleasure trips. Lobbyists can pay for transportation and lodging for officials or state employees to explore matters directly related to duties.
Perry, who doesn't favor banning privately funded travel, almost always pays for his state travel from campaign donations. But his March trip to the Middle East was funded by TexasOne, a foundation started on Perry's watch to market Texas.
Perry spokesman Ted Royer said campaign contributions are public, "unlike donations to this trial-lawyer-funded front group," referring to Texans for Public Justice.
Director Craig McDonald said Texans for Public Justice discloses foundations that back it but, as a nonpartisan nonprofit, it's not required to name donors.
In the report, the group calls state Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County, a "lobby favorite." Krusee, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation, took nine lobby-funded trips in the period reviewed, 2005 and 2006 through the eve of the November elections, the report said.
J. McCartt, a lobbyist whose clients include contractor Fluor Corp. and PBS&J, an engineering firm, flew Krusee to Washington in October 2005 to address a conference on public-private transportation ventures held by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, according to the report.
McCartt also flew Krusee to Las Vegas to deliver the keynote address at a PBS&J toll summit after the 2005 regular session.
And lobbyist Brian Cassidy, whose clients include the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, sent Krusee to New York in December 2005 to attend an awards ceremony held by the Bond Buyer newspaper, which had given the authority a Deal-of-the-Year award. Krusee had authored the 2003 legislation that authorized mobility authorities to issue bonds.
Krusee's office issued a statement Tuesday stating that he "learns from other parts of the country and innovative industries about how to get traffic moving, how to improve safety and how to build roads in cost-effective ways."
Krusee said last week that he'd be happy to have the state pay travel costs.
"I vote and advocate for the people of my district," he said. "I don't even know who funds these trips. People can criticize if they want; they do it every day."
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Making Connections: State Officials and Their Special-Interest Travel Agents
Private interests paid the travel expenses for 83 elected or high-ranking appointed Texas officials on 363 occasions from January 2005 through November 2006. Making Connections: State Officials and Their Special-Interest Travel Agents, the first report of its kind, analyzes travel gifts to Texas officials by registered lobbyists and other private interests.Read the media release and the full report.
Houston Chronicle: Campaign finance bill gets House approval
The Texas House on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a campaign finance bill that more clearly defines how corporations can spend money raised through their political action committees. But critics say the bill, by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, who chairs the House Elections Committee, would do little or nothing to rein in corporate money in politics. Craig McDonald, executive director of the Austin-based campaign finance reform group, Texans for Public Justice, said the bill "should have taken the opportunity to define (issue advertisements) and should have made it clear that corporations can only support their own political action committees."
By LISA SANDBERG
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
April 24, 2007
AUSTIN — The Texas House on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a campaign finance bill that more clearly defines how corporations can spend money raised through their political action committees.
But critics say the bill, by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, who chairs the House Elections Committee, would do little or nothing to rein in corporate money in politics.
Craig McDonald, executive director of the Austin-based campaign finance reform group, Texans for Public Justice, said the bill "should have taken the opportunity to define (issue advertisements) and should have made it clear that corporations can only support their own political action committees."
McDonald said corporate money in the past has been used to fund issue ads that were political in nature, even though the ads did not specifically say "vote for" or "vote against" a particular person.
Such issue advertising in the 2002 elections for the Texas House prompted an investigation that led to the indictment of the Texas Association of Business, former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and others.
Berman's bill clarifies a list of administrative expenses that corporations and unions can fund under Texas law through their political action committees. They include office space, telephones and utilities.
The bill also spells out expenditures that corporations and unions cannot fund, including political consulting to support or oppose a candidate, telephone banks to communicate with voters to support or oppose a candidate, electioneering brochures and direct mail.
Berman said he tried to win over critics by defining electioneering, a nonpermissible expenditure, which he said includes political campaigning or direct mail. He said he couldn't fathom anyone opposing his bill now. "It specifies what you can and cannot do," he said.
Campaign finance bill gets House approval
Measure would define the use of corporate funds raised by PACsBy LISA SANDBERG
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
April 24, 2007
AUSTIN — The Texas House on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a campaign finance bill that more clearly defines how corporations can spend money raised through their political action committees.
But critics say the bill, by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, who chairs the House Elections Committee, would do little or nothing to rein in corporate money in politics.
Craig McDonald, executive director of the Austin-based campaign finance reform group, Texans for Public Justice, said the bill "should have taken the opportunity to define (issue advertisements) and should have made it clear that corporations can only support their own political action committees."
McDonald said corporate money in the past has been used to fund issue ads that were political in nature, even though the ads did not specifically say "vote for" or "vote against" a particular person.
Such issue advertising in the 2002 elections for the Texas House prompted an investigation that led to the indictment of the Texas Association of Business, former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and others.
Berman's bill clarifies a list of administrative expenses that corporations and unions can fund under Texas law through their political action committees. They include office space, telephones and utilities.
The bill also spells out expenditures that corporations and unions cannot fund, including political consulting to support or oppose a candidate, telephone banks to communicate with voters to support or oppose a candidate, electioneering brochures and direct mail.
Berman said he tried to win over critics by defining electioneering, a nonpermissible expenditure, which he said includes political campaigning or direct mail. He said he couldn't fathom anyone opposing his bill now. "It specifies what you can and cannot do," he said.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Austin American-Statesman: Campaign finance legislation doesn't seem to have much support this session
An angry crowd of people wearing blue lapel buttons that read "I own a dog and I vote" recently crowded into a state Senate hearing to object to attempts to increase criminal penalties for owners of dogs that attack someone. The proponents of curbing the influence of money in politics can only dream of such public outrage over an issue that is strictly an insider's game this legislative session. Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, April 22, 2007
An angry crowd of people wearing blue lapel buttons that read "I own a dog and I vote" recently crowded into a state Senate hearing to object to attempts to increase criminal penalties for owners of dogs that attack someone.
The proponents of curbing the influence of money in politics can only dream of such public outrage over an issue that is strictly an insider's game this legislative session.
At last week's public hearing on campaign finance, opponents of limiting political spending didn't even bother to show up. They knew nothing was going to change.
The sponsor of legislation trying to ban ads financed by undisclosed corporate donors testified that he didn't bother to sign up co-sponsors (he had 90 two years ago) because House Speaker Tom Craddick's leadership team prefers things the way they are.
"I'm offended by the status quo," said the sponsor, Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.
In Texas, unlike at the federal level, there are no limits on how much campaign donors may give state candidates, except in judges races. In 2006, according to watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, 140 Texans gave $100,000 or more, for a total of $52 million: more than one of every four dollars reported by campaigns. That year, Texas claimed the nation's biggest campaign donor, Houston home builder Bob Perry, who spent $16 million on state and federal campaigns.
The Texas system of campaign finance is based on the concept that voters can judge whether a campaign contribution — no matter how large — is acceptable.
In 2002, 30 corporations tested that theory by giving $1.7 million to the Texas Association of Business to distribute 4 million pieces of mail to voters without disclosing the companies behind the effort. That case remains in the courts, with corporations, most of them insurance companies, arguing that they did not have to disclose their identities as long as the ads do not support specific candidates by avoiding words such as "vote for" or "vote against."
Against that backdrop, Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, chairman of the House Elections Committee, which hears campaign finance legislation, said at the start of the session that he had detected no groundswell of complaint from the public or most lawmakers.
For Wednesday's hearing, only the usual suspects in favor of campaign finance limits — the Common Causes and Leagues of Women Voters of the world — showed up, happy that the issue even got a public airing.
New faces to the debate, the Texas Civil Justice League, a group of 5,000 individuals and business owners who usually focus on business issues, stayed away. Before the session, a survey of the league's membership revealed concern that they might no longer be able to compete in the legislative arena with the high-dollar donations from a handful of wealthy individuals.
"We got discouraged," said George S. Christian, president of the Justice League. "We'd like for something to be done to cut big donations, but there wasn't any widespread interest" among lawmakers.
Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, a member of the Elections Committee, said he opposes the legislation.
"Why do you think we're being bought off?" Howard asked a bill sponsor. "This is what's implied."
Another committee member, Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, said he fears that limiting campaign donations protects incumbents.
"An incumbent knows 100 people who can give him $1,000," he said. "Challengers don't know 100 people who can."
He said a challenger might have to rely on one big donor.
Austin Democratic Rep. Mark Strama, who is carrying a bill to curb campaign spending, disagreed.
"A challenger should have a breadth of support, not one sugar daddy," he said.
Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, an Elections Committee member, provided some levity.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, he asked, "Don't you think the wealthy elite are better investors in state government?"
The Legislature does appear ready to require that state officials disclose the amounts of cash gifts they receive, although no one has seriously suggested that officials not accept six-figure gifts.
The issue surfaced after Perry, the home builder, gave $100,000 to Bill Ceverha, a former state lawmaker and Craddick's appointee to the board of the Employee Retirement System of Texas.
Perry gave him the money, Ceverha said, to defray his legal bills after he lost a lawsuit over failing to disclose $600,000 in corporate money that was given to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political committee founded by former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Ceverha was treasurer for the group.
The only other issue the Legislature may deal with involving political money is whether to prohibit lawmakers from using campaign donations to pay rent to their spouses to help buy houses in Austin. In 1991, the Legislature barred them from buying houses with campaign dollars, but several (none in Central Texas) began paying the money to their spouses instead.
Campaign finance legislation doesn't seem to have much support this session
Some legislative leaders prefer things the way they areBy Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, April 22, 2007
An angry crowd of people wearing blue lapel buttons that read "I own a dog and I vote" recently crowded into a state Senate hearing to object to attempts to increase criminal penalties for owners of dogs that attack someone.
The proponents of curbing the influence of money in politics can only dream of such public outrage over an issue that is strictly an insider's game this legislative session.
At last week's public hearing on campaign finance, opponents of limiting political spending didn't even bother to show up. They knew nothing was going to change.
The sponsor of legislation trying to ban ads financed by undisclosed corporate donors testified that he didn't bother to sign up co-sponsors (he had 90 two years ago) because House Speaker Tom Craddick's leadership team prefers things the way they are.
"I'm offended by the status quo," said the sponsor, Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.
In Texas, unlike at the federal level, there are no limits on how much campaign donors may give state candidates, except in judges races. In 2006, according to watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, 140 Texans gave $100,000 or more, for a total of $52 million: more than one of every four dollars reported by campaigns. That year, Texas claimed the nation's biggest campaign donor, Houston home builder Bob Perry, who spent $16 million on state and federal campaigns.
The Texas system of campaign finance is based on the concept that voters can judge whether a campaign contribution — no matter how large — is acceptable.
In 2002, 30 corporations tested that theory by giving $1.7 million to the Texas Association of Business to distribute 4 million pieces of mail to voters without disclosing the companies behind the effort. That case remains in the courts, with corporations, most of them insurance companies, arguing that they did not have to disclose their identities as long as the ads do not support specific candidates by avoiding words such as "vote for" or "vote against."
Against that backdrop, Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, chairman of the House Elections Committee, which hears campaign finance legislation, said at the start of the session that he had detected no groundswell of complaint from the public or most lawmakers.
For Wednesday's hearing, only the usual suspects in favor of campaign finance limits — the Common Causes and Leagues of Women Voters of the world — showed up, happy that the issue even got a public airing.
New faces to the debate, the Texas Civil Justice League, a group of 5,000 individuals and business owners who usually focus on business issues, stayed away. Before the session, a survey of the league's membership revealed concern that they might no longer be able to compete in the legislative arena with the high-dollar donations from a handful of wealthy individuals.
"We got discouraged," said George S. Christian, president of the Justice League. "We'd like for something to be done to cut big donations, but there wasn't any widespread interest" among lawmakers.
Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, a member of the Elections Committee, said he opposes the legislation.
"Why do you think we're being bought off?" Howard asked a bill sponsor. "This is what's implied."
Another committee member, Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, said he fears that limiting campaign donations protects incumbents.
"An incumbent knows 100 people who can give him $1,000," he said. "Challengers don't know 100 people who can."
He said a challenger might have to rely on one big donor.
Austin Democratic Rep. Mark Strama, who is carrying a bill to curb campaign spending, disagreed.
"A challenger should have a breadth of support, not one sugar daddy," he said.
Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, an Elections Committee member, provided some levity.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, he asked, "Don't you think the wealthy elite are better investors in state government?"
The Legislature does appear ready to require that state officials disclose the amounts of cash gifts they receive, although no one has seriously suggested that officials not accept six-figure gifts.
The issue surfaced after Perry, the home builder, gave $100,000 to Bill Ceverha, a former state lawmaker and Craddick's appointee to the board of the Employee Retirement System of Texas.
Perry gave him the money, Ceverha said, to defray his legal bills after he lost a lawsuit over failing to disclose $600,000 in corporate money that was given to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political committee founded by former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Ceverha was treasurer for the group.
The only other issue the Legislature may deal with involving political money is whether to prohibit lawmakers from using campaign donations to pay rent to their spouses to help buy houses in Austin. In 1991, the Legislature barred them from buying houses with campaign dollars, but several (none in Central Texas) began paying the money to their spouses instead.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Lobby Watch:
54 More Rich Donors Join the ‘$100,000 Club’
During the recent 2006 election 140 wealthy individuals donated more than $100,000 apiece to Texas state PACs and candidates. This is up 63 percent from the 86 individuals who cleared $100,000 in 2004.
Read the Lobby Watch
Read the Lobby Watch
Associated Press: Once again, campaign finance reform
Legislation that limits the flow of big money donations into state campaigns would give all voters their voice back in the political system, some state lawmakers and government watchdog groups said Wednesday. The bills by Reps. Mark Strama, D-Austin; Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio; and Todd Smith, R-Bedford, were getting a hearing Wednesday before the House Elections Committee. Strama's bill would place limits on the amount that individuals and political committees can contribute to candidates, with limits ranging from $500 for state legislative candidates up to $2,000 for statewide candidates. Read the article at the Associated Press
4/19/2007
Legislation that limits the flow of big money donations into state campaigns would give all voters their voice back in the political system, some state lawmakers and government watchdog groups said Wednesday.
The bills by Reps. Mark Strama, D-Austin; Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio; and Todd Smith, R-Bedford, were getting a hearing Wednesday before the House Elections Committee.
Strama's bill would place limits on the amount that individuals and political committees can contribute to candidates, with limits ranging from $500 for state legislative candidates up to $2,000 for statewide candidates.
Strama said Texas in one in a handful of states that has no limits on individual or political action committee donations.
"An increasingly small number of super wealthy donors have taken an increasingly bigger role in determining public policy in Texas," he said.
Villarreal's bill would place a limit of $100,000 on the total amount one person can contribute in a two-year election cycle for state office.
Smith's bill would strengthen the century-old ban on corporate campaign spending by prohibiting "issue ads" paid for by undisclosed corporate sources.
Few lawmakers will say they oppose campaign finance reform, but those who do say it's because candidates will have to spend more time raising money and less time talking to voters.
Opponents also say setting limits makes no sense because of inflation. Sending out flyers and paying for advertising costs more each year. Others say Texans pay a bigger price by letting big decisions be influenced by big money.
"When mega donors invest that much money in a candidate, they expect a return on their investment," Villarreal said.
The League of Women Voters, Texans for Public Justice, Common Cause and True Courage Action Network voiced support for the proposals.
Similar legislation has been filed in the past but failed to get votes.
Once again, campaign finance reform
By Associated Press4/19/2007
Legislation that limits the flow of big money donations into state campaigns would give all voters their voice back in the political system, some state lawmakers and government watchdog groups said Wednesday.
The bills by Reps. Mark Strama, D-Austin; Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio; and Todd Smith, R-Bedford, were getting a hearing Wednesday before the House Elections Committee.
Strama's bill would place limits on the amount that individuals and political committees can contribute to candidates, with limits ranging from $500 for state legislative candidates up to $2,000 for statewide candidates.
Strama said Texas in one in a handful of states that has no limits on individual or political action committee donations.
"An increasingly small number of super wealthy donors have taken an increasingly bigger role in determining public policy in Texas," he said.
Villarreal's bill would place a limit of $100,000 on the total amount one person can contribute in a two-year election cycle for state office.
Smith's bill would strengthen the century-old ban on corporate campaign spending by prohibiting "issue ads" paid for by undisclosed corporate sources.
Few lawmakers will say they oppose campaign finance reform, but those who do say it's because candidates will have to spend more time raising money and less time talking to voters.
Opponents also say setting limits makes no sense because of inflation. Sending out flyers and paying for advertising costs more each year. Others say Texans pay a bigger price by letting big decisions be influenced by big money.
"When mega donors invest that much money in a candidate, they expect a return on their investment," Villarreal said.
The League of Women Voters, Texans for Public Justice, Common Cause and True Courage Action Network voiced support for the proposals.
Similar legislation has been filed in the past but failed to get votes.
San Antonio Express: Looser rules on funding for political ads is feared
Legislation is moving in the House that could allow corporate and labor union money to be used for issue advertising that promotes the election or defeat of a political candidate, according to campaign finance reform advocates. A bill by House Elections Committee Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler, defines how such money can be employed to pay the administrative expenses of a political committee. Read the article at the San Antonio Express
San Antonio Express
04/19/2007
AUSTIN — Legislation is moving in the House that could allow corporate and labor union money to be used for issue advertising that promotes the election or defeat of a political candidate, according to campaign finance reform advocates.
A bill by House Elections Committee Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler, defines how such money can be employed to pay the administrative expenses of a political committee.
The bill bans its use for electioneering. But because it does not define "electioneering," campaign finance reform advocates fear it will be used to justify issue advertising involving candidates.
"I would presume it would be their intent to keep the current definition of electioneering, which would be applying the magic words test, which I find problematic," said Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.
Berman says his bill would ban all corporate and labor union money from political campaigns.
The "magic words test" determines whether an ad contains the words "vote for" or "vote against." Without such words, an advertisement could support or attack a candidate's record without violating campaign finance laws prohibiting the use of corporate or labor union money in a campaign for office.
Such issue advertising in the 2002 elections for the House prompted a criminal investigation that led to the indictment of the Texas Association of Business, as well as former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and others.
Lawyers for TAB, DeLay and his Texans for a Republican Majority have argued the indictments sought by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle were improper because state law allows political committees to raise corporate money for administrative expenses.
Berman's bill continues to allow that while prohibiting such money to go toward political consulting in support of or opposing a candidate, telephone banks, political fundraising, partisan voter registration drives, voter identification lists and "electioneering brochures and electioneering direct mail."
Campaign finance reform advocate Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice said that is not adequate.
"Under the Election Code, electioneering is not defined," McDonald said.
Smith is offering legislation that would prohibit corporate or labor union money from being used within 30 days of an election in advertising or telephone banks that mention a candidate.
Campaign finance reform advocates Wednesday were promoting Smith's bill along with campaign contribution limits being proposed by Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio. His bill would cap at $100,000 how much money an individual can donate in aggregate during a two-year election cycle.
Looser rules on funding for political ads is feared
R.G. Ratcliffe-Austin BureauSan Antonio Express
04/19/2007
AUSTIN — Legislation is moving in the House that could allow corporate and labor union money to be used for issue advertising that promotes the election or defeat of a political candidate, according to campaign finance reform advocates.
A bill by House Elections Committee Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler, defines how such money can be employed to pay the administrative expenses of a political committee.
The bill bans its use for electioneering. But because it does not define "electioneering," campaign finance reform advocates fear it will be used to justify issue advertising involving candidates.
"I would presume it would be their intent to keep the current definition of electioneering, which would be applying the magic words test, which I find problematic," said Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.
Berman says his bill would ban all corporate and labor union money from political campaigns.
The "magic words test" determines whether an ad contains the words "vote for" or "vote against." Without such words, an advertisement could support or attack a candidate's record without violating campaign finance laws prohibiting the use of corporate or labor union money in a campaign for office.
Such issue advertising in the 2002 elections for the House prompted a criminal investigation that led to the indictment of the Texas Association of Business, as well as former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and others.
Lawyers for TAB, DeLay and his Texans for a Republican Majority have argued the indictments sought by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle were improper because state law allows political committees to raise corporate money for administrative expenses.
Berman's bill continues to allow that while prohibiting such money to go toward political consulting in support of or opposing a candidate, telephone banks, political fundraising, partisan voter registration drives, voter identification lists and "electioneering brochures and electioneering direct mail."
Campaign finance reform advocate Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice said that is not adequate.
"Under the Election Code, electioneering is not defined," McDonald said.
Smith is offering legislation that would prohibit corporate or labor union money from being used within 30 days of an election in advertising or telephone banks that mention a candidate.
Campaign finance reform advocates Wednesday were promoting Smith's bill along with campaign contribution limits being proposed by Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio. His bill would cap at $100,000 how much money an individual can donate in aggregate during a two-year election cycle.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Citizen Groups & Legislators Push Bills to Limit Big Money in Texas Politics
Texas citizen and government reform organizations today praised the House Elections Committee for scheduling hearings on three bipartisan campaign reform bills to clean up Texas politics. The bills will limit the influence of large campaign contributions and unreported political spending by corporations. The reform bills are among the groups’ top legislative priorities to limit big money in Texas politics. 
Citizen Groups & Legislators Push Bills
Austin, TX: Texas citizen and government reform organizations today praised the House Elections Committee for scheduling hearings on three bipartisan campaign reform bills to clean up Texas politics. The bills will limit the influence of large campaign contributions and unreported political spending by corporations. The reform bills are among the groups’ top legislative priorities to limit big money in Texas politics.
The citizen groups were joined by the reform bills’ sponsors in calling on the House Elections Committee to send the measures to the House floor. The bills and their sponsors are:
"We need a government that listens to all citizens and gives all proposals a fair hearing. Unfortunately, large campaign contributions have tilted the playing field in Austin, " explained Representative Mike Villarreal. "By limiting donations from mega-donors, my bill takes an important step towards leveling the legislative playing field."
“The extraordinary contributions from Texas' wealthy mega-donors provide them with a disproportionate influence in the political process. In fact, mega-donors have, at times, single handedly financed a single candidate's campaign.,” said Representative Mark Strama.
“A disclosure system is a farce when it requires a Sunday School teacher to disclose a $50 contribution yet allows unlimited and undisclosed union and corporate contributions. We must do better,” said Representative Todd Smith.
The citizen groups participating in the Texans Against Big Money campaign believe contribution limits are a necessary step in reforming the Texas political system, which is dominated by a handful of wealthy mega-donors and interest groups. Texas is one of just a handful of states that place no limits on the size of political contributions. In the recent 2006 elections 140 wealthy mega-donors who contributed more than $100,000 each delivered $51 million in political contributions accounting for nearly 30 percent of the total contributions from all Texans.1
“We need to put the brakes on pay-to-play politics in Texas,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. “Big political money pays for pollution, it pays for higher electric rates, it pays for privatization. Big money is constantly picking our pockets while lining its own. In the free market of Texas politics, you get as much representation as you can afford. Its time to limit this accepted form of corruption.”
“The integrity of Texas’ political institutions has taken a beating lately. Our elected representatives need to make political reform a priority. Limiting the undue influence of big money isn’t a Republican issue and it isn’t a Democratic issue; it is an issue that affects all Texans regardless of any political affiliations they might hold,” said John Courage, chair of True Courage Action Network. “Democracy can’t work if citizens have no faith in the integrity of its political institutions.”
“Political reform is not a partisan issue,” said Darlene Hicks, President of the League of Women Voters of Texas, one of the organizations supporting the call for limits. “Campaign limits are fair and necessary. These reforms benefit all the citizens of Texas regardless of their political persuasion.”
“You only need to read recent headlines to know that we need strict contribution limits to put an end to democracy-warping, big-dollar contributors,” said Mario Perez, State Chairman of Common Cause Texas. “When big money sets the agenda millions of Texas voters are left out of the process and denied equal influence over the laws and regulations that come out of Austin.”
Organizations participating in Texans Against Big Money include Campaigns for People, Common Cause Texas, Don’t Mess with Ethics, Faith in Texas Fund, Gray Panthers, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Homeowners for Better Building, Independent Texans, Latinos for Texas, League of Women Voters of Texas, Public Citizen, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition (SAAPAC), Texans for Public Justice, Texas Environmental Democrats, Texas Impact, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and True Courage Action Network (TCAN).
____________________________________________________________________________________
1See PDF list of 140 donors who contributed more than $100,000 in 2006.
Citizen Groups & Legislators Push Bills
to Limit Big Money in Texas Politics
| For Immediate Release: | For More Information Contact: |
| April 18, 2007 Download PDF | True Courage Action Network, 512-445-9020 League of Women Voters of Texas, 512-472-1100 Texans for Public Justice, 512-472-9770 Common Cause,512-474-2374 |
The citizen groups were joined by the reform bills’ sponsors in calling on the House Elections Committee to send the measures to the House floor. The bills and their sponsors are:
- HB 110, The Campaign Fairness Act by Rep. Mark Strama: Places limits on the amounts that individuals and political committees can contribute to candidates. The limits range from $2,000 for statewide candidates to $500 for state representative candidates per election. The bill also creates a voluntary system of spending limits.
- HB 111, The Clean Elections Act by Rep. Mike Villarreal: Places a limit of $100,000 on the total amount that an individual can contribute in a 2-year election cycle to all candidates for state office, state political committees and political party committees.
- HB 1085, by Rep. Todd Smith: Strengthens the 100-year-old prohibition on corporate campaign spending by prohibiting so-called “issue ads” paid for by undisclosed corporate sources that are designed to impact the outcome of an election.
"We need a government that listens to all citizens and gives all proposals a fair hearing. Unfortunately, large campaign contributions have tilted the playing field in Austin, " explained Representative Mike Villarreal. "By limiting donations from mega-donors, my bill takes an important step towards leveling the legislative playing field."
“The extraordinary contributions from Texas' wealthy mega-donors provide them with a disproportionate influence in the political process. In fact, mega-donors have, at times, single handedly financed a single candidate's campaign.,” said Representative Mark Strama.
“A disclosure system is a farce when it requires a Sunday School teacher to disclose a $50 contribution yet allows unlimited and undisclosed union and corporate contributions. We must do better,” said Representative Todd Smith.
The citizen groups participating in the Texans Against Big Money campaign believe contribution limits are a necessary step in reforming the Texas political system, which is dominated by a handful of wealthy mega-donors and interest groups. Texas is one of just a handful of states that place no limits on the size of political contributions. In the recent 2006 elections 140 wealthy mega-donors who contributed more than $100,000 each delivered $51 million in political contributions accounting for nearly 30 percent of the total contributions from all Texans.1
“We need to put the brakes on pay-to-play politics in Texas,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. “Big political money pays for pollution, it pays for higher electric rates, it pays for privatization. Big money is constantly picking our pockets while lining its own. In the free market of Texas politics, you get as much representation as you can afford. Its time to limit this accepted form of corruption.”
“The integrity of Texas’ political institutions has taken a beating lately. Our elected representatives need to make political reform a priority. Limiting the undue influence of big money isn’t a Republican issue and it isn’t a Democratic issue; it is an issue that affects all Texans regardless of any political affiliations they might hold,” said John Courage, chair of True Courage Action Network. “Democracy can’t work if citizens have no faith in the integrity of its political institutions.”
“Political reform is not a partisan issue,” said Darlene Hicks, President of the League of Women Voters of Texas, one of the organizations supporting the call for limits. “Campaign limits are fair and necessary. These reforms benefit all the citizens of Texas regardless of their political persuasion.”
“You only need to read recent headlines to know that we need strict contribution limits to put an end to democracy-warping, big-dollar contributors,” said Mario Perez, State Chairman of Common Cause Texas. “When big money sets the agenda millions of Texas voters are left out of the process and denied equal influence over the laws and regulations that come out of Austin.”
Organizations participating in Texans Against Big Money include Campaigns for People, Common Cause Texas, Don’t Mess with Ethics, Faith in Texas Fund, Gray Panthers, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Homeowners for Better Building, Independent Texans, Latinos for Texas, League of Women Voters of Texas, Public Citizen, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition (SAAPAC), Texans for Public Justice, Texas Environmental Democrats, Texas Impact, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and True Courage Action Network (TCAN).
____________________________________________________________________________________
1See PDF list of 140 donors who contributed more than $100,000 in 2006.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Lobby Watch:
Eight More Lawmakers Morph Into Lobbyists
Since the Texas Legislature’s 2005 regular session eight lawmakers have shed their public-servant shells to embrace their inner lobbyist. This newest crop of revolving-door lobbyists is billing 71 clients a total of up to $2.2 million this year.
Read the Lobby Watch
Read the Lobby Watch
Friday, April 6, 2007
Houston Chronicle: What the Hecht?
In 1992, Republicans won a majority on the nine-member Texas Supreme Court. The Republican battle cry was that Democratic justices were bought and paid for with campaign contributions from plaintiff's lawyers who argued cases before them. While the partisan makeup of the state's final arbiter of civil law has changed, litigants' attempts to purchase favor with the court's members hasn't.
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
April 6, 2007
In 1992, Republicans won a majority on the nine-member Texas Supreme Court. The Republican battle cry was that Democratic justices were bought and paid for with campaign contributions from plaintiff's lawyers who argued cases before them.
While the partisan makeup of the state's final arbiter of civil law has changed, litigants' attempts to purchase favor with the court's members hasn't. The latest example is that of Justice Nathan Hecht, who accepted $16,000 in contributions from a political action committee largely bankrolled by Houston builder Bob Perry. The HillCo PAC donated the money to help cover Hecht's $340,000 legal expenses shortly before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Perry Homes' appeal of an $800,000 judgment. An arbitrator had awarded the damages to a couple who claimed their home was structurally deficient.
"It would be wholly inappropriate for Hecht to stand in judgment of someone who is paying his personal expenses," said Alex Winslow, head of the Austin-based consumer advocacy group Texas Watch. Hecht also received $5,000 in Perry contributions last year. The same could be said of the other eight Supreme Court justices, who over the years have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Perry or his PAC.
The latest funds collected by Justice Hecht went to cover his legal fees for disputing an admonition he received from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission ruled that that Hecht's support for Harriet Miers' unsuccessful nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was improper. A three-judge panel later dismissed the reprimand. After legislators declined to have the state cover the bill, Hecht sought contributions from supporters and says he has collected enough money to pay the bill.
Hecht's solicitations for his legal bills violated no statutes, but neither did those campaign contributions by plaintiff's lawyers that Hecht and other Republican justices demonized previous Democratic officeholders for accepting. If lawyers' donations to judges buy influence, certainly the same can be said of money from interested parties with cases before the court.
In fact, the latest example is even more questionable, since the money to pay Justice Hecht's personal legal expenses was not given during a campaign, but came weeks before a hearing involving the contributor. If the jurist has any sense of propriety, he will recuse himself from the Perry Homes case and also make public the list of donors who have covered his legal tab.
Until the system of choosing Texas judges through partisan elections is changed, suspicions and allegations of purchased justice will continue, whether the incumbents are Democrats or Republicans. Texas needs a system involving merit selection-retention elections, but reform is no closer now than when it was first advocated years ago. Likewise, lawmakers have declined to impose tough restrictions on campaign contributions to prevent litigants and lawyers from contributing to the campaigns of those who sit in judgment on their cases.
Until such reforms are made, Texans must depend on the ethics and good sense of the judges. In taking Perry's money while the homebuilder has a case before the court, Justice Hecht let the people down.
What the Hecht?
Texas Supreme Court justice should recuse himself when a litigant helped pay the jurist's legal bills.Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
April 6, 2007
In 1992, Republicans won a majority on the nine-member Texas Supreme Court. The Republican battle cry was that Democratic justices were bought and paid for with campaign contributions from plaintiff's lawyers who argued cases before them.
While the partisan makeup of the state's final arbiter of civil law has changed, litigants' attempts to purchase favor with the court's members hasn't. The latest example is that of Justice Nathan Hecht, who accepted $16,000 in contributions from a political action committee largely bankrolled by Houston builder Bob Perry. The HillCo PAC donated the money to help cover Hecht's $340,000 legal expenses shortly before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Perry Homes' appeal of an $800,000 judgment. An arbitrator had awarded the damages to a couple who claimed their home was structurally deficient.
"It would be wholly inappropriate for Hecht to stand in judgment of someone who is paying his personal expenses," said Alex Winslow, head of the Austin-based consumer advocacy group Texas Watch. Hecht also received $5,000 in Perry contributions last year. The same could be said of the other eight Supreme Court justices, who over the years have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Perry or his PAC.
The latest funds collected by Justice Hecht went to cover his legal fees for disputing an admonition he received from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission ruled that that Hecht's support for Harriet Miers' unsuccessful nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was improper. A three-judge panel later dismissed the reprimand. After legislators declined to have the state cover the bill, Hecht sought contributions from supporters and says he has collected enough money to pay the bill.
Hecht's solicitations for his legal bills violated no statutes, but neither did those campaign contributions by plaintiff's lawyers that Hecht and other Republican justices demonized previous Democratic officeholders for accepting. If lawyers' donations to judges buy influence, certainly the same can be said of money from interested parties with cases before the court.
In fact, the latest example is even more questionable, since the money to pay Justice Hecht's personal legal expenses was not given during a campaign, but came weeks before a hearing involving the contributor. If the jurist has any sense of propriety, he will recuse himself from the Perry Homes case and also make public the list of donors who have covered his legal tab.
Until the system of choosing Texas judges through partisan elections is changed, suspicions and allegations of purchased justice will continue, whether the incumbents are Democrats or Republicans. Texas needs a system involving merit selection-retention elections, but reform is no closer now than when it was first advocated years ago. Likewise, lawmakers have declined to impose tough restrictions on campaign contributions to prevent litigants and lawyers from contributing to the campaigns of those who sit in judgment on their cases.
Until such reforms are made, Texans must depend on the ethics and good sense of the judges. In taking Perry's money while the homebuilder has a case before the court, Justice Hecht let the people down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
