Luddite Lawmakers & Other Officials:
Politicians Who Dodged Electronic Donor Disclosure
By Claiming They Don’t Track Donors With Computers
 
 

View the cover
To print out this report, download it as a pdf file (39 KB)
 

Table of Contents

I.   Introduction
II.  Luddite Lawmakers
III. Luddite Judges
IV. Other Statewide Luddites
Apology To Ned Lud

Webster defines “Luddite” as a pejorative term for people who are opposed in principle to technological change. Webster cites the term’s origins in the early 19th century labor struggle against textile mill owners who slashed wages and fired thousands of workers after the introduction of power looms.

While Webster refers to this struggle’s leader, Ned Lud, as “feebleminded,” more thorough accounts have concluded that Lud led a brilliant, uphill campaign that had some success in its ultimate goal—which had more to do with reducing human misery than it did with destroying machinery (see E.P. Thompson’s, The Making of the English Working Class). While informed minds can differ on Lud’s effectiveness, his goals were loftier than those of politicians who refuse to electronically disclose their campaign donors and expenditures.



I.   Introduction
Texas lawmakers finally passed legislation in 1999 that required most state politicians to begin filing campaign donor data in a computerized electronic format the following year. The Texas Ethics Commission posts these data on the Internet, making them vastly more accessible to the public than when these data are filed on paper.

Lawmakers created two loopholes to allow politicians to circumvent electronic filing. The law exempts candidates who swear that they:

  1. Do “not intend to accept more than $20,000 in political contributions or spend more than $20,000 in political expenditures” in the corresponding calendar year; or
  2. “Do not use computer equipment to keep current records of political contributions, political expenditures or contributors.”
“The average Texas House seat was going for $119,000 when this reform passed,” recalls Fred Lewis of Campaigns for People, which lobbied for passage of the law. “The perception was that most campaigns were relying on sophisticated consulting firms to raise and spend this kind of money. We thought that few candidates would claim such exemptions.”

Since mandatory electronic filing took effect last year (with the first reports filed in July 2000), however, 66 incumbents have signed and filed affidavits with the Texas Ethics Commission claiming that neither they nor any of their agents “use computer equipment” to track donors.
 
 

Officials Claiming Luddite Exemptions in 2000
Office Held Luddite
Exemptions		 Contributions
In Exempted
Period		 Exempted
Contributions
Reported
Electronically		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
Legislative 36 $2,248,670  $362,631  $3,633,251  $2,597,483 
Judicial 20 $170,451  $0  $511,686  $706,586 
Other 10 $101,942  $14,325  $153,143  $127,388 
TOTAL: 66 $2,521,063 $376,956 $4,298,080 $3,431,457

Such Luddite claims are remarkable, especially for politicians who work in Austin—the nation’s No. 2 high-tech region.1  Furthermore, many of those who claimed this exemption appear to have run expensive, sophisticated campaigns. For example, 30 of the 36 exempted legislators raised more than $50,000 in the 2000 election cycle, with19 of them raising more than $50,000 during the time periods for which they claimed exemptions. Altogether, the 66 exempted incumbents raised $2.5 million under their exemptions.

Eight of the politicians who obtained exemptions went ahead and filed electronically anyway. Yet the 66 exempted incumbents electronically disclosed $376,956 in contributions, or just 16 percent of the money that they raised under their exemptions.

1. Metropolitan New Economy Index, Progressive Policy Institute, April 19, 2001, www.neweconomyindex.org/metro.


II.   Luddite Lawmakers
Since last year, 36 Texas legislators—20 percent of the total—signed affidavits swearing that neither they nor any of their agents “use computer equipment” to track donors. Two of the Senate’s 31 members filed these affidavits, as did 34 House members (accounting for 23 percent of that chamber).

Luddites hail from both major political parties, with the Democrats claiming 17 of them and the Republicans claiming 19 more. Luddite legislators of both parties raised and spent large amounts of money. Exempt Republican lawmakers went ahead and electronically disclosed considerably more of their money ($242,034) than their Democratic counterparts ($120,597). As shown below, however, this discrepancy is explained by a single recovering Republican Luddite who electronically disclosed $141,609 in contributions. Apparently, the “New Economy” may still hold a place for Rep. Rick Hardcastle of Vernon.

Rep. Hardcastle raised  the most money in the exempted period: $213,105. Next came Sen. Mario Gallegos,  who raised $165,975 in the exempted period—despite being the sole Luddite lawmaker who was was not up for election in 2000. Three other members raised more than $100,000 in the exempted period: Reps. Warren Chisum, Ismael Flores and Gene Seaman.
 
The Luddite Lawmakers
Lawmakers Party Dist. Contributions
In Exempted
Period		 Exempted
Contributions
Reported
Electronically		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
Rick Hardcastle R H-68 $213,105  $141,609  $221,540  $184,833 
Mario Gallegos D S-6 $165,975    $250,287  $181,243 
Warren Chisum R H-88 $120,350    $146,827  $59,766 
Ismael 'Kino' Flores D H-36 $111,859  $52,973  $236,119  $164,366 
Gene Seaman R H-32 $104,083    $159,916  $106,218 
George 'Buddy' West R H-81 $92,585    $130,455  $68,268 
Ron Lewis D H-19 $92,135    $157,145  $89,618 
Rene Oliveira D H-37 $90,975    $160,960  $97,595 
James Pitts R H-10 $86,612    $137,596  $64,990 
William Callegari R H-130 $84,807  $56,673  $162,007  $180,760 
Ken Marchant R H-99 $81,750    $97,150  $68,897 
Dawnna Dukes D H-50 $74,693  $48,186  $111,743  $73,416 
Gary Walker R H-80 $74,270    $97,411  $41,999
Harold Dutton D H-142 $68,875   $89,775  $49,245 
Robert Talton R H-144 $68,562    $72,778  $67,249 
Joe Nixon R H-133 $64,900    $64,900  $47,353 
Paul Moreno D H-77 $61,703    $99,412  $56,235 
Paul Sadler D H-8 $58,525    $79,775  $49,574 
Bill Carter R H-91 $53,303  $19,131  $144,345  $134,004 
Ruth McClendon D H-120 $49,180    $67,260  $13,326 
Talmadge Heflin R H-149 $48,529    $78,811  $61,233 
Jim Dunnam D H-57 $47,035    $60,076  $43,929 
Delwin Jones R H-83 $46,845    $83,727  $63,166 
Jose Menendez D H-124 $45,530  $9,850  $85,222  $89,274 
Ruben Hope R H-16 $40,450    $83,014  $69,677 
Joe Crabb R H-127 $34,564    $114,963  $90,514 
Kevin E. Bailey D H-140 $33,314    $92,629  $83,084 
Manny Najera D H-75 $29,781    $51,685  $24,496 
Kent Grusendorf R H-94 $26,671  $24,621  $39,636  $20,617 
Robert Puente D H-119 $26,288  $9,588  $88,115  $123,417 
Jon Lindsay R S-7 $21,000    $70,150  $55,091 
Anna Mowery R H-97 $14,950    $15,450  $8,357 
Terri Hodge D H-100 $12,365    $37,570  $6,325 
Roberto Gutierrez D H-41 $3,100    $28,825  $34,872 
Al Edwards D H-146 $0    $10,100  $23,873 
Fred Brown R H-14 $0    $5,878  $600 
TOTALS:     $2,248,670  $362,631  $3,633,251  $2,597,483 

 
Honorary Luddite Gov. Perry

In his January 2001 State of the State address, new Texas Governor Rick Perry made a strong plug for reforming campaign finance disclosure. "Frequent and more instantaneous disclosure during each election cycle will keep Texans better informed about the candidates who seek their vote," Perry said.

Although Governor Perry did not seek an electronic disclosure exemption, he earned honorary Luddite mention for filing botched electronic reports that effectively undermine his own vision of "more instantaneous disclosure."

Governor Perry's January 2001 electronic disclosure filing (covering the $4.3 million he raised in the second half of 2000) lumps his donors' titles, first names, middle names and last names all into one "last name" field. This effectively sabotages efforts to track his donors on the Texas Ethics Commission's website (http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/tx00/).

For example, someone searching for donations from Marvin Smith would probably type "Smith" in the last name field and "Marvin" in the first name field. Such a search strikes out because the Perry campaign left the first-name field blank. A search limited to "Smith" in the last name field, on the other hand, would result in a deluge of 843 Smiths who made 2,804 separate contributions.

Even the Technet Texas PAC (which gave Perry $10,000) is unlikely to figure out that the only efficient way to access Smith's record in Perry's botched filing is to type "Dr. Marvin  Smith III M.D." into the last name field—with two blank spaces between "Marvin" and "Smith." Perry is an honorary Luddite because this problem persists even after it was brought to the attention of his staff.

 
 

III.   Luddite Judges
Twenty state judges filed for exemptions. Intermediate appellate court justices accounted for most of these, since the law automatically exempts all district judges from electronic filing. Of the state’s 82 court of appeals judges, 18 (22 percent) claimed exemptions. Justice Charles Seymore of the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston raised the most judicial money in the exempted period: $81,150. Two other exempted court of appeals judges raised more than $20,000. They are David Puryear (3rd Court of Appeals in Austin) and Martin Richter (5th Court of Appeals in Dallas).
 
 
Texas Judges--Unplugged
Court Luddite
Count		 Contributions In
Exempted Period		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
Court of Appeals (COA) 18 $168,284 $509,519 $668,577
Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) 1 $2,167 $2,167 $6,414
Texas Supreme Court (SC) 1 $0 $0 $31,605
TOTALS: 20 $170,451 $511,686 $706,586

One member each from the state’s highest civil and criminal courts also filed for exemptions. But neither Texas Supreme Court Justice James A. Baker (who was not up for reelection in 2000) nor Court of Criminal Appeals Justice Charles Holcomb (who lacked a major-party opponent in the 2000 general election) raised or spent much money in that election cycle. None of the 20 exempted judges filed any electronic dislosure reports.
 
 

The Luddite Judges
Judges Party Court Contributions In
Exempted Period		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
Charles Seymore R COA-14 $81,150  $105,662  $232,700 
*David Puryear R COA-3 $35,688  $37,188  $22,470 
Martin Richter R COA-5 $24,950  $94,150  $90,334 
Brian Quinn R COA-7 $8,470  $42,759  $21,510
John Cayce R COA-2 $5,625  $62,585  $24,925 
Kerry Fitzgerald R COA-5 $4,950  $40,930  $28,704 
Charles Holcomb R CCA $2,167  $2,167  $6,414 
Errlinda Castillo D COA-13 $2,150  $2,150  $44,117 
Timothy Taft R COA-1 $1,587  $5,263  $7,695 
*J. Bonner Dorsey D COA-13 $1,514  $1,514  $5,608 
Murry Cohen R COA-1 $1,200  $1,200  $94,949 
Sue Lagarde R COA-5 $1,000  $2,500  $3,282 
Rex Davis R COA-10 $0  $80,215  $69,542 
Sam Day R COA-2 $0  $19,050  $11,191 
Joseph Morris R COA-5 $0  $14,353  $3,577 
*James A. Baker R SC $0  $0  $31,605 
*Jan Patterson D COA-3 $0  $0  $3,625 
Donald R. Ross D COA-6 $0  $0  $1,850 
Don H. Reavis R COA-7 $0  $0  $1,500 
*Paul C. Murphy R COA-14 $0  $0  $985 
TOTAL:     $170,451  $511,686  $706,586 
*Not up for election in 2000.
COA = Court of Appears; CCA = Court of Criminals Appeals; SC = Texas Supreme Court.

IV. Other Statewide Luddites
The last two bastions of Luddite officials offer a sad commentary on the state of the Lone Star State, since these officials held offices that reasonably might be expected to require a minimal level of computer literacy. These offices are those of the State Board of Education and the Secretary of State.

Nine of the 15 members of the State Board of Education obtained exemptions. Three of the nine raised more than $20,000 in the exempted period. This same board is charged with integrating technology into public education.

“Texas is a national leader in bringing technology into the classroom,” says the board’s Long-Range Plan for Public Education, 2001-2006. “The State Board of Education is charged with developing a state technology plan for acquiring and using technology in public schools, fostering professional development related to the use of technology, enhancing computer literacy and skills among all of the state’s public education students, and strengthening communication and use of information related to education technology in every region of the state.”
 

Educators—Unplugged
State Board of
Education Members		 Party Dist. Contributions
In Exempted
Period		 Exempted
Contributions
Reported
Electronically		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
David Bradley R 7 $38,817    $40,517  $14,149 
Cynthia Thornton R 10 $33,180  $14,325  $41,290  $32,167 
Dan Montgomery R 5 $21,810    $36,985  $50,109 
*Richard Watson R 14 $1,455    $1,455  $4,322 
*Judy Strickland R 15 $0    $117  $0 
*Rene Nunez D 1 $0    $0  $3,008 
Alma Allen D 4 $0    $0  $0 
*Don McLeroy R 9 $0    $0  $0 
*Rosie Sorrells D 13 $0    $0  $0 
TOTALS:     $95,262  $14,325  $120,363  $103,755 

The last Luddite official is Elton Bomer, the former legislator and Insurance Commissioner who stepped down as George W. Bush’s Secretary of State in December 2000. As Texas’ “chief election officer,” the Secretary of State might be expected to lead the way in electronic filing. As an appointed official, Bomer did not need to raise and spend thousands of political dollars. His reports show that Bomer received large checks from some of the state’s most powerful PACs, businesspeople and lobbyists and spent much of this money along the Bush campaign trail.
 

Secretary of State—Unplugged
Secretary of State Party Contributions In
Exempted Period		 2000 Cycle
Contributions		 2000 Cycle
Expenditures
Elton Bomer R $6,680  $32,780  $23,633 

To Download This Report

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this downloaded file. You can get a free copy here: free Acrobat

Download This Report in Adobe Acrobat pdf Format


© Copyright Texans for Public Justice, May 2001