Showing posts with label TX Assoc. of Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TX Assoc. of Business. Show all posts

Friday, November 14, 2008

Texas Observer: The DeLay Scandal Turns Six

The Tom DeLay scandal has been with us longer than most kindergartners. Six years have passed since the controversial 2002 election, when DeLay sprang his audacious plan to use possibly illegal corporate money to bury Texas Democrats. DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) and the Texas Association of Business (TAB) teamed with Texans for Lawsuit Reform to orchestrate a GOP takeover of the Texas House. These efforts made Midland Republican Tom Craddick the House Speaker and let Delay reconfigure Texas’ congressional districts, adding six new Republican seats.Read the article at the Texas Observer

The DeLay Scandal Turns Six
Catching up with the players from the disputed 2002 election.


Andrew Wheat | November 14, 2008
TEXAS OBSERVER

The Tom DeLay scandal has been with us longer than most kindergartners. Six years have passed since the controversial 2002 election, when DeLay sprang his audacious plan to use possibly illegal corporate money to bury Texas Democrats. DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) and the Texas Association of Business (TAB) teamed with Texans for Lawsuit Reform to orchestrate a GOP takeover of the Texas House. These efforts made Midland Republican Tom Craddick the House Speaker and let Delay reconfigure Texas’ congressional districts, adding six new Republican seats.

The disputed election prompted a flurry of civil and criminal court cases. Defeated Democrats sued TRMPAC and TAB. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle indicted DeLay and other TRMPAC and TAB leaders on charges of criminally tapping more than $2 million in corporate funds to influence the election. The indictments effectively evicted House Majority Leader DeLay from the U.S. House.

The criminal case still crawls along. The Texas Association of Business recently copped a guilty plea, retirement is looming for prosecutor Ronnie Earle, and a fix may be in on the criminal charges against DeLay. Some major players who pushed the electoral limits in 2002 have paid a price. Many others have eluded repercussions, been appointed to political offices or find themselves awash in political-consulting fortunes. Six years after the Republican champagne flowed, the Observer checked up on lead players in the DeLay scandal.

First Family
Recent years have brought upheaval to the First Family of the TRMPAC scandal. In September 2005, Tom DeLay was indicted in Texas on money-laundering charges stemming from TRMPAC’s campaign shenanigans. In the eight months following his indictment, DeLay went from being one of the most powerful men in the nation to a veritable has-been.

DeLay resigned from Congress in April 2006 amid serious questions about his ability to win re-election in his own Sugar Land district. Out of Congress, he launched two ventures that operate out of the same office building in Washington. One is the consulting firm First Principles LLC. While corporate clients may be flocking to the firm, political campaigns don’t appear to be buying its advice. A search of federal political committees, courtesy of Congressional Quarterly’s MoneyLine, reveals that First Principles has received just one PAC payment. Chicago’s conservative Family-PAC paid DeLay—the former PAC-money king—the royal sum of a $4,000 honorarium.

Last year DeLay also launched the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, which he billed as his camp’s answer to MoveOn.org, the decade-old online hotbed of liberal activism, which operates one of the nation’s fattest PACs. Despite its prominent links on DeLay’s blog, the Coalition has had little visible impact.

DeLay’s slipping traction is not surprising, given his sudden, enormous loss of power. DeLay blames his downfall, at least partly, on reporters. “I haven’t been found guilty of anything,” he told the Houston Chronicle at the recent Republican National Convention, “yet my first name is ‘Discredited’ in the media.”

One discrediting of the DeLay name occurred in April 2005. That’s when The New York Times reported that DeLay’s political committees—including TRMPAC and Americans for a Republican Majority Committee (ARMPAC)—had paid DeLay’s wife and daughter more than $500,000 during the past four years. To counter any suggestion of impropriety, ARMPAC issued a statement at the time saying “Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance” and the DeLays’ daughter, Danielle Ferro, “is a skilled and experienced professional event planner.”

Yet it is not clear that the market for these skills survived DeLay’s fall. Christine DeLay received no payments from PACs unaffiliated with her spouse in recent years and received her last ARMPAC checks in December 2005. The $12,500 that TRMPAC paid Danielle Ferro in late 2003 were the last major political payments that TRMPAC ever made. Ferro still works for her father, handling appointments for First Principles.

DeLay’s brother, Randy, appears to be the family member least affected by the scandals, perhaps because he parted company with his relatives before Tom DeLay’s fall. To bounce back from a 1992 bankruptcy, Randy DeLay formed the DeLay Group lobby firm, which has grossed an average of more than $400,000 a year during the past decade. Some of Tom DeLay’s earlier ethics troubles occurred when he intervened on behalf of his younger brother’s lobby clients. These problems may have contributed to the reported estrangement of the DeLay brothers. Yet Randy DeLay’s business has continued apace, even after he dropped “DeLay” from his firm name in 2002 and after his brother lost power. Randy DeLay’s clients today include Time Warner Cable, the Brownsville Navigation District and Motor Coach Industries. (This summer a Motor Coach bus crashed on a highway near Sherman, killing 17 Vietnamese-American church members.)

Randy DeLay and his niece, Danielle Ferro, did not respond to requests for comment. Tom DeLay’s spokesperson at First Principles, Shannon Flaherty, made one attempt to respond but could not be reached by press time.

Electoral Lawsuits
For six years, TRMPAC and TAB have defended themselves from civil and criminal cases alleging that they improperly influenced Texas’ 2002 elections to establish a Republican majority in the Texas House. In the first case to come to trial, five Democrats defeated by TRMPAC-backed Republicans sued three TRMPAC officials for allegedly violating Texas election laws. The state district judge overseeing the case ruled in 2005 that TRMPAC broke state law by failing to report more than $600,000 in corporate contributions (it’s illegal in Texas for candidates to spend corporate money on political activities). In the end, Judge Joseph Hart agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered former TRMPAC Treasurer Bill Ceverha to pay $196,600 in damages.

Ceverha is a former state lawmaker with close ties to Dallas oil magnate Louis Beecherl, who bankrolled TRMPAC and Craddick. After the 2002 election, Ceverha served on Craddick’s speaker transition team. Craddick then appointed him to the board of the Texas Employees Retirement System (ERS). This trustee of the $24 billion state pension fund then declared personal bankruptcy in 2005 to avoid paying his TRMPAC judgment. In addition, TRMPAC donors helped pay some of the more than $800,000 that Ceverha owed to the legal team that lost his case. TRMPAC’s No. 1 donor, Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, gave Ceverha $100,000. Ralph Ellis of Irving, who heads an oil company that pumped corporate cash into TRMPAC, loaned Ceverha $50,000. A school-voucher group maintained by TRMPAC donor James Leininger also handed Ceverha a 2005 lobbying gig. Ceverha’s bankruptcy filings note that his income jumped from less than $85,000 a year in the first four years of the millennium to more than $235,000 a year when his trial heated up at mid-decade. Ceverha’s more recent lobby disclosures suggest diminishing returns, with lobby contracts worth up to $35,000 in 2007 and none in 2008. All the while, Ceverha has continued to serve on the board of the state employees pension fund.

Asked about the meaning of the TRMPAC scandal, Ceverha said, “What I would like to say is so outrageous that, knowing the slant of your paper, I don’t think I should tell you.” Encouraged to do so, Ceverha said, “Think about the fact that there have been people out there dangling in the wind for years and spending a personal fortune for no good reason.”

Two of the three attorneys who tried the civil case against Ceverha came from the now-defunct Austin firm Ivy Crews & Elliott. Cris Feldman has since joined the Houston criminal defense firm Rusty Hardin & Associates. In an odd twist, that firm now represents TRMPAC fundraiser Warren Robold, one of four TRMPAC defendants indicted by Earle (the firm reportedly has Feldman sealed off from the Robold case). Feldman’s ex-partner Joe Crews is now at his own firm. Crews and the third plaintiff lawyer, David Richards (who once was married to the future Gov. Ann Richards), intend to eventually resume their civil case against two DeLay cronies, John Colyandro, the former TRMPAC director, and Jim Ellis, the former ARMPAC director. The plaintiff attorneys must wait until the criminal case against Ellis and Colyandro is resolved.

A former employee of Karl Rove’s direct-mail shop, Colyandro’s main job has been running the Texas Conservative Coalition, which he founded in 1985. The Conservative Coalition accounts for most of the $180,387 that Texas PACs have reported paying Colyandro since 2003. Colyandro’s lawyer said the criminal charges have made it difficult for his client to make a living and “cost him a marriage.” “As a Democrat, I’m still angry at what happened in the Lege in 2002,” said Austin attorney Joe Turner. “From a legal standpoint, I don’t think [Colyandro] violated the law. It’s time to end this nightmare for everyone and move on.”

When the TRMPAC mess erupted in 2003, Colyandro and Ellis landed supplemental income, reporting their first Texas lobby contracts. ARMPAC was one client that paid Ellis to lobby that year in Austin, where Ellis camped out to help DeLay pass congressional redistricting. Ellis and Colyandro both reported receiving 2003 lobby contracts through Virginia-based Performance and Results International LLC (see “There is Always a Bright Side,” March 4, 2005). That firm’s main business number had been disconnected when the Observer called recently. Jim Ellis’ attorney, J.D. Pauerstein of San Antonio, said that his client is “working in some consulting capacity” in the Washington area but that he did not know the details.

Then there are two lawsuits involving the Texas Association of Business. Defeated Democratic House candidates sued TAB and its corporate contributors. The plaintiffs alleged that TAB illegally spent $1.7 million in corporate funds on ads promoting 24 Republican legislative candidates in 2002. Plaintiffs also sued lobbyist Mike Toomey, who raised corporate funds for TAB, mostly from insurance companies. Toomey, TAB and the corporate donors agreed this fall to settle with some of the plaintiffs for an undisclosed sum. But a few plaintiffs are still pressing their case against TAB President Bill Hammond and three of the insurers that bankrolled TAB’s political ads.

Meanwhile, defense attorney Andy Taylor continues to benefit from the DeLay-TAB scandal. Taylor is representing defendants in the TAB civil cases. That’s after Taylor profited handsomely from the redistricting fight in 2003. He billed taxpayers more than $750,000 to vet DeLay’s redistricting plans for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Legal discoveries
Regardless of how the remaining TRMPAC and TAB litigation turns out, these lawsuits pulled back the curtains on Texas’ 2002 elections. Plaintiffs in lawsuits have the right to inspect documents relating to their case and may compel key sources to answer case-related questions. This “legal discovery” process is the source of much of what is known about the roles of TRMPAC and TAB in the 2002 election.

TRMPAC’s fundraising consultants were key sources of information about DeLay’s money machine. For instance, in September 2002, GOP fundraiser Susan Lilly and state Rep. Beverly Woolley solicited business leaders in Woolley’s hometown of Houston on TRMPAC’s behalf. A typed memo of their itinerary—obtained through discovery—contains handwritten notes about the political wish list of each donor visited that day and how much money they committed to TRMPAC. The Republicans who took control of the Texas House in 2002 helped enact much of this wish list (see “Rate of Exchange, TO, March 12, 2004). The TRMPAC scandal does not appear to have hurt the careers of Lilly or Woolley, neither of whom has been charged with wrongdoing. Speaker Craddick appointed Woolley chair of the powerful House Calendars Committee. Meanwhile, Lilly & Co. of Austin has collected almost $5 million from Texas and federal PACs since 2003. Susan Lilly’s firm remains a leading fundraiser for the Republican Party of Texas and many GOP candidates.

The now-indicted Warren Robold, DeLay’s longtime fundraiser, collected most of TRMPAC’s legally troublesome corporate money. Robold mostly solicited companies that had few interests in Austin but a keen interest in DeLay’s congressional pull. Unlike Lilly’s, Robold’s fundraising business doesn’t appear to have survived DeLay’s fall. In 2003, he received payments of $13,000 from Florida Congressman Dave Weldon, $13,650 from the Republican Party of Texas and $33,009 from ARMPAC. Robold collected his last federal PAC payments in the first quarter of 2004 and then fell off the political-fundraising radar screen. Robold’s attorney, Andy Drumheller, didn’t return calls about his client.

Legal discovery also revealed how a few men made up the nerve center that controlled the TRMPAC and TAB operation. Colyandro, TAB President Bill Hammond, Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC Director Matt Welch and lobbyist Mike Toomey met regularly during the 2002 campaign to coordinate support for a core slate of Republican House candidates. And discovery showed that TRMPAC paid Kevin Brannon, a onetime aide to former Senator Phil Gramm, to vet which GOP House candidates would receive TRMPAC support. Many Brannon interviews broached the topic of Craddick’s speaker campaign.

Kevin Brannon recently helped launch a GOP consulting firm called the Patriot Group. Other Patriots include Matt Welch and homebuilder Bob Perry spokesman Anthony Holm (see “Patriots for Hire,” TO, June 1, 2007). After the 2002 election, Mike Toomey served as Governor Rick Perry’s chief of staff for two years before returning to the lobby, where he since has billed clients up to $5.5 million.

Criminal cases
Two weeks before Travis County voters elected Earle aide Rosemary Lehmberg to succeed her retiring boss as district attorney, Ronnie Earle settled the remnants of his criminal case against TAB. Mirroring the civil cases, Earle initially charged TAB with illegally spending $1.7 million in corporate funds on ads that promoted 24 Republican legislative candidates. From the outset, TAB was a tougher criminal case than TRMPAC. Unlike TRMPAC, which funneled corporate funds to state candidates, TAB spent corporate money on independent political expenditures, a practice invoking greater legal protections. State District Judge Mike Lynch dismissed the heart of Earle’s TAB case in 2006. He ruled that TAB’s ads—which attacked Democrats and lauded Republicans—did not explicitly tell people whom to vote for. Lynch wrote that the TAB ads “severely test, but do not cross” this line.

In the recent settlement, TAB pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor carrying a $10,000 fine. The association admitted that it illegally used its corporate money to pay President Bill Hammond and another TAB lobbyist to barnstorm the state to promote Republican legislative candidates. In an apology that he read at the time of the settlement, Hammond said, “I now recognize that while working as a salaried employee of the Texas Association of Business it was a violation of the law to expressly advocate for the election of these candidates.” Hours later he shifted gears. “Six years of political persecution by Ronnie Earle has come to an end,” Hammond said, “with a misdemeanor over a bookkeeping error.”

This dual response may explain why plaintiff attorney Joe Crews has not been able to convince himself that the legal showdown over the 2002 election will safeguard election laws. “My guess is that it has made the cheaters more sophisticated,” he said. “I’m not real optimistic about these kinds of people.” A bit more optimistic, Feldman said the legal cases demonstrated that “no one is above the law” even as they showed that “the relationship between state officials and large corporate interests necessitates constant vigilance.”

Earle now bequeaths to Lehmberg the remains of the criminal cases against the TRMPAC four: DeLay, Colyandro, Ellis, and Robold. The most clear-cut of these charges accuse Colyandro, Ellis and Robold of soliciting or accepting corporate contributions.

DeLay, Colyandro and Ellis also face criminal money-laundering charges. A panel of the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals ostensibly ruled in August against constitutional claims that Colyandro and Ellis raised in a pretrial appeal. Yet that ruling—written by Justice Alan Waldrop (who had helped Texans for Lawsuit Reform fend off TRMPAC-related subpoenas before he joined the court)—contained an unsolicited gift for the TRMPAC defendants. The opinion said that the Texas money-laundering law in effect in 2002 applied to cash but not to the checks that TRMPAC allegedly used to route $190,000 in illegal corporate cash to Texas House candidates via a Republican Party account in Washington (see “DeLay’s Blank Check,” TO, September 19, 2008). If it stands, this ludicrously literal interpretation of the law eviscerates the remaining case against Tom DeLay. Initially, District Judge Pat Priest must decide what to do with Waldrop’s editorializing about the TRMPAC money-laundering charges. Ultimately, Republican-dominated appeals courts likely will decide the issue.

With TRMPAC money-laundering charges teetering, the greatest legal threat to DeLay appears to have shifted from Austin to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington. Imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff—who was a big promoter of both Bush and DeLay—pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges that could have earned him a 12-year sentence. Because Abramoff helped prosecutors win related charges against seven high-level Washington officials, however, a federal judge sentenced Abramoff to just four years in September.

Given Abramoff’s unusually light sentence, DeLay must consider the possibility that Abramoff, whom he once called one of his “closest and dearest friends,” will help the Obama Justice Department continue this ongoing corruption investigation. The biggest fish investigated—but not indicted—in the Abramoff probe are DeLay and retiring California Congressman John Doolittle, the king of earmarks. Ratting out Tom DeLay may have been part of the plea bargain that the feds hammered out with Abramoff. Six years after his political machine delivered in Texas, Tom DeLay still may get his day in court.

Andrew Wheat is research director at Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan watchdog that has filed ethics complaints against TRMPAC, Justice Alan Waldrop, and Bill Ceverha

Friday, October 24, 2008

Austin American-Statesman: Expect more corporate influence in Texas elections

Although state law has banned corporations and unions from spending money on election campaigns for a century, the courts now tell us that they can spend as much as they want on advertising as long as they are careful not to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate.EDITORIAL

Expect more corporate influence in Texas elections


By EDITORIAL BOARD
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN

Friday, October 24, 2008

The protracted legal fight that erupted after the 2002 election for the Texas House is winding down, and this is the most important result for the state's future:

Although state law has banned corporations and unions from spending money on election campaigns for a century, the courts now tell us that they can spend as much as they want on advertising as long as they are careful not to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate.

Corporations won't have to report their spending to the Texas Ethics Commission, or even disclose who bought the advertising.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said this week that he had upheld the ban on corporation contributions by securing a guilty plea from the Texas Association of Business to a misdemeanor charge of violating state campaign finance law. Bill Hammond, president of the association, entered the plea.

But the effort to employ corporate resources in election campaigns hasn't been nipped in the bud.

Quite the contrary. We've just seen the start of it.

It all stems from the successful effort in 2002 by former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to elect more Republicans to the U.S. House. To do that, DeLay needed to elect a Republican majority in the Texas House to redraw the congressional district lines in favor of GOP candidates.

In helping that effort, Earle charged, Hammond and a lobbyist for the association, Jack Campbell, broke the law because they campaigned for the GOP on company time, which was an illegal corporate contribution to the association's political action committee.

Hammond agreed to the $10,000 fine levied against the association for that breach. He issued a statement acknowledging wrongdoing, but neither he nor Campbell expressed remorse. Hammond complained of "six years of political persecution" by Earle, a Democrat, and Campbell said the district attorney acted only out of partisan rage.

But Hammond and his allies won the larger issue last year when a judge rejected an indictment against the Texas Association of Business in connection with the $1.7 million Hammond raised from 30 corporations to help 24 GOP House candidates.

For future campaigns, corporate executives will have to be careful, but as Hammond said Tuesday, the "right of corporations and associations to inform the public on how their elected officials represent them are completely upheld."

The Texas Legislature enacted its first ban on corporate campaign contributions in 1905. Later, the rights of corporate and union executives and their supporters as individuals to make themselves heard was protected by the use of political action committees, which could collect voluntary personal campaign contributions — but not money from corporate or union treasuries.

But the courts in the Texas Association of Business case have held that corporations and unions have free speech rights that allow them to spend money on campaigns commenting on individual officeholders or candidates , as long as they don't expressly advocate their election or defeat.

So, if you thought the Legislature was already dominated by business interests, just wait. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Austin American-Statesman: Business Group Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges from 2002 Election

The Texas Association of Business pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law, six years after helping elect a slate of Republican lawmakers to the Texas Legislature and will pay a $10,000 fine. Craig McDonald called the fine, "a small price to pay for stealing an election that profoundly reconfigured Texas politics--and even that of the nation as a whole."Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman

Texas Association of Business pays $10,000 fine for misdemeanor
after six-year investigation by Travis County district attorney.


By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The state's largest business organization pleaded guilty Tuesday to violating campaign finance law, six years after helping elect a slate of Republican lawmakers to the Texas Legislature.

As part of the settlement, the Texas Association of Business pleaded guilty in District Court in Austin to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful direct campaign expenditure and agreed to pay a $10,000 fine.
Rodolfo Gonzalez/American-Statesman
After Texas Association of Business President Bill Hammond, right, pleaded guilty in court in Austin, he stood with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and issued an apology. Later, though, he lashed out at Earle.

Rodolfo Gonzalez/American-Statesman
Bill Hammond, center, president of Texas Association of Business, pleaded guilty Tuesday in District Court in Austin to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge. He and his lawyers, Roy Minton, far left, and Joe Turner, listen to Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox during the proceedings.


The agreement involved the last of the criminal charges against the Texas Association of Business stemming from an investigation by Travis County prosecutors that began shortly after the November 2002 elections.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle claimed victory Tuesday for Texas taxpayers, but he didn't get what he'd initially sought: felony convictions for unlawful political contributions by a corporation. Earle, who retires in January, has drawn both praise and criticism for pursuing felony charges against the organization.

"It has been a long, hard slog, but it has been worth it," Earle said. "The real issue is whether we're going to have a democracy where the people count, or rule by the wealthy where corporations count."

Earle accused the trade association, which is a corporation, of making illegal corporate donations to its political action committee by paying the salaries of two employees as they traveled the state, appearing at fundraisers and other events, urging voters to support 24 state GOP candidates, speaking to the news media on behalf of the candidates and consulting on strategy.

Those two employees were association President Bill Hammond and the association's former lobbyist, Jack Campbell.

State law generally prohibits the spending of corporate money in connection with a political campaign.

"I now recognize that while working as a salaried employee of the Texas Association of Business, it was a violation of the law to expressly advocate for the election of these candidates," Hammond told reporters Tuesday, standing beside Earle and reading from a court-mandated statement. "I take full responsibility for my actions. I apologize to the voters of Texas and to the members of the Texas Association of Business."

The guilty plea involved the charges against the association relating to Hammond's activities. Felony charges relating to Campbell's activities were dropped Tuesday with an agreement that they can be re-filed if the association violates the law in the next year.

Later in the day, Hammond accused the district attorney of going on a politically motivated quest.

"Six years of political persecution by Ronnie Earle has come to an end with a misdemeanor over a bookkeeping error," Hammond said. "Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that could have been used to protect our streets have been wasted."

Asked about the cost of the investigation, Gregg Cox, director of the district attorney's public integrity unit, said it was "really impossible to estimate" because employees working on the investigation simultaneously worked on others as well. Joe Turner, a lawyer for the association, called on the Legislature to clarify "this treacherous area of the law," which he said can be confusing for people like Hammond who must wear multiple hats: salaried employee, representative of a political action committee and citizen.

"This is an accounting nightmare," Turner said.

But Earle argued that state campaign finance law is not vague.

"The law in Texas is clear," Earle said. "Texas citizens, the people of Texas, are entitled to a voice in democracy; corporations are not, just as they are not entitled to vote."

Earle said that the facts supported a felony but that he's pleased with the agreement. The punishment for a felony would have been a $20,000 fine, Earle said. "The difference between $10,000 and $20,000 when you factor in the cost of the trial ... was simply not worth the cost-benefit analysis," Earle said.

Turner said a felony charge was "the line in the desert" that the association wasn't willing to cross in negotiating a plea agreement.

"There's no way in the world we felt like they were responsible for a felony conviction in this case," Turner said.

State District Judge Mike Lynch earlier had dismissed indictments accusing the organization of illegally spending $1.7 million in corporate money to send 4 million mailers to Texas voters in 2002.

Lynch ruled that the mailers were protected free speech not covered by the ban against corporate money in campaigns. But Lynch said last month that the group should stand trial on the charges that it illegally paid the salaries of Hammond and Campbell with corporate money.

In addition to their duties for the association, Hammond and Campbell also directed the activities of the association's political action committee, which endorsed the 24 candidates and raised money for them.

Prosecutors argued that the association's political committee should have paid a portion of the two men's salaries with campaign donations, not corporate dollars, when they were politicking.

In a related case, Earle is continuing to pursue felony money-laundering charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two campaign associates. They are accused of laundering corporation money into political donations for the same 2002 legislative campaigns that the business association was involved in.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

TPJ, Reform Groups Seek Changes from 54 Corporations That Gave to TAB & TRMPAC

Four Texas government reform groups today called upon the CEOs and outside directors of 54 corporations that used corporate funds to influence Texas’ 2002 state elections to adopt policies that would prohibit such actions in the future. All 54 made direct corporate expenditures to either TAB or TRMPAC.

TPJ, Reform Groups Seek Changes
from 54 Corporations That Gave to TAB & TRMPAC


For Immediate Release:
For More Information Contact:
November 10, 2005
Craig McDonald, 512-472-9770
Download PDF

Austin, TX: Four Texas government reform groups today called upon the CEOs and outside directors of 54 corporations that used corporate funds to influence Texas’ 2002 state elections to adopt policies that would prohibit such actions in the future. All 54 made direct corporate expenditures to either TAB or TRMPAC.

Read the media release and accompanying documents:

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Lobby Watch:
25 Texans Lobbied In 2002 for Multiple TAB Donors

Recent criminal indictments accuse the Texas Association of Business (TAB) of illegally influencing Texas’ 2002 elections with almost $1.7 million in corporate funds. Of the 30 corporations that funded this alleged crime, 25 spent up to $6.3 million that year to take out 182 Texas lobby contracts.
Read the Lobby Watch

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Editorial: Paying a premium to ensure victory for the Texas GOP

The Texas Association of Business might have given Texans an unintended look at just why there is a law against corporations contributing to political campaigns. And if it beats back all the civil lawsuits and criminal investigations, consumers will discover what living under a corporately controlled state government is really like.

Paying a premium to ensure victory for the Texas GOP

By Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board
Sunday, July 24, 2005

The Texas Association of Business might have given Texans an unintended look at just why there is a law against corporations contributing to political campaigns. And if it beats back all the civil lawsuits and criminal investigations, consumers will discover what living under a corporately controlled state government is really like.

As reported by this newspaper's Laylan Copelin in Friday's editions, insurers contributed at least $580,000, and possibly much more, of the $1.7 million raised by the business association's political campaign in the 2002 legislative races. The association has tried to keep the names of contributors, and how much each contributed, secret. But Copelin pieced together a large part of the picture from court documents.

If you think this has nothing to do with you, congratulations: You must be one of the few Texans satisfied that your homeowners' insurance premium is reasonably priced, even if it provides far less coverage than it did before 2003.

The business association's 2002 campaign was, under any plain reading of the law, illegal because it accepted secret donations from corporations that were then spent on behalf of Republican legislative candidates. State law bars corporations from contributing to election campaigns, and it requires that all campaign contributions be public.

But the business association argues that its ads never used certain "magic words" such as "elect," so that ‹ technically ‹ they weren't election ads. And because the ads were not campaign ads, the association argues, it is not required to reveal its donors.

None of this stopped the association from bragging, after its 2002 campaign, that it "blew the doors off the November 5 general election using an unprecedented show of muscle that featured political contributions and a massive voter education drive" to elect a slate of highly pro-business candidates.

As Copelin showed in his story Friday, one of the biggest secret contributors to the association's campaign was the insurance industry, which was facing a firestorm of public anger over huge increases in homeowners' premiums. The industry was also under assault because of rising medical malpractice premiums. And, with the rest of the business community, it wanted to make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to sue and win judgments against them.

The Legislature that convened in January 2003 faced that homeowners' anger and ultimately adopted some reforms. Most companies cut their premiums somewhat, though only under pressure from the insurance commissioner. What we'll never know is whether the Legislature would have been more responsive to consumer interests had fewer of its members depended, indirectly, on insurance industry campaign contributions. The 2003 Legislature also enacted landmark tort reform legislation that also helped insurers.

This year there was an effort in the Legislature to remove any supposed loopholes from state election law regarding the ban on corporate contributions. But the legislation died in a House committee: Why bite the business hand that feeds you?

If the business association wins its lawsuits and thwarts any criminal charges, a whole new era of corporate campaign contributions will begin, and none of it will be given with the average Texan in mind. If you don't think so, take another look at your homeowners' insurance premium.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Houston Chronicle: Records: TAB officials wished to sway races

Documents released in a civil lawsuit Friday show that Texas Association of Business officials were trying to influence the outcome of state House races when they ran a $1.7 million "voter education project" paid for with corporate money.

Records: TAB officials wished to sway races

But the group says that its ads did not violate any election law

By R.G. RATCLIFFE, Houston Chronicle
Saturday, June 25, 2005

AUSTIN - Documents released in a civil lawsuit Friday show that Texas Association of Business officials were trying to influence the outcome of state House races when they ran a $1.7 million "voter education project" paid for with corporate money.

"Of the nine incumbents ... we went after, seven were defeated. This is huge news," a TAB executive said in a 2002 e-mail the day after the group helped Republicans win control of the Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.

TAB officials have claimed that their corporate spending was meant to educate voters, not affect elections.

TAB and its president, Bill Hammond, have been part of a 2 1/2 -year state criminal investigation into whether state election law was violated when corporate money was used to influence the 2002 elections. TAB targeted 22 House races; Republican candidates won 18.

TAB is the umbrella organization for Texas' local Chambers of Commerce.

Indictments have been returned against three associates of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in connection with how corporate money was spent by the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority. TRMPAC coordinated its activities with TAB. The TRMPAC defendants say they are innocent.

In addition to the criminal investigation, TAB and TRMPAC face multiple lawsuits brought by losing Democratic candidates.

The records were released in a lawsuit brought by losing Austin Democrat James Sylvester. TAB had fought release of the records, and the Texas Supreme Court sat on the appeal for 17 months before ruling against TAB on June 10.

TAB lawyer Andy Taylor said the organization did not violate the state law banning the use of corporate money to influence elections because none of its direct mail or television advertising ever advocated the election or defeat of a candidate.

He said the fact that TAB executives wanted to influence the elections is irrelevant to the case.

"On no occasion did we ever use words of 'vote for' or 'vote against' in these ads," Taylor said. "It's the content of the speech, not the intention of the speaker, that counts for First Amendment purposes."

Actions and words

Taylor said TAB was trying to "shed light on candidates' positions on the issues."

But plaintiff attorney Randall "Buck" Wood said the documents show TAB was, under the law, acting like a political action committee.

"The real test is whether a citizen of ordinary intelligence can determine whether they (the ads) were meant to elect or defeat a candidate," Wood said.

The investigations and lawsuits began shortly after Hammond bragged in the TAB newsletter after the 2002 elections that he had used $1.9 million in corporate money to help win control of the House.

The records released Friday show the amount of corporate money involved actually was $1.7 million, from 42 donations. The number of donors is thought to be fewer than 42.

The names of the donors were kept secret. Wood said he will go back to court to seek the names. The corporations can be subject to fines of double the amount of their contribution if it is found to have been made illegally.

The largest contribution was $250,000 from a corporation that was not a member of TAB; $480,000 in corporate cash came from companies that were not members of TAB.

That is significant because organizations such as TAB have additional First Amendment free speech protections if they are taking political action just among their members.

Taylor estimated he released about 20,000 pages of documents to Wood.

TAB allowed the Houston Chronicle to survey the documents which showed the group's officials wanted to influence the 2002 elections.

An August 2002 letter to potential corporate donors by Hammond noted the organization had used corporate money to influence some of the primary elections that year.

"Of the 12 runoffs we targeted, nine were successful," Hammond said.

The letter said there were at least "15 races that we plan to target" in the general election.

A September 2002 solicitation by Hammond asked corporations "in the insurance industry to write a check for $50,000 or $100,000 to the TAB voter education project."

Another e-mail by TAB executive Jack Campbell was sent to then-Republican House candidate Todd Baxter with a copy of a corporate-financed direct-mail piece that was sent out attacking incumbent Rep. Ann Kitchen, D-Austin.

"This was sent out yesterday," Campbell said.

Taylor said the e-mail does not show coordination between TAB and Baxter. He said the e-mail shows that TAB tried to keep Baxter abreast of its actions in his race.

Other accusations

On another occasion, TRMPAC Executive Director John Colyandro sent Hammond an e-mail asking for approval on the script for a television commercial attacking incumbent Rep. John Mabry, D-Waco, and praising his Republican opponent, Holt Getterman.

"We need to get this into production today," Colyandro said.

Taylor said TAB paid for a television commercial in the Mabry race with TAB-raised corporate money, but he did not know if it was the ad mentioned in Colyandro's e-mail.

Colyandro has been indicted on a charge of accepting illegal corporate money for TRMPAC. He is contesting that charge.

In an unrelated lawsuit, state District Judge Joe Hart last month ruled that TRMPAC's treasurer, Bill Ceverha, violated state election law by not disclosing the corporate money the group raised.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Associated Press: Texas high court tells TAB to give up donor information

The Texas Association of Business, accused of illegally soliciting and using $1.9 million of corporate money in 2002 statehouse elections, must give their accusers information about the donations, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Texas high court tells TAB to give up donor information

By BRANDI GRISSOM, Associated Press
June 10, 2005

The Texas Association of Business, accused of illegally soliciting and using $1.9 million of corporate money in 2002 statehouse elections, must give their accusers information about the donations, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Those alleging wrongdoing are some 2002 Democratic candidates who lost their races. The TAB must give the candidates' attorneys a list of how many businesses donated to the group and how much each donated.

"It means everything for the future of the case," said attorney Buck Wood, adding the information will be used to investigate which companies donated money to TAB and how that money was used.

Democrats contend the association, along with Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, worked together to funnel corporate money into Texas House races in 2002. Attorneys for TAB and TRMPAC argue the money the groups raised was used legally.

The business association spent money on millions of mailers it sent to voters. Andy Taylor, attorney for the association, argued the mailers were only meant to educate voters about issues, not urge them to vote for any particular candidate.

Texas law prohibits the use of corporate money in political campaigns. It can be used only for administrative purposes, such as office overhead, by a political committee.

Bill Hammond, the association president, once boasted that the nearly $2 million his group raised supported Republican candidates in 2002 legislative campaigns.

"The public information program that TAB produced in 2002 is 100 percent legal, and the court's ruling does not change that fact," Taylor said.

A judge ordered the association a year-and-a-half ago to give up the donor information. Taylor said he appealed the decision because he worried doing so would reveal the names of business donors.

"We enjoy the right to band together and criticize governmental and elected officials without fear of retribution or prosecution," Taylor said.

Attorneys for the Democrats hope the information will help them unravel what they believe was a conspiracy between TAB and TRMPAC in 2002 to elect a majority of Republicans in the Texas House who would then elect Midland Republican Tom Craddick to lead the chamber. Craddick then supported a plan by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, the redraw Texas congressional districts to send a majority of Republicans to Washington for the first time in modern history.

"We know they worked together, so every bit of information is going to be useful," said Cris Feldman, an attorney for Democrats suing TRMPAC. A judge in that case ruled in May that contributions and expenditures by the political action committee should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission. That ruling meant that Bill Ceverha, treasurer of TRMPAC, will have to pay $196,660 in damages.

Wood said the Democrat candidates he represents could get at least double the $1.9 million the association spent if a court rules in their favor.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

AAS: Supreme Court: Business organization must answer questions

The Texas Association of Business must answer questions about how it raised and spent $1.9 million in secret corporate money that's been at the center of civil lawsuits and a criminal investigation for almost three years, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Texas Association of Business had fought questions about 2002 campaign


By Laylan Copelin, Austin American-Statesman
Saturday, June 11, 2005

The Texas Association of Business must answer questions about how it raised and spent $1.9 million in secret corporate money that's been at the center of civil lawsuits and a criminal investigation for almost three years, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The all-Republican court denied the association's pretrial maneuver to block the questions without comment, but not until it had frozen attempts by Democrats to ask questions in the politically charged lawsuit for almost 18 months.

The decision is a victory for Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who is suing the state's largest business organization on behalf of James Sylvester, an Austin Democrat who lost a 2002 bid for the Texas House.

In 2002, the Texas Association of Business and Texans for a Republican Majority spent corporate money to help elect a Republican majority in the Texas House of Representatives, which, in turn, supported a pro-business, anti-tax agenda that included redrawing congressional boundaries to favor Republicans.

State law generally prohibits spending corporate or union money on campaign activity.

The business organization sent 4 million mail pieces to voters in two dozen crucial legislative districts without disclosing its corporate donors.

Association President Bill Hammond contended that the mail pieces were beyond state campaign finance laws, saying they only educated voters about issues without encouraging them to support or oppose candidates.

The association's post-election newsletter bragged that the organization "blew the doors" off the election by using its "unprecedented show of muscle." It also offered written testimonials from Republican candidates who credited the organization with making the difference in their victories.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is investigating the statewide business group. Several lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages also are pending.

With his lawsuit, Wood is trying to prove that the business group functioned as a de facto political action committee that broke state law by raising and spending corporate money on the election, then failed to report it to state authorities.

"Our information is that a small number of corporations gave most of the money," Wood said. "We're claiming they created a PAC with the primary purpose of defeating or helping candidates."

Guarding donors

Although Hammond has refused to disclose the identity of the association's corporate donors, three were named last year by a source with knowledge of the organization's operations: AT&T Corp. and insurance companies Cigna Corp. and Aetna Inc.

Wood's suit names as defendants the business association, Hammond, the undisclosed corporate donors and "John Doe conspirators."

For tactical reasons, Wood did not ask the business group to identify its donors, side-stepping one of its First Amendment defenses.

Instead, Wood wants to gauge the scope of the mail campaign by learning the number of donations, the amounts and the dates the money was given. He also wants to know who planned and executed the mail campaign. His request includes documents ranging from the association's budget to letters soliciting donations.

In January 2004, state District Judge John Dietz ruled that the business group must provide the information, but the organization appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, where the pretrial motion sat for almost 18 months.

Houston lawyer Andy Taylor said Friday that the association would comply with the court's order but added that it does not change the organization's defense.

"Our public information program was well within the letter and the spirit of the law," Taylor said. "The court's ruling doesn't change that fact. Importantly, the identity of our donors will continue to be protected."

Wood eventually might uncover the identity of the donors if he can convince a judge that the business association was functioning as a political committee.

He said a political committee has no First Amendment rights, an interpretation that state District Judge Joe Hart seemed to back last month.

In a separate lawsuit, Hart ruled that the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political committee created by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, broke the law when it failed to report corporate money it spent on campaign activity.

A delayed defeat

The controversy over the use of corporate money in the 2002 elections began after Hammond boasted of his group's unprecedented use of the money to mail both positive and negative messages to voters. He explained that he used corporate money because it was easier to raise than money from individuals, the method typically used in campaigns.

Friday's decision is another defeat in a string of attempts to keep the business organization from disclosing information about its mail campaign.

For a year, the Texas Association of Business fought prosecutors' attempts to present information to a grand jury. Some of its officials even went to jail briefly for contempt of court.

Eventually the group turned over its documents, and some of its staffers appeared before a grand jury after courts from the district level to the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the investigation.

This spring, Hammond was subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit against Texans for a Republican Majority.

Hammond testified that he shared information, including mailers, with John Colyandro, the executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority. But Hammond contradicted testimony that the business group split up responsibilities for campaigns with Colyandro's group and Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Rep. Denny Should Step Aside In Corporate-Reform Fight Committee Chair Again Appears To Protect Corporate Money That Aided Her Election

“Rep. Mary Denny is dragging her feet on a reform bill to ban unregulated ‘issue ads’ in the weeks preceding an election--the very kind of ads that aided Rep. Denny’s 2002 reelection,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “A bipartisan reform bill has languished in Denny’s House Elections Committee for more than seven weeks. Through inaction, this member of Speaker Craddick’s leadership team has the power to quietly kill HB 1348.”

Rep. Denny Should Step Aside In Corporate-Reform Fight
Committee Chair Again Appears To Protect Corporate Money That Aided Her Election

For Immediate Release:
For More Information Contact:
April 15, 2005
Craig McDonald, 512-472-9770

“Rep. Mary Denny is dragging her feet on a reform bill to ban unregulated ‘issue ads’ in the weeks preceding an election--the very kind of ads that aided Rep. Denny’s 2002 reelection,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “A bipartisan reform bill has languished in Denny’s House Elections Committee for more than seven weeks. Through inaction, this member of Speaker Craddick’s leadership team has the power to quietly kill HB 1348.”

“Those who benefited from corporate electioneering by TRMPAC and TAB, which includes Denny, Elections Committee Vice-chair Dwayne Bohac and Rep. Bryan Hughes, the sub-committee chairman in charge of HB 1348, have a conflict of interest with this legislation. They need to get out of the way of House members who want to ban secretive attack ads once and for all. If Rep. Denny or other members do not want to bite the corporate hand that fed them, then they should leave this bill to those who are free of conflicts. HB 1348 is co-sponsored by 63 Democrats and 30 Republicans, yet Denny has said the bill's prospects are 'iffy'.”

“Evidence produced in a recent civil trial revealed that TRMPAC secretly paid $10,200 for issue-ad mailers that promoted the House campaigns of Reps. Denny and Jerry Madden. These TRMPAC mailers—which misleadingly appeared to have been paid for by the TAB—were mailed shortly before the 2002 primary. This mailer helped Rep. Denny overcome a strong primary challenge from Clayton Downing, who won 40 percent of the vote. HB 1348 would ban such issue ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.”

“Since TAB and TRMPAC failed to report their corporate expenditures as contributions to Texas regulators, the Denny campaign may have received additional aid from these groups. The Denny campaign reported raising $105,961 in the 2002 cycle, with most of this money arriving before the primary. Denny took $15,000--14 percent of all her money--from donors who also gave to TRMPAC. Donors who gave to TRMPAC or TAB gave Denny $16,500, or 16 percent of her 2002 war chest.”

“Denny’s inaction is doubly disturbing given the fact that she authored a bill earlier this session that would interfere with local prosecutors who try to enforce state election law violations. That Denny bill [HB 913] appeared to target criminal probes such as the pending one that Travis County prosecutors launched into how Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) and the Texas Association of Business (TAB) used corporate money to influence Texas’ 2002 House elections. Rep. Denny’s own 2002 reelection campaign benefited from legally questionable expenditures of corporate money by both TRMPAC and TAB.”


Sixteen Percent of Denny's 2002 War Chest
Came From Donors Who Also Supported TRM or TAB

ContributorAmount To
TRMPAC
in '02
Amount
To TAB
in '02
Amount
To Denny
in '02
Bob Perry (Perry Homes)$165,000$105,000$1,000
Farmers Insurance PAC$150,000$0$500
Louis Beecherl, Jr. (Beecherl Investments)$35,000$0$2,000
J. Ralph Ellis/Belmont Oil$25,000$0$1,000
Philip Morris PAC$25,000$0$500
Reliant Energy PAC$25,000$0$500
Texas Association of Business BACPAC$13,126$0$500
Ben Streusand, Jr. (Home Loan Corp.)$10,000$0$2,000
Locke Liddell & Sapp$500$0$1,500
Gulf States Toyota PAC$250$0$1,000
Rep. Kenny Marchant$250$0$500
Texans for Lawsuit Reform*$57,000$3,000
Compass Bancshares PAC$0$1,000
CIGNA PAC$0$15,000$250
Valor TELPAC$0$1,500$500
American Insurance Assoc. PAC$0$650$250
Bracewell Patterson$0$500$500
TOTALS: $449,126$179,650$16,500

*TLR coordinated strategy with TRM in the 2002 campaign; the TRM probe subpoenaed its PAC director.
†TRM-backed candidates received $22,000 from Compass Bancshares PAC four days after TRM solicited a Compass executive.

Note: TAB discloses contributions to its PAC, which reported spending $275,956 in the 2002 election. But TAB has refused to disclose corporate donors to a separate slush fund that spent $1.9 million on issue ads in the 2002 election cycle. Several PACs that gave to that slush fund independently reported their contributions to the Texas Ethics Commission. Those disclosed contributions are included in this table.

Friday, April 1, 2005

Austin American-Statesman: Business group sued again

With its defense in one lawsuit bolstered by more than a year of inaction by the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, the state's largest business organization now faces a second battle front over its 2002 election activities for the Republican Party. Austin lawyer Buck Wood on Thursday added the Texas Association of Business and its president, Bill Hammond, to a second, slow-moving lawsuit.

Business group sued again

Lawsuit says TAB, GOP groups were in cahoots in 2002 election.

BY Laylan Copelin, Austin American-Statesman
Friday, April 1, 2005

With its defense in one lawsuit bolstered by more than a year of inaction by the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, the state's largest business organization now faces a second battle front over its 2002 election activities for the Republican Party.

Austin lawyer Buck Wood on Thursday added the Texas Association of Business and its president, Bill Hammond, to a second, slow-moving lawsuit.

They are accused in the second lawsuit of conspiring with Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee to elect Republicans to the Texas House of Representatives, in part, based on whether the candidates supported Speaker Tom Craddick.

The association also is accused of violating election laws by spending $1.9 million of corporate money on mailers to voters.

If this sounds like "Groundhog Day," the Bill Murray movie in which his character relives the same day over and over again, it should. Those same allegations against TAB have appeared in news reports for a couple of years and were repeated in a civil trial just completed against Texans for a Republican Majority. A judge's ruling in that case is pending.

Thursday's legal maneuver could put the Texas Association of Business where officials for Texans for a Republican Majority have been for the past two years: Answering questions in a civil lawsuit even as prosecutors investigate allegations that they violated state election laws.

Association lawyer Andy Taylor stalled the first lawsuit brought by Wood on behalf of Democrats by arguing his client's free speech rights.

State law prohibits spending corporate money on campaigns.

However Taylor has argued that the business group didn't violate the law because the mailers it sent to voters were educational, not political.

By raising the conspiracy issue, Wood aims to sidestep the free speech argument Taylor used in his appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

For 14 months, the high court, without explanation, has not ruled on preliminary issues about whether Hammond has to answer Wood's questions or produce certain evidence in his original lawsuit.

In the new pleadings, Wood accuses the two groups of coordinating their campaign efforts to maximize their effect on the election, including timing their ads and supporting candidates based on whom those candidates supported for the Texas speaker.

The lawsuit claims the association's efforts were an illegal campaign contribution to Texans for a Republican Majority.

Taylor argued that state law does not include the concept of illegal coordination: "These unfounded claims by defeated candidates are dead on arrival."

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Lobby Watch:
TAB Chief Failed To Register as Racetrack Slots Lobbyist

Last week, racetrack lobbyist Elton Bomer told the Dallas Morning News that two years ago the racing industry paid the Texas Association of Business (TAB) between $100,000 and $150,000 to promote the legalization of video slot machines at Texas racetracks. Bomer said that TAB President Bill Hammond returned to the industry last month, offering to continue TAB’s support for racetrack slots.
Read the Lobby Watch

Monday, October 18, 2004

AAS: Getting to the truth behind business group's donations

Evidence continues to mount that the Texas Association of Business attack-ad campaign in 2002 was anything but what its leaders say it was an uncoordinated project to educate voters about issues.

Getting to the truth behind business group's donations

EDITORIAL BOARD, Austin American-Statesman
Monday, October 18, 2004

Evidence continues to mount that the Texas Association of Business attack-ad campaign in 2002 was anything but what its leaders say it was an uncoordinated project to educate voters about issues.

A Sunday article by the American-Statesman's Laylan Copelin is further indication that the smear campaign, funded by $1.9 million in secret corporate donations, was coordinated with candidates. It is illegal in Texas for corporations to support candidates, which is why TAB is under investigation in the 2002 election.

It strains credulity to believe that the characters involved in this political play weren't trying to help candidates when they cooked up their scheme. And whether they violated state law or not, they broke faith with the spirit of the law intended to keep corporations from buying elections.

This is a complicated story, involving secret corporate donations, the state's largest business lobby and U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee. But at its core, it was a concerted effort to make sure Republicans became a solid majority in the Legislature, and would then create new GOP congressional districts to enhance DeLay's power in Washington.

It worked. As the TAB's Web site crowed after the 2002 election, their effort "blew the doors off the November 5 general election using an unprecedented show of muscle that featured political contributions and a massive voter education drive."

But that drive strained the bonds of legality, if not breaking them. The four million pieces of campaign literature paid for by TAB included the names and pictures of the political opponents being attacked. And as the Sunday article highlighted, those ads were integrated with individual campaigns.

Although the legality of the TAB ads and DeLay's PAC money will be determined in the courts, these incidents point to serious problems with the state's campaign finance and ethics laws. But this story also includes solutions.

TAB's pricey attorneys can argue all they want to that the ad campaign was for voter education. But including names, pictures and records of individual opponents is powerful testimony to the contrary. Texas law should spell out that political ads containing a candidate's name and picture cannot be considered a voter education effort.

Although the law now prohibits corporations from donating to candidates, the TAB campaign shows that a willing advocate can stretch the issue ads loophole to the point of absurdity. That could be avoided by requiring corporations to disclose any and all contributions.

There is much for the 2005 Legislature to weigh as it considers needed reform in Texas' campaign finance and ethics laws.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

AAS: Details of secretly funded mail effort shared with campaign

Two years into a criminal investigation of the Texas Association of Business, documents show that the group's plans to mail to voters ads paid for with corporate money were shared with a campaign, raising questions about whether the association's ads were illegal political mail.

Details of secretly funded mail effort shared with campaign

Lawyers debate whether evidence of coordination is enough to force disclosure of corporate donors.

By Laylan Copelin, Austin American-Statesman
October 17, 2004

Two years into a criminal investigation of the Texas Association of Business, documents show that the group's plans to mail to voters ads paid for with corporate money were shared with a campaign, raising questions about whether the association's ads were illegal political mail.

Consultant Kevin Brannon, who worked for Texans for a Republican Majority while advising San Antonio legislative candidate Ken Mercer, discussed the business association's mailings with Mercer and his campaign manager, according to documents obtained by the Austin American-Statesman. Brannon's handwritten notes also show that he knew about two last-minute attack ads prepared for the association and a donor who wanted to finance TAB mailings for Mercer.

Gene Ryder, Mercer's campaign manager, confirmed the discussions with Brannon, saying Brannon would routinely tell the campaign when the association's mailings were being sent.

TAB officials deny any wrongdoing.

As previously reported, Brannon's boss, John Colyandro, executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, was working with TAB President Bill Hammond, among others, on the TAB mail pieces being sent to Mercer's San Antonio voters. Brannon and Colyandro talked by phone almost daily during the last weeks of the campaign, according to Brannon's phone records.

State law prohibits corporate money from being spent on campaigns, but Hammond always has contended that the association's direct mailings were issue ads and not intended to elect or defeat a candidate. He has refused to identify the corporations that paid for the $1.9 million worth of mail sent to voters in two-dozen legislative districts in 2002. He says the issue ads were protected free speech and not regulated by state campaign finance laws, including the requirement that donors be publicly disclosed.

Evidence of coordination between the business group and a campaign would undercut that legal argument, lawyers on both sides agree.

However, Andy Taylor, a Houston lawyer representing TAB in a criminal investigation and civil litigation over the ads, says the documents do not show that a TAB official communicated with the campaign about the ads. He said Hammond never met Brannon, and the consultant is not a member of the state's largest business organization.

"No one at TAB coordinated with any candidate at any time," Taylor said.

Ryder confirmed that Mercer's campaign talked to Hammond but said it was only generally about how the race was shaping up. He said Brannon, who advised Mercer on direct mail and other topics, was his only contact on the TAB mail pieces.

"He was the person we talked to," Ryder said of Brannon. "Did he talk to somebody else? I'm sure he did."

Austin lawyer Cris Feldman, who has sued Texans for Republican Majority and the Texas Association of Business on behalf of Democrats, said the documents, Ryder's comments and Colyandro's role in creating TAB mail pieces show how the groups coordinated their efforts with campaigns.

"This is conclusive evidence of coordination," Feldman said. "TAB made direct corporate contributions to the campaigns in blatant violation of state law."

Brannon and Mercer, who was elected in 2002 and is running for re-election, did not return phone calls for comment.

For two years, TAB and Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, to help Republicans capture the Legislature, have been at the center of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's investigation into whether they spent corporate money illegally.

Last month, a Travis County grand jury indicted Colyandro, along with two other DeLay associates and eight corporations, on various felony violations of state campaign finance laws. Colyandro also was indicted on a charge of laundering corporate money into legal donations from individuals.

The investigation into the Texas Association of Business and other groups that used corporate money continues.

Eyes and ears

Texans for a Republican Majority paid Brannon to be the committee's eyes and ears.

He evaluated legislative candidates, collected their confidential campaign plans and advised them how to win.

Together, Brannon and Colyandro recommended which legislative candidates the political committee should support.

In the final weeks of the campaign, as previously reported, Colyandro was attending strategy meetings led by lobbyist Mike Toomey, who later became Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff, where TAB's mailings were created. Also attending were representatives of TAB, publicist Chuck McDonald and his staff, and Matt Welch with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a group that generally supported Republican candidates in 2002.

While TAB added the corporate ads to the mix, Texans for Lawsuit Reform donated non-corporate money to candidates, including paying for mailers for Mercer. Texans for a Republican Majority spent $1.5 million on the two dozen legislative campaigns, including about $900,000 in non-corporate donations to candidates and another $600,000 of corporate money for pollsters, phone banks and consultants such as Brannon.

Colyandro also oversaw the creation of one of TAB's attack pieces against Mercer's opponent and, according to Brannon's documents, faxed Brannon a copy of another attack ad financed by Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

Colyandro, through his lawyer, declined to comment.

While Colyandro was working with TAB, Brannon was traveling the state, monitoring the campaigns for Texans for a Republican Majority.

By Aug. 1, 2002, the political committee began paying Brannon an extra $5,000 a month with non-corporate money to work directly with three campaigns, including Mercer's. The committee reported Brannon's services as an in-kind campaign contribution.

Brannon advised the Mercer campaign on everything from raising money to getting out its message. Ryder said Brannon was particularly involved in advising the campaign on the timing and techniques of its mail pieces.

On Sept. 18, 2002, Brannon flew from Dallas to San Antonio for a strategy meeting with Ryder and Mercer, according to Brannon's travel records.

Included on the one-page agenda was an item, "TAB Mailing." It was the first time Ryder had heard that the state's largest business organization would weigh in with direct mail.

As Ryder recalls it, Brannon told them that the business association would mail ads to voters in the San Antonio district if Mercer didn't object.

Ryder said Mercer campaign was happy to have support from a pro-business group but never contacted TAB about it.

"It was consent by silence," Ryder explained.

The Mercer campaign, like those of other Republican legislative candidates, gave Brannon its confidential campaign plans, including a schedule of when its direct mail would go to voters.

Ryder said TAB could gather information on Mercer from the campaign's Web site but added, "We also had given stuff to Kevin" about Mercer's positions on issues.

Ryder said Brannon would tell the Mercer campaign the week that the TAB mail pieces were arriving in voters' mailboxes. But Ryder said he didn't see the pieces ahead of time.

For Mercer's campaign, Brannon's documents included handwritten notes about everything from financing to endorsements to special guests at campaign events. (Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated President Clinton, headlined one Mercer event.)

In July 2002, Brannon wrote, "1st donor wants to sponsor mailing via TABCC." The initials stand for Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce, the former name of the TAB. The donor is not identified.

Another note refers to a "hit piece," including details about the campaign's other mail pieces. It also notes, "TAB – 2 neg."

Ryder confirmed that the TAB notation referred to two TAB pieces attacking Mercer's opponent.

Claims contradicted

The Brannon-Mercer connection refutes earlier claims that no one contacted the campaigns about the group's direct-mail effort.

"Not a single dollar TAB spent on its educational campaign went directly to any campaign," Taylor said 20 months ago. "Nor was any candidate, their staff or surrogates contacted regarding their education efforts."

The 22 House candidates supported by TAB, including Mercer, echoed that statement shortly after the criminal investigation began.

When it was disclosed in May that Toomey was overseeing the creation of TAB ads with assistance from Colyandro and others, Taylor defended that practice, saying the law does not preclude cooperation between groups.

"Illegal coordination presupposes substantial contact between the sponsor of the ad and the benefited candidate, not political dialogues between political action committees," Taylor said.

In their court documents, prosecutors disagreed, arguing that TAB should not have worked on its mail program with other political action committees.

Ultimately, a Texas court will have to decide the definition of coordination and its significance to the case.

Last week Taylor said Hammond never intended for Brannon or any other campaign operative to have any information about the TAB mail program.

He said Hammond gave specific instructions to everyone at the ad meetings — Toomey, Colyandro, McDonald and Welch — not to discuss the mail pieces with candidates or their staffs.

Taylor defines coordination as "involving substantial discussion between the sponsor of the ad and the benefited candidate about the timing, content, medium and target audience of a particular ad."

That's slightly different from the way TAB's expert on campaign finance, Austin lawyer Ed Shack, defined it an advisory letter that TAB officials used as their official guideline.

Shack wrote that it was substantial discussion about any one of the four factors — timing, content, volume or intended audience.

More important, Taylor said Brannon is not considered a member of TAB, and the substantial discussion must occur between the sponsor of the ad (TAB) and a member of the campaign.

He added that Colyandro never shared the campaign's confidential plans, including dates for their mail pieces, with TAB.

TAB President "Bill (Hammond) refused to discuss anything of that sort," Taylor said. "He drew a line in the sand and said, 'We can't go there.' "

Saturday, April 3, 2004

Austin American Statesman: Prosecutor accuses business group of harassment

Travis District Attorney Ronnie Earle on Friday accused the Texas Association of Business of trying to choke off a grand jury investigation by harassing the prosecutor's office with frivolous requests for public records.

Says public records requests aimed at stalling inquiry into corporate money

By Laylan Copelin, April 3, 2004

Travis District Attorney Ronnie Earle on Friday accused the Texas Association of Business of trying to choke off a grand jury investigation by harassing the prosecutor's office with frivolous requests for public records.

Earle is investigating whether the state's largest business organization illegally used corporate donations to affect the 2002 legislative elections. Association lawyer Andy Taylor said he is looking for evidence that material from the grand jury might have been leaked.

At a news conference Friday, Earle released about a three-inch stack of what appeared to be innocuous e-mails and other public documents. He refused to release materials protected by grand jury secrecy, documents that would identify witnesses or the work product of his prosecutors. Earle, a Democrat, sent "representative samples" of those undisclosed materials to Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, to determine whether he has to release anything else.

Earle sidestepped questions about whether it makes him nervous to have the material reviewed by Abbott, who hired Taylor for outside work as well as used him as his transition chief when Abbott took office last year. Earle denied leaking secrets or coordinating his investigation with civil lawyers who are suing the Texas Association of Business. Abbott's office, in turn, said it would not leak any information it must review to determine whether it's a public document.

The cat-and-mouse game over the conduct of the investigation raises the stakes in an already high-stakes investigation that goes beyond the Texas Association of Business and its $1.9 million in ads financed by unnamed corporations. The grand jury also is investigating how Texans for a Republican Majority, chaired by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, spent $600,000 in corporate donations, and whether outside groups, such as the GOP political committee, improperly influenced the election of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland.

Likewise, Taylor has raised the specter of involving the state bar, federal prosecutors or a state district judge if he can substantiate a grand jury leak.

"These request are a cynical affront to public integrity and accountability," Earle said.

He said Taylor is trying to stall the investigation just as he did for almost a year, fighting the submission of evidence to the grand jury by appealing from the Travis County courthouse to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Now that they've run out of courts," Earle said, "they're resorting to frivolous open records requests." Taylor said the request is not frivolous.

"The thrust of what I requested are not documents that were kept secret, but documents that were secret but were leaked," Taylor said. "I want to see evidence of confidential grand jury information that he has leaked to the news media, partisan groups or fee-seeking plaintiffs attorneys."

On Friday afternoon, Taylor had not received the documents released by Earle, so he could not comment on them.

Taylor asked Earle to produce all evidence of contact between prosecutors and losing Democratic candidates, their lawyers who filed suit over the elections, Democratic Party leaders, and reporters and editors. His request followed a similar one by Tina Benkiser, the state Republican Party chairwoman.

At the press conference, Earle said the documents he released showed one contact between his office and Democratic Party officials, a request for an investigation that was forwarded to him because it involved misdemeanor allegations.

The records included a couple of contacts by Democratic candidates who lost to Republicans and are suing the Texas Association of Business. Former Austin Rep. Ann Kitchen sent Earle an e-mail detailing the association's solicitation of support from chambers of commerce, which included an update on the investigation written by Taylor.

Former Democratic legislative candidate Jim Sylvester, a collector of Boy Scouts memorabilia, inquired about Earle's collection.

Earle said the contacts between his office and outside lawyers were routine sharing of public records.

"We cannot and do not share information we have obtained through our investigation," Earle said. "We don't share our strategies or coordinate with them."

Earle said Taylor's request for the records cost taxpayers at least $12,000.

Taylor said that Earle has not provided a price tag for the year-long investigation: "While he is quick to criticize others for the cost of producing public documents controlled by his office, he refuses to explain just how much his partisan investigation against TAB is costing Texas taxpayers."

Friday, April 2, 2004

Lobby Watch:
Craddick-Tied PAC Cash Routed to Just 8 GOP House Candidates

Tom Craddick was the No. 1 donor to a Republican leadership PAC that funneled $176,500 directly into the 2002 war chests of eight House candidates—including seven backed by two political funds now under grand jury investigation.
Read the Lobby Watch

Thursday, March 4, 2004

Lobby Watch:
Legal Restrictions on Speaker Funds May Spawn the Use of Proxies

Anti-bribery provisions of the Speaker’s law severely limit the money that Speaker funds can raise and spend, including a prohibition on giving House candidates campaign money. Since successful House candidates elect the speaker, this well intended reform perversely favors speaker candidates who bend or break this law themselves or through political allies. Indeed, the current grand jury probe centers on $3.4 million in corporate and other funds that the Texas Association of Business and Texans for a Republican Majority PAC spent in 2002 to benefit 21 key House GOP candidates—16 of whom won.
Read the Lobby Watch

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Dollar Docket

Covering the TAB:
Secret Business Donors Demand Impunity, Again

The Texas Association of Business is seeking to quash legal probes into its $1.9 million “issue ads,” which helped tip the balance of power in the Texas House in 2002. Related business interests have given $1.6 million to Texas’ current high-court justices, supplying 15 percent of their total war chests.

Read Dollar Docket #33

Monday, December 15, 2003

Austin American Statesman: TAB defense gets crushed by court ruling on `magic words'

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on soft money last week, it also punctured the defense of a business lobby that solicited $1.9 million in secret corporate donations for an attack ad campaign last year.

TAB defense gets crushed by court ruling on `magic words'

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Monday, December 15, 2003

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on soft money last week, it also punctured the defense of a business lobby that solicited $1.9 million in secret corporate donations for an attack ad campaign last year.

A grand jury is investigating the campaign launched by Texas Association of Business President Bill Hammond last year to ensure the election of some two dozen pro-business legislators. It is illegal in Texas for corporations to fund political campaigns.

For a year, Hammond and TAB attorney Andy Taylor have argued that the ads were issue-oriented, and thus protected free speech because they avoided magic words, such as "vote for" or "vote against." The Supreme Court threw out the magic words defense in its ruling, saying there is no difference in an ad that says "defeat Jane Doe" and one that condemns Jane Doe's record and exhorts the public to tell her what you think.

Anyone who saw the TAB's vicious ad campaign in the weeks before the November 2002 general election would never mistake them for issue ads. They were the purest advocacy, and the TAB paid for them with secret corporate donations.

The high court's ruling said " . . . the presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully distinguish electioneering speech from a true issue ad." The issue ads paid for with unregulated soft money are "functionally identical" to advocacy ads subject to strict donation limits.

"Both were used to advocate the election or defeat of clearly identified federal candidates, even though the so-called issue ads eschewed the use of magic words."

Now that it is clear that the TAB defense has evaporated, should it come clean, acknowledge its mistake and pledge more honesty in future political campaigns? Absolutely. Will it? Most unlikely.

In fact, Hammond said before the Supreme Court decision that the TAB will use the same tactic in next year's elections, soliciting secret corporate money to run ads against candidates he thinks aren't sufficiently pro-business. "We intend to do it the same way," he said.

That's a bright red flag for prosecutors who care about the state law prohibiting corporate electioneering.

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Austin American Statesman: There's not magic in business group's legal defense, high court says

There's nothing magical about the "magic words" test that the Texas Association of Business has been using to defend its secretly financed advertising campaign in last year's elections, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday in a separate case.

There's not magic in business group's legal defense, high court says

Decision might affect investigation into TAB's ads

By Laylan Copelin, Austin American-Statesman
Thursday, December 11, 2003

There's nothing magical about the "magic words" test that the Texas Association of Business has been using to defend its secretly financed advertising campaign in last year's elections, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday in a separate case.

Upholding a new federal campaign finance law that enforces the broadest restrictions on campaign donations in nearly 30 years, the Supreme Court said that whether advertising uses magic words, such as "vote for" or "vote against," is "functionally meaningless."

That ruling cuts to the heart of the argument that the Texas business group has used against questions that it illegally used corporate donations to underwrite a $2 million advertising campaign in last year's state elections.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has convened a grand jury to investigate the group's advertising.

Lawyers for the association argue that its mail pieces were issue ads, not political ads, because they did not include the magic words. The business group has refused to disclose the names of the corporations that financed the ad campaign in two dozen legislative races, saying that the information is protected by the First Amendment.

In a 300-page opinion, the Supreme Court endorsed the key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including a ban on "soft money" and new rules limiting campaign-season political advertising.

In its opinion, the court also touched on the First Amendment defense and the magic words test, which can be traced to a footnote in a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

"Nor are we persuaded, independent of our precedents, that the First Amendment erects a rigid barrier between express advocacy and so-called issue advocacy," Wednesday's 5-4 opinion states. "That notion cannot be squared with our longstanding recognition that the presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully distinguish electioneering speech from a true issue ad."

The justices noted that testimony indicated that political professionals seldom use the magic words, even in overt political advertising.

"And although the resulting advertisements do not urge the viewer to vote for or against a candidate in so many words, they are no less clearly intended to influence the election," the court said.

Earle and Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who sued the business association on behalf of two candidates whom the group opposed, hailed the decision.

"This opinion takes away the shadow that TAB has tried to put over Texas law," Earle said.

"It obliterates the magic words test," Wood added.

Andy Taylor, the association's lawyer, disagreed, saying: "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholds TAB's position on free speech for state election law. . . . This bolsters our argument and underscores the appropriateness of the 'magic words' test in cases such as TAB's."

Taylor argued that Wednesday's decision interprets a federal law — not state law — that was enacted after the association's ad campaign. The association will contend that state law, unlike the federal campaign law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, is vague and overly broad, he said.

Wood said the state law echoes the intentions of federal law. Outside of the Texas flap, John Samples, a member of the Cato Institute in Washington saw Wednesday's decision as a blow to First Amendment protections of free speech.

"Far from protecting political freedom," he said, "a slim majority of the court has now expanded the power of Congress to regulate and to harass individuals and groups who criticize incumbents."