August 03, 2005
Bribery by not giving money

Apparently, State Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale is one of those people who really can't take no for an answer.

Van Arsdale, R-Tomball, had requested a campaign contribution from TX Friends of Time Warner Cable PAC in a July 19 letter. That was three days after Van Arsdale had voted for Senate Bill 21, a telecommunications bill opposed by the cable television industry.

Time Warner Regional President Ron McMillen's hand-written reply said: "Because of your vote in support of SB21 during the special session, our PAC committee cannot support you at this time."

SB21 died in the last special session, but an identical bill is pending before the House in the current special session.

Van Arsdale said the phrase "at this time" in McMillen's note made it sound like he might receive a contribution if he voted against the second bill.

"I don't want to attach incorrect intentions to this language, but the words struck me as Time Warner PAC hinging their campaign contributions to a particular official vote on a particular bill," Van Arsdale said in a letter to McMillan.

Van Arsdale sent copies of his letter to prosecutors in Travis and Harris counties, but he said he did not want to launch an official investigation. Officials in those two offices could not be reached for comment.

I just have one question: If TX Friends of Time Warner Cable PAC had sent him a check as requested and included a letter that said "Here's your boodle, and thanks a bunch for having our back on that telecom bill thing", would Van Arsdale have forwarded it along to the DA? If not, what's the difference?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 03, 2005 to Scandalized! | TrackBack

I read that as:

Van Arsdale sending copies of his letter to avoid getting caught up in a scandle.


Van Arsdale not wanting to launch an official investigation to avoid getting caught up in a scandle.

State Rep. Van Arsdale must be spending alot of his time these days running for cover.

Posted by: Charles Hixon on August 3, 2005 1:15 PM

Running for cover is better than running for State Senate, I guess.

Posted by: Greg Wythe on August 3, 2005 2:22 PM

So, van Arsdale votes for a good bill, (SB21), and when Time Warner PAC illegally hinges its future campaign contributions on voting against that bill, he reports it to the DA, and what does he get from the democrats?

A lotta flack and baselss innuendo ...

Posted by: ttyler5 on August 3, 2005 5:05 PM

ttyler5: Van Arsdale gets a lotta flack from his own mortar and then spends a lotta his time running for cover. What is this:
a) bureaucratic make-work,
b) a war-depraved republican,
c) a tax cut via efficient government, or
d) the only test question to come from this legislative session on public school funding?

Posted by: Charles Hixon on August 4, 2005 12:09 PM

Charles H., I've posted a comment at Kuff's "Rick Casey answers van Arsdale" post above, which sums it all up very nicely, and very accurately.

The people running for cover on this one are those wonderful public-service-minded monopolists at Time Warner and TW's equally-civic-minded friends at the TML, and now they are getting help from the Chron's number one hatchet man.

Posted by: ttyler5 on August 5, 2005 4:26 PM