February, 2005:

I’ll undoubtedly have more on this tomorrow, but for now here’s the opening story from the AP wire about the lawsuit against Bill Ceverha of the Texas Association of Business. Clean Up Texas Politics has a bunch of links from pre-trial coverage: here, here, here, and here. Meanwhile, Nathan from Drive Democracy was in the courtroom and gives his initial impressions here while promising a longer post later. And finally, In the Pink Texas is bummed out that Speaker Craddick will be a no-show. More later as the stories get filed.

The more digging is done into the life and times of Jack Abramoff, the more malfeasance is discovered.

Tracking what happened to $175,000 contributed by two Indian tribes to a political group called CREA leads from a disgraced lobbyist to an elusive environmental organization spawned by Gale Norton before she became secretary of the Interior.

The money, which the tribes say they contributed to the group at the direction of a Washington, D.C., lobbyist now under federal investigation, is unaccounted for in public records where federal regulations say it should be listed.

The absence of an accounting adds another layer to the mystery of what became of more than two dozen contributions missing among $300,000 in checks issued by a Texas tribe to 79 political committees selected by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

CREA stands for Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. According to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt organization, it has operated for more than four years without receiving any contributions or making any expenditures.

The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana said it issued checks for $50,000 to CREA in 2001 and $100,000 in 2002.

Also, the Tigua Indians, whose Ysleta del Sur Pueblo adjoins El Paso, said they issued a $25,000 check to CREA in 2002 and included it in a bundle of other political contributions they sent to Abramoff to distribute. Tribal Lt. Gov. Carlos Hisa said the check was cashed, but he would not disclose how it was endorsed.

Who can keep track of such piddling amounts? Details are for little people, not the likes of Jack Abramoff. Thanks as always to AJ Garcia for the tip (story also spotted at The Stakeholder).

The Chron gives an overview of the lawsuit against the Texas Association of Business and its treasurer Bill Ceverha by five defeated Democratic candidates for state legislature which begins tomorrow. Most of this is review material, but I do want to highlight something:

“This trial is about whether clandestine corporations can buy elections in Texas and corrupt the political process,” said Cris Feldman, a lawyer representing the Democrats. “Do we want a legislature beholden to out-of-state corporate board rooms or Texas living rooms?”

TRMPAC lawyer Terry Scarborough said the lawsuit turns only on whether the committee’s spending of corporate money to pay for polling or phone banks was a legitimate administrative expense under Texas law.

I believe that if the defense argument that polling and phone banking constitutes “administrative expenses” is accepted, then the existing law against corporate and union donations to candidates is meaningless. The Smith-Eiland bill would supersede the old law anyway (assuming it ever gets passed), but this is in my mind a test of whether there ever really was a law in the first place. We’ll soon see.

Very interesting.

Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick has struck a deal not to appear in Monday’s corporate electioneering trial, saying he might have shredded any communications he had with Texans for a Republican Majority two years ago.

Five Democratic state legislative candidates who lost in 2002 are suing Bill Ceverha, the treasurer of the Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee, accusing him of spending illegal corporate donations in their campaigns.

Lawyers for the Democrats had subpoenaed Craddick to testify and produce documents. But this week Roy Minton, the speaker’s lawyer, negotiated the deal that excused Craddick from appearing.

In the stipulation, Craddick acknowledges what has been widely reported — the political action committee sent $152,000 in noncorporate donations to his Midland office, where Craddick’s staff distributed the checks to Republican candidates running for the Texas House of Representatives.

Questions have been raised about whether the PAC and Craddick violated a state law barring outside groups from assisting a candidate for speaker. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is investigating that, as well as allegations that associates of Texans for a Republican Majority laundered corporate money and violated state elections laws. (Three officials with the political committee were indicted last fall.)

The stipulation also said the documents requested by the Democrats “do not currently exist.”

Furthermore, “to the extent such records ever existed, they were shredded in 2003,” according to the stipulation.

In February 2004, Earle subpoenaed Craddick’s records after news reports indicated that Craddick’s staff distributed the PAC’s campaign donations to House members who eventually voted in the members-only contest to elect the next speaker.

The key to all this is the stipulation for the record that Craddick was the middleman for that $152,000 check. The money could be legally given to the candidates, but using Craddick as a conduit is a problem. This post from September covers most of the relevant info regarding the $152K check and the documents Ronnie Earle sought. Here’s the nub of the issue:

[Indicted TRMPAC Executive Directorr John] Colyandro sent $152,000 in noncorporate donations, intended for Republican House candidates, to Craddick’s Midland office. That money then was sent to the candidates. Those candidates, once elected, voted for Craddick for House speaker.

Craddick has said he had already secured enough pledges from House members to become speaker before the $152,000 was routed through his office.

State law forbids outside groups from trying to influence a speaker’s race in which only House members can vote. It also prohibits a candidate from accepting outside help.

Seems to me that Craddick has now admitted he did something at least potentially illegal, though the lack of a paper trail would make it hard to convict him of it. If stipulating to this was better than getting grilled on the stand, then he must have really not wanted to testify. I believe the next move is yours, Ronnie.

The Stakeholder excerpts from a National Journal article detailing the long history between Tom DeLay and the disgraced casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Raw Story has more. Check it out.

State Rep. Joe Nixon wants to be the champion of compulsory charity.

The House Elections Committee on Wednesday heard a bill by Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston, that is meant to overturn Texas Ethics Commission opinions that Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, ran into when he tried to host a lobby pheasant hunting trip last December.

Swinford had bought the birds and reserved the hotel rooms for his annual lobby pheasant hunt to raise money for his political account. Then he discovered the hunt date was set for after the 30-day cutoff when legislators are prohibited from raising political money prior to a legislative session.

So Swinford tried to change the event into a fund-raiser for his local 4-H Club with his name on the invitation.

That’s when Swinford discovered ethics commission opinions for 1992, 1993 and 2000 that say it is a violation of the state penal and lobby laws for a public official to solicit a charitable donation to be made in his own name.

“The only difference was my name was on the invitation. Otherwise, that 4-H Club has hunts all the time. The issue was my name being on the invitation was going to mess us up,” Swinford said.

Swinford said he had the hunt, but no one was charged.

Nixon’s bill says a charitable donation solicited by a public official would not be considered a political donation, a benefit to the official or “an expenditure made to influence” legislative or administrative action.

“If I say … ‘Give money to the Boy Scouts,’ that could be an ethics violation. That’s nuts. I can’t put on an apron and sell pancakes at my church,” Nixon said.

However, the ethics opinion is not that simple.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 427 from 2003 says a public official may legally solicit contributions for a charity so long as the money goes directly to the charity and is not made in the official’s name. The opinion also says an unsolicited donation may be made to a charity in an official’s name.

The opinion said it is only when the official raises the money, controls the money or has the money donated in his or her name that state law is violated by becoming a benefit for the official.

Nixon said the opinion would halt Speaker Tom Craddick’s annual golf tournament to raise money for children’s charities. He said the tournament last year raised $150,000.

To be blunt, Nixon’s reasoning is crap. The point of the Ethics Commission’s opinion is to ensure that charitable events remain about the charities and not about their sponsors. Note that he didn’t claim that the opinion did halt Craddick’s golf tournament – he said it would halt it. How is that so if the opinions were given between 1992 and 2000 and Craddick did his thing last year?

The issue here is very basic. Charitable donations do not have to be publicly reported. If Nixon has his way, then any politician can use the guise of charity to solicit large contributions made in secret. I fail to see how less disclosure in these matters is in any way preferable. It’s fascinating how there can be this kind of push at the same time as the push to tighten regulations and raise ethical standards. Who will win? Whether he likes it or not, I think Tom Craddick is going to have to take a side sooner or later. Then maybe we’ll know.

Tom Craddick has been called to testify in the civil suit against TRMPAC Treasurer Bill Ceverha.

In addition to Craddick, a subpoena also has been issued to Texas Association of Business President Bill Hammond. He once bragged that TAB had spent more than $1.9 million in corporate money to help Republican House candidates in the 2002 campaign, which resulted in a GOP takeover of the Texas House.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs want to show that Hammond’s activities were coordinated with those of Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC.

[…]

Though Craddick is not a defendant in the trial, the case may shed more light on what role he played in helping TRMPAC raise and spend corporate money.

The trial begins Monday. Craddick’s lawyer Roy Minton said the speaker has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday, but he has asked lawyers for the Democratic plaintiffs to set a time when Craddick’s testimony would not conflict with House business.

“There’s no problem. He’ll testify and answer whatever questions are asked of him,” Minton said.

Minton said he has no concerns about Craddick testifying in the civil case while the grand jury investigation is proceeding.

[…]

Hammond also is tentatively scheduled to testify Tuesday, said his lawyer, Andy Taylor.

Taylor said he does not think Hammond will be asked to testify about the direct mail campaign TAB used in the elections. He said subpoenas indicate Hammond’s testimony will be limited to how TRMPAC used a TAB mailing and helped pay for a telephone bank operation.

It all starts Monday, so get ready. I do hope these guys have a surprise or two in store, because you can be sure that Craddick and Hammond will have their answers prepared.

One more thing:

Another lawsuit against TRMPAC and one against TAB are not close to going to trial, said attorney Randall “Buck” Wood.

The lawsuit that begins Monday before state District Judge Joseph Hart of Austin was brought by Paul Clayton of Orange, Mike Head of Athens, David Lengenfeld of Hamilton, Ann Kitchen of Austin and Danny Duncan of Commerce.

With so much legal activity surrounding the 2002 elections, it’s hard to keep it all straight. The first lawsuit that I know of is apparently the one against TAB. I’ll have to check the Chronicle archives, but as I recall former Rep. Debra Danburg of Houston was one of the plaintiffs.