Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February 22nd, 2023:

It’s definitely Colin Allred Speculation Season

Keep the articles coming.

Rep. Colin Allred

In 2018, Colin Allred beat Republican Pete Sessions to flip a Dallas congressional district from red to blue.

Now the former NFL player and Hillcrest High School standout is considering challenging incumbent Ted Cruz for Senate in 2024, according to 11 Democrats and activists contacted by The Dallas Morning News. The move would put him in line to make history, or become the next candidate in a long string of Democratic Party disappointments.

Allred has been talking to strategists, donors and supporters across the state to determine if running against Cruz makes sense. At the same time, his media office has been in overdrive, distributing updates about his congressional work and stressing his bipartisan approach to problem-solving.

[…]

Other potential Democratic contenders include former San Antonio Mayor and former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro and former state Rep. and Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner.

Allred worked under Castro at the Housing Department.

Already campaigning is businessman and former Midland City Council member John Love.

On the GOP side, Cruz told The Dallas Morning News last week that he would focus on running for reelection instead of another campaign for president.

See here and here for some background. I generally assume that these candidate speculation stories don’t happen without the potential candidate’s knowledge and blessing, if not actual participation. I don’t mean the “other potential candidates include” stuff, for which I’ll get to in a minute, but the “Person X is considering a run for Y office” stories, where there’s a main character and everyone but that main character talks about their political standing and potential future. Rep. Allred declined to comment for the story, as per the accepted norms and practices for this kind of thing (boilerplate statements about focusing on their job at hand, not thinking about next year, keeping all options open, etc etc etc, are within the bounds of allowed responses), but I feel confident saying he knew about it before he was contacted. He or someone employed by him is likely to have been the original source for the story. Doesn’t mean he will eventually run, just that this is what laying the groundwork for such a run often looks like.

As for the “other potential candidates” section, we know about Julian Castro, who among other things serves as the clear “just because you’re the one spotlighted in this kind of story doesn’t mean you’ll actually run” counterexample. I’ll need to see at least two more of those stories about Julian Castro before I’ll take them seriously. John Love announced his candidacy for Senate in 2020 but dropped out without filing. He has a campaign website this time, so if nothing else he should be mentioned in these stories going forward. I’ll need to check the Q1 campaign finance reports to see if he’s begun to raise money. As for Mayor Turner, that’s the first time I’ve seen his name mentioned in this context. I have heard that he was considering a run for SD15 in the event John Whitmire is elected Mayor, so maybe this is some confusion over that? I can’t see him doing this – he won’t have any time to campaign or fundraise before the end of the year, and especially if an Allred or a Castro is running that would be a huge disadvantage. I’ll be surprised if I continue to see his name connected to this race. But maybe I’m wrong, so leave a comment or send me an email if you know better.

One more thing:

Former Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Jonathan Neerman said Cruz would beat Allred. He said that Allred is largely unknown to most Texans and that Democrats aren’t in a position to boost his candidacy.

More Republicans vote in Texas statewide elections than Democrats, and the GOP is said by many consultants to have an advantage of over a million votes.

“If Colin were to call me and ask for my advice, I would say, ‘You’re in a safe seat. Build up seniority, and if the Democrats take back control, try to become a chairman,’” Neerman said. “I don’t think he has the ability to beat Ted Cruz on a statewide basis.”

I doubt Mr. Neerman reads this blog, and I would not take the word of a professional adversary in these matters, but that advice he’d give to Rep. Allred is basically identical to the case against his candidacy that I laid out in that Castro post above. If he were to ask me for my advice, I would never tell him not to run, but I would spell it out that way as the choice he has to make. We’ll see what he chooses.

Paxton makes his plea to the Lege

It’s more accurate to say that one of his assistants pleaded for him while he mostly sat silent, but whatever.

The only criminal involved

Days after the Texas house speaker openly opposed using taxpayer dollars to settle a whistleblower suit against Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, a top agency lawyer said avoiding the payout would only end up costing the state more.

“It’s ultimately in the interest of the state from a financial perspective” to pay the settlement now, Assistant Attorney General Chris Hilton told a panel of House budget writers. “Financially speaking, there is no upside for the state to this case; even total vindication at trial results in a significant expenditure.”

Hilton said the agency has already racked up $600,000 in legal fees fighting the lawsuit. The agency is required to use outside lawyers in the case because of the conflict of interest, which has driven up the cost, Hilton said.

[…]

Paxton, a Republican, was present Tuesday but deferred to his team for most answers.

State Rep. Jarvis Johnson, D-Houston, asked Paxton directly whether he would use his own campaign dollars. Hilton interjected, noting that the lawsuit is against the agency, not Paxton personally.

“There is no whistleblower case where any individual has paid anything because the individual is not liable under the terms of the statute,” Hilton said. He added, “Under the terms of the settlement, there is no admission of fault or liability or wrongdoing by any party.”

Under the state’s election code, Paxton is allowed to use campaign funds to cover his legal defense. Since he was sued in his official capacity, those costs are not considered a “personal use.”

It’s a different scenario than in 2016 when Paxton wanted to use out-of-state gifts to cover his legal defense in the ongoing securities fraud case against him. The Texas Ethics Commission at the time warned Paxton he would violate the law if he used those funds because the accusations in that case did not stem from his officeholder duties.

On Thursday, state prosecutors said the Department of Justice had transferred the most recent corruption case out of the hands of federal attorneys in Texas and into the Washington-based Public Integrity Section. The reason for the shift was unclear, though Paxton’s attorneys had requested it.

Tuesday’s budget hearing was the first time Paxton has faced lawmakers since the settlement was announced. Some House members seemed resigned about their options.

Texas Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro, and Rep. Steve Allison, R-San Antonio, said the state seems to lose no matter if they pay now or after a hypothetical trial concludes.

“Even if you win, there is no ‘win,’” Spiller said, referring to how the state would still owe outside lawyers.

“We’re kind of in the proverbial rock and a hard place,” Allison said.”Either we pay $3.3 million now or pay far more than that either in additional legal expenses or (because of) an unfortunate result.”

State Rep. Mary González, an El Paso Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, questioned whether Paxton is acting in the public’s interest.

She noted Paxton has declined to represent some state agencies, a key duty of his office, leaving them to pay for outside legal counsel out of their own budgets and at an additional cost for taxpayers. An ongoing case by a conservative activist against the Texas Ethics Commission, for instance, has cost the state more than $1 million.

Hilton said that occurs only in a “tiny percentage” of cases, about 60 in the last year, most of which he said were because the agencies had asked for their own counsel. Others were because the statute did not allow the office to represent an agency, Hilton said, and a smaller amount were because a case conflicted with the state’s obligation to “uphold the Constitution.”

A lot of similarity to what the whistleblowrs’s attorneys were saying, though without any reference to their quest for justice against a crook, as that would have been super awkward. I’m beginning to wonder if any member of the Legislature is going to arrive at my proposal to pay off the settlement and then cut Paxton’s budget by a commensurate amount or if I’m going to need to hire a lobbyist to explain it to them. It’s not that hard, y’all! You can do it.

The Statesman adds a few extra bits.

Hilton argued the cost to taxpayers could exceed $3.3 million if the lawsuit were to continue, in part because the case is procedurally in the early stages, although “it has been pending for a while.” He said the discovery process has yet to begin and that undertaking is lengthy, intensive and costly.

“It strikes me that we’re kind of between the proverbial rock and a hard place in that we either pay the $3.3 million now, or pay far more than that, either in additional legal expenses or an unfortunate result,” said subcommittee member Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro.

[…]

When asked by lawmakers Tuesday what would happen if the Legislature does not approve the settlement payment, Hilton said it’s “difficult to predict” exactly what the next steps would be.

“Because it’s pending litigation, I don’t want to get into too many details,” Hilton said. “Under the terms of the settlement, it is contingent upon all necessary approvals.”

[…]

On Tuesday, Paxton also asked House lawmakers for additional money in the next biennium to hire more staff and to offer competitive pay.

Paxton said in recent years the agency has faced increasing turnover due to staff leaving for other state jobs that in some cases can nearly double their salaries at the attorney general’s office.

Maybe part of the problem is that Paxton is a terrible manager in addition to being the kind of corrupt boss that eight of his trusted lieutenants felt the need to sue, I dunno. My advice to the Lege for how to handle this stands. At the very least please don’t give him any more money. Surely by now we have all the evidence we need that he can’t be trusted with it.

The fentanyl vaccine

This is not actually new, but this story just came out and I hadn’t noticed the coverage before, so I’m catching up.

To combat the fentanyl epidemic in the United States, researchers at the University of Houston have created a fentanyl vaccine that could help prevent overdoses. They aim to test the vaccine in a human trial within the next year.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid drug that kills hundreds of Texans every year, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

The vaccine will need FDA approval before people can use it. According to Johns Hopkins University, that process can take five to 15 years, and sometimes longer. The process can be sped up during a public health emergency where no alternate treatments exist. The first COVID-19 vaccines were created, tested and given emergency use authorization by the FDA in under a year.

In a study published last year in the journal Pharmaceutics, the Houston researchers reported that their vaccine triggered production of antibodies against fentanyl in rats and decreased the amount of fentanyl in rats’ brains. The researchers’ vaccine received praise from Governor Greg Abbott, who visited the University of Houston last year to congratulate the team.

[…]

Doctors can prescribe maintenance medications like methadone and buprenorphine for those recovering from opioid addiction. These drugs are opioids, but they can reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms.

The effectiveness of these medications depends on how they’re made, the opioid being misused and access to the medications. Recovering patients can relapse after they leave treatment and are especially vulnerable to overdose deaths, said Colin Haile, a research associate professor at the University of Houston.

“Clearly, the medications that we have to address opioid use disorder and overdose are not working,” said Haile, who led the team that created the vaccine.

Haile’s team created a vaccine that could tell the human body to produce antibodies against fentanyl. If a vaccinated person consumes fentanyl, the antibodies could attach to the drug, preventing it from getting to the brain and inducing a “high” or potential overdose. The fentanyl would remain in the blood, eventually passing through the kidneys and out the body.

In the published study, Haile’s team said the vaccine successfully produced antibodies against fentanyl in rats. The vaccine also blocked one of the effects of fentanyl: pain relief. Compared to unvaccinated rats, vaccinated rats also had decreased fentanyl levels in their brains when fentanyl was administered 20 weeks after their first vaccination.

“The effect was pretty incredible,” Haile said. “I’ve never seen anything like this, ever.”

The vaccine produced antibodies that attached to fentanyl but not to methadone or buprenorphine, meaning that vaccinated people could potentially still take those medications to treat opioid addiction. The antibodies also did not bind to morphine or oxycodone, two other opioids.

Like I said, this isn’t new – UH put out a press release last November to tout the accomplishment. There are other vaccines in the research pipeline – this one wasn’t the first to be discovered, but it has some differences from the others out there. Researchers are going to put it into phase 1 human trials soon, with the goal of making the vaccine available to the public in the hopefully not-too-distant future. It sure has the potential to do a lot of good when it’s ready. Kudos to all for the work.