Coffee Party Austin

Since the 2012 elections both Democrats and Republicans have paid at least lip service in favor of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform argue for immigration laws that are not solely directed at deportations and border enforcement, but which also provide for legal status, a pathway to citizenship, unification of families, and that serve to strengthen our economy. The inclusion of the word “comprehensive” when advocating for immigration reform implies a desire for policy that puts the primary focus on human needs and not criminalization.

Unfortunately, even as immigration reform has at last received serious discussion through Senate Bill 744 advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, efforts continue to use immigration policy as a means to increase possibilities for detention and deportation without proof of criminal behavior. One such effort is amendment #43 backed by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), which would deny possibility for legal status to individuals whose names appear in a database of purported gang members, even when the individual has no criminal history. If passed, this amendment would prevent individuals from “legalizing their status because of accusations, rather than convictions” as noted in a May 14th editorial by the Los Angeles Times. In this respect, amendment #43 should be of concern to all citizens because it sanctifies punitive action without requiring proof of criminal activity or a conviction achieved through the transparency and due process that should always be afforded by our legal system.

While our policymakers argue the details of immigration reform, a clear winner of our “broken” immigration system is the private prison industry which profits from increased immigrant incarceration. According to a September, 2012 report published by Grassroots Leadership, “federal dollars behind immigrant incarceration come at a significant cost to the taxpayer, climbing in 2011 to an estimated $1.02 billion annually.” Readers seeking more information on the relationship between immigration policy and private prison industry profits, with specific reference to Texas and Austin, should read the report OPERATION STREAMLINE: COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES (Alistair Graham Robertson, et. al. Grassroots Leadership, September, 2012).

Over the past 5 years, our country has deported 2 million people. The current state of immigration is “net zero” meaning that as many people are returning to their country of origin as are entering the United States. Despite our net zero status, the number of deaths among immigrants crossing our southern border has risen dramatically. This increase is the result of two factors: 1) increased deportations which have resulted in larger numbers of immigrants motivated to return to the U.S. to reunify with their children, many of whom are U.S. citizens, and 2) the “prevention through deterrence” policy which forces border crossings to occur in “more hostile terrain”. To summarize, our immigration policy has increased deaths by raising the incentive to make a dangerous border crossing and by making sure the crossing is, in fact, more dangerous. More information on border deaths as related to immigration policy is provided by “Crossing the line at the border: Dying to get back” (PBS, Need to Know, May 17, 2013).

No doubt drafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill that can be passed in our divided House and Senate is no easy task, but surely our nation can do better than the existing policy which has raised border deaths and wasted public funds on private prison industry profits. More information on Senate Bill 744 can be found at the Reform Immigration for America web site here. If you wish to express an opinion on proposed legislation, you can find your House representative’s contact information here and your Senator’s information here.

While Campaign Finance Reform was not the Legislature’s primary concern, we have some news involving campaign finance reporting and disclosure.

SB 219

This bill by Senator Joan Huffman (R-Houston) relates to the campaign finance ethics of public servants and lobbyists as well as a Sunset Review of the functioning of the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC). This bill is weaker than what was recommended by a number of good government groups as well as the Sunset Commission staff in an interim hearing in 2012. At that hearing, many good-government organizations testified, including board members from Coffee Party Austin.

The bill was heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee, which voted 8-0 in favor. On the Senate floor, the vote was 31-0 in favor, so the bill went to the House. In the House Elections Committee, the vote was 7-0 in favor. The bill was pretty weak at that point, reflecting a notion verbalized by House sponsor Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton), who said that a Sunset Review is not the time to make major changes to a state agency (thereby creating an opportunity to approach him in the next session). Despite Bonnen’s preference for a weak bill, most of the 36 amendments made on the House floor on May 20th significantly improved it and SB 219 passed 134-13. Most bad amendments were defeated, including the recurring attempt to close down the Travis County DA’s Public Integrity Unit (which is tasked with prosecuting campaign finance violations of all legislators). As of this writing, the bill is headed to conference where the members from both chambers will agree on a final version.

As of now, the bill:
•    Requires candidate personal financial statements be posted on-line.
•    Prohibits “revolving door” lobbyists from spending their war chests on political contributions.
•    Requires Railroad Commissioners to resign before pursuing another office.
•    Regulates “robo-calls” as a form of political advertising.
•    Requires “dark money” contributions raised by non-profits be disclosed if they spend more than $25,000 per year and contributions total $2,500 or more from a single source.
•    Defines electioneering or “issue ads” for the first time in Texas law and requires disclosure of spending and contributors.
•    Requires officials and candidates to disclose all contracts with government entities valued at $10,000 or greater.
•    Requires “paid by” disclaimers (like on TV) for Internet and e-mail political ads.

If these TEC reform measures are signed into law, our task is far from over. TEC will STILL be the only state agency that requires a legislator-appointed board to approve enforcement actions. Having the right laws is academic if the enforcement is toothless (or, as in our case, gumless).

For an “anti-disclosure” perspective, here’s a Wall Street Journal editorial on this bill. Do you think that the First Amendment grants you the right to $peak so loudly and often that people cannot hear anyone else? Does it also stipulate anonymity and freedom from repercussion? To WSJ’s editorial writer, these stipulations are obvious…

SB 346

This bill by Senator Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) would force 501(c)(4) issue advocacy groups to disclose their donors if they receive over $25,000 during a calendar year. Labor organizations are exempt. This would correct the situation where special interests can hide their names from their advocacy.

The bill was heard by the Senate State Affairs Committee, which passed the bill with a 7-1 vote. It passed on the Senate floor 23-6 on April 16. On April 17, however, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) presented and got passed a resolution to recall the bill from the House, stating that he changed his mind but offered no substantive reasons. (Senator Seliger suggested that his colleagues had gotten some calls from political donors who were not pleased with the notion of being forced out of hiding).

The House State Affairs Committee ignored this recall request and heard this bill on April 24th, where it passed unanimously and without amendment. During this hearing, committee members loudly proclaimed their support for the measure — in strong defiance of the Senate’s recall attempt. On the House floor, it passed 95-52, again without amendment. The House’s decision not to amend the bill was so that the Senate could no longer touch the bill. So it then went to the Governor’s desk where it awaits his signature. We can safely assume that the donors that called senators on the evening of April 16 are now calling the Governors office, demanding that he veto the bill.

Here are several letters we sent to the Statesman:

#1)  In his May 3 Austin American-Statesman article, Ken Herman writes about fears associated with a constitutional convention. There’s another angle to consider: such an action is about all that we have left to restore sanity to Congress. This body is so dominated by moneyed special interests that it can’t even pass the Disclose Act, which simply tells people who is spending money to influence elections. Calling for a convention is the strongest message we can send to Congress about the need for change.

The fears of a wholesale rewrite of our Constitution are hysteria. Delegates to a convention could never reach consensus on anything other than rational changes, and 3/4 of the states would never ratify a bad idea. The safeguards are there.

What isn’t safe, however, is allowing even more Special Interest control of government, a problem that is obvious to almost all Americans. The scope of today’s Big Money problem is exactly why the Founders gave the people the ability to directly amend the constitution.

#2)  Exacerbated by the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the corrupting influence by moneyed special interests has dominated our election process and put our democracy at risk. Citizens United v. FEC unmuzzled corporate treasuries to directly spend on influencing elections.

Now, living, breathing people are working to overturn Citizens United through a Constitutional Amendment declaring that corporations CAN be regulated, as can political spending.

This legislative session, Texas could become the 14th state to pass a resolution requesting Congress to write Amendment 28 to reign in unfettered and in some cases anonymous spending. Because of a lack of transparency, we don’t know whether illegal foreign donors are influencing our elections. Over 9300 Texans signed a petition in support of HCR21 and SCR2. Texans want their voices heard. The deadline for bills to leave committee is only days away, and the Chairmen (Rep. Creighton and Sen. Duncan) with the exclusive power to do so are refusing to give these resolutions a hearing.

#3) Few remember the previous calls for a constitutional convention that SJR 53 would nullify, mostly because they were aimed at issues best addressed through other avenues, or were just plain wrong-headed. (Note: If the John Birch Society is for it, chances are good it’s wrong-headed.)

While Sen. Estes and Rep. Elkins “Move to Rescind”, Rep. Burnam rightly calls for a convention to address Supreme Court rulings (Citizens United v FEC, et al.) that erased a century of state campaign finance laws and led to intractable partisan gridlock and a Congress that spends more time fundraising than legislating (HJR 94; see also SCR 2 by Ellis, HCR 21 by Thompson).

Fears of a “Constitutional Convention Gone Wild” are absurd. Only the most thoughtful amendments stand a chance of ratification, and press scrutiny of such a historic event would surely increase transparency and accountability.

Remember the media frenzy that erupted in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was ratified? Nope, I don’t either.

#4)  Fearmongering about a convention has been demagogued by both the left and the right for decades, using misinformation campaigns based on skewed interpretation of the law and wild speculation to advance a political or ideological agenda. Like any good misdirection there is just enough truth to make it believable. Instead of quoting the John Birch Society, Mr. Herman might have quoted constitutional scholars like UT’s Sanford Levinson or Harvard’s Larry Lessig who advocate for a convention to address problems Congress is unable or unwilling to address.

The greatest threat to our democracy is not a process in the Constitution but the corruption by unlimited special interest money in our political process. Lon Burnam’s HJR-94 fixes that problem by calling a convention that will propose the needed amendment, or force our dysfunctional Congress to propose it themselves.

When someone opposes an amendments convention, ask them: What other parts of the Constitution should we ignore?