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.

In his incomparable style, Lessig employs rapid-fire visuals to show how the funding process weakens the Republic in the most fundamental way, and issues a rallying bipartisan cry that will resonate with many in the U.S. and beyond.

Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics. His TED biography is here, and a Wikipedia bio is here.

#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?

Esther showed us this organizing video

Click here to view the embedded video.

Essentially we should watch this space to learn how we can help in the future.

We spoke with over 60 Senators and Representatives, or their aides, gathering support for these resolutions. Stay tuned for an analysis of these conversations. We also delivered petition signatures to over 100 offices.

CTUTA is a network of independent groups calling for an amendment to the US Constitution to combat the unlimited flow of money into our elections. Members of the network are:

• Coffee Party Austin
• Austin MoveOn Council
• Common Cause of Texas
• Justice Party of Texas
• Occupy Austin
• Public Citizen of Texas
• Wolf-PAC Texas

On January 19, 2013, organizers and activists from across Texas took to the South Steps of the Texas State Capitol to mark the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and to rally in support of two concurrent Texas resolutions (SCR 2 and HCR 21) before the 83rd Legislature calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish that political expenditures are not protected speech under the First Amendment, and that only natural persons are protected by constitutional rights. There was also support for a third concurrent resolution (HJR 94) calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention to address this issue.

The Problem: Discarding a century of precedent, the United States Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, swept aside long-standing campaign finance laws and cleared the way for unlimited corporate spending in elections. The Court ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the government may not prevent corporations from giving money to support or oppose individual candidates for public office. Any attempt to set limits on these “independent political expenditures” at the city, county, state or federal level is now unconstitutional. This ruling gave enormous power to corporations to influence not only the outcomes of our elections but also the decisions made by our elected officials once in office. Agriculture, civil rights, criminal justice, the economy, education, the environment, healthcare, housing, immigration, infrastructure, taxes — money in politics influences the decisions our elected representatives make on every major issue our state faces, often at the expense of ordinary citizens, families, and small businesses.

The Solution: Only a constitutional amendment can restore the ability of our elected representatives in Congress and the Texas Legislature to regulate the expenditure of money in politics. Resolutions have been submitted to both houses of the Texas Legislature directing the U.S. Congress to initiate this amendment process. We need to ask our representatives to pass these resolutions. SCR 2 is the Senate version (introduced by Sen. Rodney Ellis) and HCR 21 is the House version (introduced by Rep. Senfronia Thompson). Eleven states and over 300 municipalities have passed similar resolutions. Help make Texas the 12th state to ask Congress to get money out of politics. Another avenue to accomplish this goal is to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. HCR 25 (introduced by Lon Burnam) does this.

By signing this petition you will help us put pressure on our elected officials to support measures that address the undue influence of money in our political process.

Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin

The December 1, 2012 Coffee Party Austin meeting consisted of a conversation with Texas Representative Donna Howard about the likely priority issues before the 83^rd legislative session.

These notes have not been vetted by Rep. Howard, who is therefore not responsible for any errors.

Important dates (all in 2013):

• January 8, at noon: 83^rd legislative Session begins
• March 8: deadline for filing bills and joint resolutions, emergency appropriations, and emergency bills.
• May 27: last day of the 83^rd legislative session
• June 16: last day governor can sign or veto bills passed during the regulation session
• August 26: bills without specific effective dates become law

Speaker Straus’s priorities:

• education
• infrastructure

Possible emergency legislation:

• Sanctuary cities legislation: the term sanctuary cities, which has no legal meaning, generally applies to cities that prohibit the use of municipal funds or resources to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
• TSA pat-down regulation
• School vouchers

Makeup of the legislature:

House of Representatives (150 Representatives)

There were 101 Rs and 49 Ds in the 82^nd legislative session.
There are 95 Rs and 55 Ds in the 83^rd legislative session.
Of the 43 new members, many are more conservative than those they replaced.
Some moderate Rs are feeling bolder about speaking out; others lost their primaries.

Senate (31 Senators)

There were 19 Rs and 12 Ds in the 82^nd legislative session.
There are 19 Rs and 12 Ds in the 83^rd legislative session, but the new R’s are more conservative.

In this session the House will be more moderate than the Senate!

Budget:

• It has many moving parts.
• Most representatives don’t understand it; a few of those who do lost their elections.
• Final decisions on the budget are made behind closed doors by conference committee.
• The final budget from the conference committee is presented for an up-or-down vote.

Education

• New terminology: vouchers is replaced by school choice.
• Virtual schools vs brick and mortar schools.
• Rural communities are not in favor of school choice because with only one high school they have no choice.
• Many private schools will not accept vouchers because they would be subject to the high stakes testing accountability system.
• The base budget talked about in the 83^rd session accounts for enrollment growth for the next biennium but not the last biennium.  The base education budget will always lag growth.

Good sources of information on education:

• TexasISD.com
• Texas Association of School Boards  (www.tasb.org)
• Texas Association of School Administrators (www.tasanet.org)
• Raise Your Hand Texas (www.raiseyourhandtexas.org)

Women’s Health Program

• As a result of budget cuts, 100,000 women lost access to clinics.
• There will be some effort to restore some of that funding.
• May be more successful with a public health policy approach.

Clarification of groups

• House Democratic Caucus comprises all Democratic representatives: focus is public policy.
• House Democratic Campaign Committee: purpose is to get Democratic candidates elected to the House.
• Legislative Study Group: all members are Democrats; purpose is to conduct research on issues and legislation, inform its members about upcoming legislation, and write bills for filing.

Engelhardt is the founder of TomDispatch.com and author of The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, and co-author, with Nick Turse, of Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare.