Cleaning Up Texas Politics
Off the Kuff: On cleaning up Texas politics
Kuff goes where apparently no Houston-area media reporter goes ... a campaign finance forum which had a crowd of 250, the presence of Bill White, Sylvia Garcia, Mickey Jo Lawrence, and a host of others. The forum, put on by Clean Up Texas Politics, had a great bill. I was fortunate enough to have an invite, but the intial week of working solo has been more tiresome than even I'd originally thought.
That said, I did make it a point to take advantage of meeting with CUTP's Patrick Hansen and Kuff the following day. Over eggs and fajita tacos, we caught up on the prospects for campaign finance reform in our fair state. Encouraging was some feedback that the TRMPAC-style corporate money loopholes seemed more likely to be closed, rather than legalized. I'm still sceptical of this given what I've seen of too many Craddick acolytes in the lege. But if it happens, then great.
Even more enlightening was discussion on some of the specific steps that are doable, preferable, or among those being campaigned for. Having been in this debate for an all-too-long time period, I tend to gravitate towards contribution limits as a key issue. Especially when you consider that here in Texas, we have NO limits - a fact that you'd think would outrage any reasonable sort. But there are still matters to hit before that comes into focus, such as tightening corporate and union prohibitions (along the lines of the TRMPAC-inspired questions) and working on sharpenging the Texas Ethics Commissions' bite in dealing with transgressions.
Basically, it comes down to a generic question of transparency and limits. The solution, however, is that both are needed. Limits without transparency don't really accomplish much good, though. So getting a bit more backgrounder on the problems we presently have with transparency are a welcome addition to the debate.
Beyond that, I'd be curious what the gauge reading is on possibly getting some of the Arizona-style Clean Election reforms passed here in Texas. It's a variant of the public financing offering, which I don't see happening in too many states, Texas among the last to likely head that route. I'd be doubtful that we'd have any such chances of getting the Arizona-style reforms through the lege in its present makeup ... but would it not be something that Dem challengers would be wise to raise out in the hustings?
ADD-ON: One of the outgrowths of the forum from Tuesday is an online forum with some of the participants. The first round is up now on the CUTP forums, with Jane Laping of Mothers For Clean Air.
Comments
Ten years ago I'd have agreed with you, but my position has changed. I now support full transparency, but few limits on individual, non-corporate contributors.
In Austin, contribution limits handed local politics over to special interests -- most notably the local police union -- who ran "independent, non-coordinated" campaigns that were much larger than their candidates' own. That meant they could pick and choose their own flunkies for city council, or intimidate sitting councilmemmbers into submission, and once they did, council voted Austin cops new budget-busting salary scales that would make NYC cops envious, simultaneously gutting the city's civilian oversight system -- all as a result of the new contribution limits.
If it were possible within the confines of the first amendment to restrict independent, "uncoordinated" expenditures, I'd say yes to limits. But since the case law on the subject currently says otherwise, I cannot support them.
Posted by: Scott | February 3, 2005 11:55 AM
Case law on independent exenditures can be subject to limits, as the challenge to McCain-Feingold has demonstrated. So there's some case law that suggests otherwise for ya.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | February 3, 2005 12:59 PM
Except for the 527 funds. They're EXACTLY what I'm talking about, even if most of them last time around were funded by Dems. E.g., nobody told Bob Perry what he could spend on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Every campaign contribution cap scheme leaves an independent expenditure loophole, or it won't pass first amendment muster.
Posted by: Scott | February 3, 2005 03:39 PM
Every law has its loophole. I can get away with murder, so long as I'm either insane or insanely rich.
The 527s are an issue of enforcement. The FEC screwed up and got put back its place by the federal courts: 527s are and will be subject to the same regulations as all PACs if they choose to engage in electioneering.
Disclosure is good and necessary. But being able to see the sewer pit doesn't fix it. For those who continue to poo-poo the effectiveness of campaign finance and ethics laws, check out today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59184-2005Feb2.html?referrer=emailarticle
In the interest of full disclosure . . . I was one of the organizers of the Houston reform summit.
Posted by: patrick | February 4, 2005 04:28 PM
I'm not poo-pooing -- I said I agreed with you in the past and changed positions based on empirical observations, Patrick, of your group's own work! In Austin, Fred Lewis' attempt to clean out the "sewer pit" handed it over to the alligators. As one definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results, I won't support the same "fix" statewide unless somebody explains to me why the same thing won't happen. You say the rich can always find a loophole -- fine, then I want Dems to be able to use it too, so Don Henley, George Soros, or whoever can counter the other side, instead of just watching them whip us and grousing about it.
Finally, the article you referenced contradicts your claim that 527 money is regulated. Broder (you cite Broder?) says that "Some of the gifts to independent advocacy groups -- the so-called 527s -- dwarfed in size any sums ever given to the parties in past soft-money contributions. That issue remains to be resolved."
Posted by: Scott | February 5, 2005 08:44 AM