Off the Kuff: Election 2006 Archives

IRS complaint filed against Perry-backing foundation

A project to mobilize faith-based voters to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage may have illegally served Gov. Rick Perry's re-election campaign, according to a complaint filed Thursday with the Internal Revenue Service.

The Texas Freedom Network, a religious watchdog group, asked the IRS to investigate a Houston-based foundation that allegedly violated its tax-exempt status by mobilizing Christian voters to support Perry.

The group says that several of Perry's top contributors funneled money through the Niemoller Foundation to the Texas Restoration Project, a group of 2,000 socially conservative pastors.

The Restoration Project held six "policy briefings" in 2005 centered on voter turnout for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Perry spoke at those meetings.

The complaint alleges the foundation operated outside laws that give tax-exempt status only to groups that do not participate in political campaigns.

"The Texas Restoration Project appears to have served as a partisan voter-mobilization tool for the Perry re-election campaign, with affiliated pastors encouraged to use their churches as partisan, political extensions of that campaign," TFN President Kathy Miller said in a letter to Linda Stiff, IRS acting commissioner.

[...]

The tax records show the foundation spent about $1.26 million to fund the Texas Restoration Project.

The closed-door policy briefings occurred at a time when U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and state Comptroller Carole Strayhorn were considering challenging Perry in the March 2006 GOP primary.

Although neither Hutchison nor Strayhorn challenged Perry in the primary, Strayhorn ran as one of two independent candidates, along with Democratic nominee Chris Bell, in the November general election.

"That the governor of Texas was able to speak at each of six briefings -- including two on one day in Fort Worth and Dallas and two on one day in San Antonio and Houston -- clearly suggests careful co- ordination between Texas Restoration Project organizers and Gov. Perry's office and campaign," Miller said in the complaint.

Quinn said the governor's campaign and supporters sent out communications and had conference calls with pastors on the Restoration Project's list. The pastors were invited to Perry's inauguration in last year.

I've no idea what if any action the IRS will take on this. Between this and the Chris Bell lawsuit, Perry's going to have his hands full for awhile. Good thing for him he may not be too busy with the Presidential election much longer, given how things are going for his preferred candidate. BOR has more.

01/13/08 | permalink | comments [0]

"No ducking truth behind Perry's gift"

From the weekend, the Statesman lays out the issue of Rick Perry's RGA troubles.

Even by Texas standards, the Republican Governors Association's argument that it isn't a political committee is absurd. Not only absurd, it's obscene.

Just before last year's election, the association gave Gov. Rick Perry $1 million in his hard-fought bid for re-election. But the group didn't report the donation to the Texas Ethics Commission as required under Texas law. And Perry didn't list the individual donors behind the large gift.

Turns out that most of that money came from controversial Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, who has had his fingers in a lot of GOP fundraising pies in recent years. Bob Perry's money was behind the scurrilous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political ads that undercut Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Now the governor is saying that concealing Bob Perry's name was an oversight, a clerical error. And the Republican Governors Association is saying it isn't a political committee, so it didn't have to disclose the donors. Sorry, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

This year-old episode not only quacks, it stinks. And Travis County Attorney David Escamilla is reviewing the circumstances of the two $500,000 contributions dumped into Perry's treasury in the final two weeks of the campaign.

[...]

In addition to a possible $2 million penalty, the candidate accepting the money also could be guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. That is a heavy weight hanging over Perry's head.

More bizarre still is the Republican Governors Association's argument that, although it raises and donates money to GOP candidates, it isn't a political committee. The law isn't precise in its definition, says Ben Ginsberg, the association's attorney.

He argues that Texas law wasn't properly crafted to include every entity that might contribute to a candidate. If the law is so flawed that a political committee that gives $1 million to a candidate for governor isn't defined as a political committee, then that law needs a serious overhaul.

The courts aren't likely to agree with Ginsberg and the governors association. Indeed, if the Republican Governors Association isn't a political committee when it contributes to candidates, then nothing is. And millions in secret donations can flood Texas elections.

This has the potential to be all kinds of fun. I'll be keeping an eye on it.

11/26/07 | permalink | comments [0]

NASA chief rebuked for DeLay endorsement

You may recall back in March that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin stirred up some trouble when he gave a public address that included an exhortation to the audience to keep Tom DeLay in office. This is because of the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees from endorsing political candidates. It took awhile, but the federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates and enforces alleged violations of the Hatch Act has reprimanded Griffin for his statements. Muse and Bay Area Houston have the details.

01/31/07 | permalink | comments [0]

Janette Sexton

I'm not sure why this has come up right now, but both Perry and Stace are using the case of Janette Sexton in HD144 to make a point in a larger argument about who did and didn't do what to help Democratic candidates up and down the ballot in 2006. I don't have any quibble with their basic point, that there wasn't nearly enough support being given by the various power brokers within the party to candidates who were not in races deemed top tier, but I have a serious disagreement with the way they're using the data to make their point. Perry, who ranks all Democratic State House challengers from Harris and Montgomery Counties by their vote percentage, says:

It's worth noting that Cohen raised $500,000 for her campaign, with the assistance of many of the previously named legislators, an army of volunteers and the wherewithal to take a ten-month leave of absence from her position as the director of the Houston Area Women's Center. Thibaut, an adroit fundraiser, collected $150,000 and also a core of vigorous volunteer support. Matula, who ran in neighboring HD-129, benefited from the teachers PAC and strong efforts from the Bay Area New Democrats, Area 5 Democrats and Battleground Democrats -- all clubs that could have chipped in volunteer assistance to Padilla-Sexton as well -- enabling her to have extensive blockwalking and phonebanking. BAND, to their credit, provided robocalls to Janette's campaign. John Cobarruvias, the president of the club, admitted that BAND's efforts were stretched too thin over the Bell, Lampson and Matula campaigns to provide much in the way of anything extra. So with virtually no help and no resources - no money, no volunteers, consequently no direct mail, blockwalking or phonebanking, not even any campaign literature - Padilla-Sexton performed fourth of eleven political novices. Trautman, McDavid, and Khan all had greater resources and performed less well in their districts.

To which Stace says:

Considering we had other "favorites" that raised so much more and performed just as well as Padilla-Sexton I wonder if they did as well because of effective campaigning, or just for being the alternative on the ballot.

I'm sorry, but comparing candidates in this fashion is not illuminating. It's like ranking baseball players by batting average without taking into account league and park effects. Putting it another way, the overall National League batting average in 1930 was .303, and in 1968 it was .243. Calling a .300 hitter in 1930 better than a .280 hitter in 1968 would be completely misguided - hell, a .300 hitter in 1930 was, compared to his peers, mediocre, while in 1968 a .280 hitter was an All Star. Context matters.

I say if you really want to know how a State House candidate did, you need to compare her to her peers on the ballot. Here's how the nine Harris County State House challengers did relative to the other countywide Democrats in their districts:



Candidate     Dist    Pct County%   Diff  Rank

==============================================

Trautman       127  40.78   32.25  +8.53     1

Cohen          134  55.75   48.42  +7.33     1

Matula         129  42.31   37.55  +4.76     1

Thibaut        133  42.80   42.05  +0.75     8

Brann          136  29.89   29.96  -0.07     9

Khan           126  33.47   33.83  -0.36    12

Sexton         144  41.87   43.04  -1.17    17

Nelson-Turnier 150  29.71   31.67  -1.86    18

McDavid        138  39.86   42.77  -2.91    18

"County% is the average percentage of the 18 countywide Dems. As I've discussed before, the Harris County candidates did about three points better overall than the statewides did, and there was less variation among them, so I consider this to be the most accurate measure of how blue or red a given district is. "Diff" is the difference, positive or negative, between the State Rep's performance and the average countywide candidate's performance. (All percentages are for the two-candidate GOP/Dem race; all third parties are dropped from consideration.) "Rank" means where out of 19 total candidates (themselves included) in the district the candidate's performance rates.

These numbers speak for themselves. Trautman, Cohen, and Matula significantly overperformed relative to their districts, as I showed before. Sexton ran a little more than a point worse than average, and did better than only two others on the ballot - John Shike and Goodwille Pierre. Thibaut, who did have significant resources but barely beat average, can fairly be said to have underperformed, but to say Sexton did better than Trautman is just wrong.

Again, none of this obviates the point Perry and Stace made about the commitment or lack thereof made by the powers that be to the candidates on the ballot. I'm disputing the notion that Sexton's performance is comparable to those of the candidates who did get insitutional backing of some kind. Maybe she would have done better if she'd had that kind of backing; maybe the same is true for Scott Brann, Mark McDavid, Dot Nelson-Turnier, and Chad Khan as well. They didn't get it, so we'll never know. I have a lot of respect for these folks and the effort they put forth. But as we criticize the establishment for abandoning these candidates, bear in mind the possibility that the real abdication was in not recruiting candidates they were willing to support and thus leaving the race to unfunded novices.

01/25/07 | permalink | comments [5]

CD29 results thread

I'm following the CD29 results here. The folks who are embedded with the DiNovo campaign are doing the same here and here. With all of Matagorda and about half of Brazoria in, the standings are here, and K-T's assessment at this juncture is here. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: It's over. Runoff yes, DiNovo no. Alas.

12/19/06 | permalink | comments [0]

HD29 special election today

Today is the day for the last election of 2006, the special election in HD29 to fill the seat of the late Rep. Glenda Dawson. I've got a writeup on it over at Kuff's World, and to that I'll add links to Muse and Cobarruvias. If you live in Brazoria or Matagorda Counties, you might need to vote today. Check Dr. DiNovo's page for a listing of polling locations. I'll have updates on this race later today.

12/19/06 | permalink | comments [0]

No love from the National Journal

Last Thursday, I blogged about how the National Journal twice quoted an incorrect assertion that Tom DeLay's 2003 re-redistricting netted the GOP a mere two seats. PerryVsWorld has also blogged about this - though I disagree about his assessment of Henry Bonilla's future, I think he's right to say that Bonilla was a dead duck under the old lines.) So far, the comment I left here has never been approved (though one by Ryan Goodland making the same point was), and I've never gotten a response to the email I sent to John Mercurio. I don't know why such a silly, easily-debunked error has gained such currency, but my respect for the National Journal has gone down a notch because of it. Don't be fooled: Tom DeLay paid a high price for his scheme, but even with the loss of CD22 this year (whether for one cycle or long-term), he got a decent payoff for it. Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.

12/18/06 | permalink | comments [0]

One more to go: HD29

The last election of 2006 (but not necessarily the last election of this cycle) will take place on Tuesday. It's the special election for HD29 to fill the seat left vacant by the death of State Rep. Glenda Dawson. There are multiple Republicans and one Democrat in this race, Dr. Anthony DiNovo, who ideally would make it to a January runoff (*that* would be the last election of this cycle). If nothing else, if DiNovo just makes it to the runoff, that's one less assured vote for Tom Craddick as Speaker. Anything that makes Craddick sweat is good, and who knows? After Ciro Rodriguez's laugher last week, can anyone say for sure what might happen in a runoff?

Various folks are currently involved in the GOTV work for DiNovo. If you've got the time and the inclination, please join in with Muse, Coby, Kaos, Karl-T, and Hal at DiNovo headquarters. Especially Hal. Dems started the year with a special election win. Wouldn't it be great to end it that way, too?

12/17/06 | permalink | comments [2]

Williamson County election update

Eye on Williamson brings the latest news about the major voting problems they had in that county this year.

Williamson County officials took a major step Thursday to restore residents' trust in the voting system after numerous problems in the November election led to a partial recount and the resignation of the county elections administrator.

At least 100 election workers and staff members voiced concerns Thursday at a meeting called by the county's elections commission.

"This election did not go as smoothly as previous elections had gone when I had been a judge," election judge Eric Whitfield said after the hearing. "We need a way to make sure that people who move here and are interested enough in voting, that they can do that."

After the hearing, acting Elections Administrator John Willingham said the main complaints were about staffing, training and technical support. He will make recommendations to officials in the next six to eight weeks, including calling for the formation of a panel of election workers that will regularly report to the commission.

"I think it's difficult for someone who's not involved in elections every day . . . to hold the officials and staff accountable," he said. "I think election judges do have that opportunity, and they can see things that are going wrong."

[...]

Several workers said Thursday that staffing was inadequate and that their requests for additional help weren't met.

"If you don't have enough clerks at a polling place, voters are going to leave," Willingham said. "We need to make sure there are procedures in place (so) that staffing concerns won't be ignored. It's something that could have been handled fairly easily."

Workers also repeated complaints that they did not receive proper training in handling electronic voting machines and what election judge Betty Brown called "problem citizens," who disturb the voting process in some way.

I'd like to know more about what Ms. Brown meant by "problem citizens". Maybe there's a law enforcement issue in here as well.

EoW thinks Willingham did a good job when he was elections supervisor and has hope that he can get things straightened out. We'll see. There's some video of the meeting as well. Check it out.

12/16/06 | permalink | comments [0]

DeLay's net gain

Long as I'm in a quibbling mood, I need to point out an error in this Hotline post about CD23.

[Congressional guru Rich] Cohen also makes one other point. This is now the second seat in TX this cycle that has switched hands from the GOP to the Dems as a result of Tom DeLay's re-redistricting efforts. The other seat, of course, was DeLay's. So the net result for the GOP based on DeLay's re-redistricting was all of 2 seats. Was that really worth all the hassle and the subpoenas and courtroom dramas? Many a Republican is probably wondering that same thing tonight, in particular, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Henry Bonilla.

Far be it from me to offer any balm to Tom DeLay, but Cohen's math is funny, to say the least. I left the following comment on the post, which apparently hasn't been approved yet:

Two?

The Dems lost TX-01 (Sandlin), TX-02 (Turner), TX-04 (Hall, who switched parties), TX-09 (Lampson, who ran in the new TX-02), TX-19 (Stenholm), and TX-32 (Frost). They went from 17 members to 11. Now that Lampson is in TX-22 and Rodriguez has ousted Bonilla in TX-23, they have 13 members. That looks a lot like a net four seat loss. Even if you discount Hall, who was a true DINO that should have switched along with Phil Gramm in the 80s, that's three seats down. Cohen's math makes no sense.

Maybe a four seat gain isn't worth it, either - ideally, for DeLay, the GOP would have netted seven seats, but Chet Edwards spoiled that plan in 2004. And I, at least, believe that some other districts might be susceptible to a better-funded Democratic attack in 2008, which would render DeLay's scheme even less meaningful. But let's not overdo it just yet. His scheme was very costly to the Democrats, both in terms of caucus size and seniority. Some of that has now been regained, but there's still a long way to go.