From the Houston Chronicle: Texas State Board of Education faces takeover by GOP challengers backed by influential donors

An example of the influence of money in politics.

- Click here for the article.

For more than 20 years, Fort Worth Republican Pat Hardy has been a reliably conservative voice on the State Board of Education.

Hardy has fought for Moses to be included in social studies standards, advocated for presenting creationism alongside evolution in science textbooks and said she was an early voice to call for the banning of critical race theory from the state’s public schools.

But in 2024, Hardy is not conservative enough for Republican voters: She lost her primary election earlier this month against Brandon Hall, a former youth pastor who has pitched himself as a fighter for Christian conservative values.

In addition to Hardy’s outright loss, two other Republicans on the board — Pam Little and Tom Maynard — were forced into runoff elections against opponents pitching themselves as stronger conservatives. All three challengers received heavy financial support from Texans for Educational Freedom, a right-wing advocacy group that cut its teeth trying to sway local school board elections but has turned its attention to overhauling the state board, spending more than $300,000 this year.

Hall and the others are poised to have a big impact right away, as the board is scheduled to revise the state’s social studies curriculum standards next year for the first time in more than a decade. The board’s decisions will influence what children will learn about government, Texas history and American history, among other topics.

Despite getting contributions from three times as many donors, Hardy’s campaign only raised about a third as much as Hall, who brought in $146,623. Of that, $145,758 came from Texans for Educational Freedom — 99.4 percent.

Hall said he was proud to receive TEF’s support, which he said he earned because of his positions on the issues.

Kansas Supreme Court Justices survived November challenge

For 2306's look at judicial elections. A coordinated effort to remove the justices due to political opposition to their recent decisions about the death penalty, abortion and school funding has raised concerns about the ability of the courts to remain above politics.

- Click here for the article.

After roughly a million dollars in TV and radio ads plus a blizzard of postcards, the Kansas Supreme Court didn't change one bit with Tuesday's elections.

With a majority of precincts reporting, all four of the justices who had been targeted by the Republican Party, Kansans for Life and other conservative groups comfortably won retention.

“Kansans have sent a very clear message, not just to the special interest groups that Gov. Brownback has funded but to the governor himself: hands off our court,” says Ryan Wright from Kansans for Fair Courts, the organization that raised at least $400,000 to help keep the justices on the bench.

Retained were Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, Justice Dan Biles, Justice Carol Beier, Justice Marla Luckert and Justice Caleb Stegall.

No one targeted Stegall for ouster, the only justice on the high court appointed by Gov. Sam Brownback.

For a broader look at efforts to politicize state courts, look here: State Judicial Elections Become Political Battlegrounds.

From 538: Nearly All Of Silicon Valley’s Political Dollars Are Going To Hillary Clinton

Most went to Obama in 08 and 12 also.

In return they got one of their own put in charge of the FCC.

- Click here for the article.

. . . while many technology companies have shared policy interests, they don’t yet see themselves as a political cohort, which “makes it quite hard to organize them in any sort of politically effective way.”

“Until just a few years ago, the perspective in Silicon Valley was to have nothing to do with Washington,” he said. “It’s only in the last few years that tech companies have really established a significant lobbying presence in Washington.”

Becky Tallent, the head of U.S. government relations for Dropbox and a former immigration assistant to former House Speaker John Boehner, also sees technology’s relationship to government as just starting to grow.

“There is a generational gap between the people who are running our government right now and the people who are using the technology and creating the technology,” she said.
The big political concerns for the tech industry this election cycle include trade and the status of high-tech H-1B visas. In 2015, the U.S. exported nearly $205 billion worth of computer and electronic products, constituting 13.6 percent of total U.S. exports, the second-largest category of exports. That’s why many tech executives have been alarmed by Trump’s opposition to free trade and trade agreements. Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership but is much more supportive of free trade than Trump is. In addition, Clinton wants to continue the H-1B visa program, while Trump has criticized it and said he will severely limit it. The program is designed to supply workers in specialty fields when Americans are in short supply, though one pending lawsuit alleges it has been used improperly, with Americans training their cheaper replacements.

The H-1B program, along with various post-student work visas, have been gateways into American entrepreneurship for some of America’s biggest tech companies. A 2016 report by the National Foundation for American Policy, a business-oriented research group that supports immigration, found that more than half of America’s billion-dollar startups were founded or co-founded by immigrants.

From the Washington Post: How 10 mega-donors already helped pour a record $1.1 billion into super PACs

More support for the argument that we are more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

- Click here for the article.

Super PACs seeking to influence the 2016 elections have collected more than $1 billion, a record haul driven by jumbo-sized contributions from rich donors on both sides of the aisle.

Just 10 mega-donor individuals and couples contributed nearly 20 percent of the $1.1 billion raised by super PACs by the end of August, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. The total exceeds the $853 million that super PACs collected in the entire 2012 cycle.

In a reflection of how once-reluctant Democrats have fully embraced the big-money system, the top givers were split roughly equally along party lines, with five Republicans, four Democrats and one independent, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.
On the left, large check writers have pumped millions into Priorities USA Action, the top super PAC allied with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to demonstrate her independence from her wealthy supporters.

On the Republican side, the big money has largely flowed into super PACs working to keep GOP control of the Senate rather than to the muddled collection of competing groups supporting presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Together, super PACs seeking to sway the White House and congressional races have pumped more than $674 million into TV ads and other outreach through September, filings show. By the end of the 2012 elections, such groups had spent $608 million.
The figures illustrate how American campaigns have been reordered by the ability to give unlimited sums to political committees. In the six years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision created new paths for massive contributions to flow into elections, a tiny sliver of donors with immense financial capacity have rushed to participate.

From Wired: Clinton and Trump Get Most of Their Campaign Funds from These 250 Neighborhoods

More support for the argument that despite the general idea that the US is a democracy, it is actually more of a plutocracy.

- government by the richest people- a country that is ruled by the richest people
- a group of very rich people who have a lot of power

- Click here for the article.

The FEC, which compels political candidates to file regular reports on their fundraising and expenditures, provides data on funding by zip code in addition to tracking donations by employer and state. For the month of August, the 10 zip codes sending the most funding to Clinton are all on the east coast: eight in New York City, one in Washington DC, and one in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Last month wereported that Clinton took in lots of cash from the west side of Manhattan, and this month the trend continues: Clinton drew $364,000 from four West Side neighborhoods in August. Republican nominee Donald Trump, by contrast, raised that amount from his top 32 zip codes.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: A Friend With a Check is a Friend Indeed

What is the difference between a contribution and a bribe?

- Click here for the article.

If it's legal to give money to a state officeholder without violating Texas bribery laws — as is apparently the case with gifts reported by Attorney General Ken Paxtonfor use in his legal defense — what keeps rich folks from sprinkling money on their favorite public officials?

It’s not really a question about the attorney general, even if he’s the one who raised the point for conversation. In his most recent personal financial disclosure — a report required of elected state officials — Paxton brought to light an idiosyncrasy in Texas ethics law.

“$100,000 gift for legal defense from family friend who meets independent relationship exception,” Paxton reported in an entry noting money received from James Webb of Frisco. That was the largest of two dozen such gifts totaling $329,050.

Paxton’s fundraising hasn’t raised any legal objections outside of the usual partisan noise. He’s the poster boy in this not because of the way he’s paying his lawyers but because he has lawyers to pay. Paxton is facing federal and state securities fraud charges related to his work as a private attorney and businessman and not to his state job.

Paxton is fighting indictments on allegations that he was steering people to investments without revealing he was being paid to do so. He also faces related federal civil fraud chargesfrom the Securities and Exchange Commission. He and his lawyers contend the charges are politically motivated and have no merit.

What is an "independent expenditure?"

It's what makes a PAC different than a Super PAC. The expenditures are independent of the campaigns of the candidates they support and its all the Super PAC can spend. Super PACs are more accurately called "independent expenditure-only committees." But the expenditures are limitless, which explains their popularity. The problems is determining if the expenditures are in fact independent - if they are not coordinated.

This link in Ballotpedia helps explain how this is done: Click here for detail.

From the NYT: Donald Trump Starts Summer Push With Crippling Money Deficit

Trumps non-traditional campaign continues.

- Click here for the story.

Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and his party in political peril.

Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House. He trailed Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $28 million in May, by more than $41 million, according to reports filed late Monday night with the Federal Election Commission.

He has a staff of around 70 people — compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton — suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall. And he fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Monday, after concerns among allies and donors about his ability to run a competitive race.

The Trump campaign has not aired a television advertisement since he effectively secured the nomination in May and has not booked any advertising for the summer or fall. Mrs. Clinton and her allies spent nearly $26 million on advertising in June alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, pummeling Mr. Trump over his temperament, his statements and his mocking of a disabled reporter. The only sustained reply, aside from Mr. Trump’s gibes at rallies and on Twitter, has come from a pair of groups that spent less than $2 million combined.

Mr. Trump’s fund-raising for May reflects his lag in assembling the core of a national finance team. In the same month that he clinched the Republican nomination, Mr. Trump raised just $3.1 million and was forced to lend himself $2 million to meet costs. Some invitations to Trump fund-raising events have featured the same short list of national Republican finance volunteers regardless of what city the event is held in, suggesting Mr. Trump has had some trouble lining up local co-hosts.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an inquiry about the campaign’s spending plans. During an interview on Monday on CNN, Mr. Lewandowski defended the candidate’s bare-bones approach.

“We are leaner, meaner, more efficient, more effective. Get bigger crowds. Get better coverage,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “If this was the business world, people would be commending Mr. Trump for the way he’s run this campaign.”

About 527 organizations

Political, but not advocates for or against political candidates. Assuming that is possible.

- Findlaw: Why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and Other "527" Organizations Can't Be Silenced.
- Cato Institute: Free Speech and the 527 Prohibition.
- Roll Call: National Section 527 Organizations Raise Over $133 Million.
- Lexology: FEC continues to apply controversial legal theories to regulate 527 organizations.

What are they again?

- Wikipedia: 527 Organization. 

From the Center for Responsive Politics: How Crossroads GPS beat the IRS and became a social welfare group

Here's how a political organization can become officially recognized as a social welfare organization.

- Click here for the article.

When a group called Crossroads GPS sent the IRS an application for tax-exempt status in September 2010, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, Snapchat hadn’t started doing whatever it does, and Miley Cyrus was still Hannah Montana.

A lot has changed since then, including the political influence of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations like GPS, a brainchild of Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and other GOP political operatives that was an early player in the post-Citizens United landscape. For example, in the 10 years leading up to that date, the combined political spending by organizations, like GPS, that aren’t required to disclose their donors stood at about $100 million. That was about $30 million less than was ultimately spent by such groups in the last few months of the 2010 midterms alone, and less than one-third of what they spent in the 2012 presidential election cycle. In that cycle, GPS’ political outlays alone made up nearly one-fourth of all spending by nondisclosing groups, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. None of those totals include the many ads GPS has run outside of the FEC’s reporting windows.

But while Crossroads GPS was, well, the elephant in the room when it came to fueling the growth of “dark money” spending in elections, it struggled more than almost any other big political spender, liberal or conservative, to convince the IRS that it was in the business of social welfare, not politics.

But as OpenSecrets Blog first reported Tuesday, that long battle with the IRS finally ended last November, assuring prospective donors that the group is operating with the IRS’ blessing.

The decision has shocked many observers, though not Crossroads GPS itself, whose president Steven Law said the group was “pleased but not surprised.”

Whats is a 501(c)(4) organization?

It is a social welfare organization that is not primarily involved in politics. They have two features attractive to interest groups that wish to be involved in politics from the outside - that is - not directly tied into a campaign.

1 - They are tax exempt.
2 - They don't have to disclose their donors.

This makes the designation attractive to many political groups that would like to register as one, but this is a call made by the IRS, which leads to the obvious controversy.

For detail:

- Open Secrets: Outside Spending: Frequently Asked Questions About 501(c)(4) Groups.
- Washington Post: What is a 501(c)(4), anyway?

A bit on Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org

More for today's discussion.

Both are interest groups, and both used the courts to expand their ability to spend money on the political process by successfully arguing to the court the existing limits on expenditures violates free speech. Campaign spending equals speech, and speech that is funded by corporate or union sources are the same as speech that comes form humans.

We will walk through these:

- Oyez: Citizens United.
- Wikipedia: SpeechNOW.org v. FEC.

Super PACs in the news

We will be discussing these in some 2305 sections.


Here's a look at them in the wild:


- The Daily Caller: How Super PACs Are Being Used to Influence Republican Delegates.

- Portland Press Herald: Big money in politics: Super-rich donors flood super PAC coffers.- Daily Kos: 50 Mega Rich Donors give 41% of all Super PAC money.
- Huffington Post: How Super Are Super PACs?
- Open Secrets: Who’s Who in the World of Super PACs?

What is a Super PAC anyway?

Here's a definition from Open Secrets.

- Click here for it.

Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

For more:

- Super PACs Exaplained.
- When Super PACs Attack.
- Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics?

Why vote? Maybe there's no need.

Some Texas Races Decided Before Voters Hit Polls.

We are just one week away from Super Tuesday but before a single ballot is counted in the March 1st Primary, we already know who some of the winners will be in November.

There are 16 seats up for grabs in the State Senate in the 2016 election. If you look at the list of Republican and Democratic candidates, 12 of these elections are one party races—meaning there are only Republicans or Democrats in the running.

Nine of the State Senate elections are one-person races—meaning there is only one candidate in the running.
According to their party’s websites, the Libertarian and Green Parties will challenge six of those seats in the general election but that still leaves three State Senators who are set to win the election by default.

It is still possible for other third party independent candidates to join the statewide races before the November election, but it’s difficult to win as an independent, especially when a candidate joins this late in the game.

The primaries narrow the list of candidates to determine who the Republican and Democratic nominees will be, but in many races, primary voters will only have one option within their party.

Between the State House and Senate Races, 47 percent of the Republican candidates will run unopposed in the primary election. The same goes for 45 percent of the Democratic candidates— they face no inner-party competition.

Some candidates will go completely unchallenged, with no bipartisan competition in the general election.

Of the 150 seats in the Texas House of Representatives, 48 candidates are set to run unopposed in both the primaries and that general election—that’s including competition from the Libertarian and Green parties.

In total, with the 48 seats in the State House and three senate seats, that’s more than 30 percent of state legislature who are set to get elected not by voters, but by default.

Political consultant David Butts said some argue this is not what a democracy should look like. “It’s more a ‘dollar-ocracy.’ It’s money basically controlling that system,” Butts said.

65 percent of all the elections in the state senate and house are one-party races and with only Republicans or only Democrats in the running, that means the winners will likely be determined in the primaries.

“Why spend money in a race when there is no chance of you winning?” Butts said, “Even if you spent $1 million in some of these seats, you couldn’t win.”

He said gerrymandering has become a “very refined art,” not just in Texas, but all across the U.S. “There is just no reason for running in them, they are either so Democratic or so Republican that no one can challenge them,” said Butts.

A political consultant with more than 30 years of experience in Texas politics, Butts said It’s not worth the opposing party’s time or money to enter a candidate in a race—especially when the dominate party has an incumbent in the running.

“You’re more likely to get struck my lightening then get one of those seats,” Butts said. “This is a numbers game, it’s math—you realize that the odds of you winning are very, very remote.”

The state’s voting districts were last drawn in 2011 by the Republican controlled legislature.

“Democrats do it, Republicans to do it and that leads to sort of a one party system that develops out of that,” Butts said, “The problem is that you have very few districts where you have a real contest.”

If election season is the time for voters to make their voices heard, Butts said a lack of competition gives them little say.

Catching up on money in politics

Open Secrets lists the top donors here: 2016 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups.

They also have a section devoted to spending on the 2016 Presidential Race.

For recent news stories:

- Lobby firms reap benefits of an active Congress.

Many of the nation’s largest lobby firms saw a spike in revenue in 2015, driven by a more productive Congress and the continuing battles over environmental regulations, trade policy, taxes and health care. Seven of the 10 biggest lobby shops by revenue reported year-over-year gains in fees, according to year-end disclosure reports filed with the Senate on Wednesday. 

- Obama weighs whether to force federal contractors to reveal political spending.

President Obama is weighing whether to invoke his executive authority to force federal contractors to disclose political contributions they make to independent groups, according to individuals briefed on the matter. The proposed executive order would require corporations that currently have federal contracts to disclose what they spend on political campaign efforts, including money forwarded through trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other advocacy groups.

- The Secrets of Charles Koch’s Political Ascent.

In a recent round of interviews, Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and political patron, has been stressing that he only recently became involved in politics. As he put it in an interview with Megyn Kelly on October 15, “I’ve never been that fond of politics and only got dragged into it recently kicking and screaming.” But according to what appear to be two never-before-seen documents—a paper Charles wrote in 1976 and an unpublished history of Charles’ political evolution—Charles began planning his ambitious remaking of American politics 40 years ago, transitioning from libertarian ideologue to conservative power broker. For his new movement, which aimed to empower ultraconservatives like himself and radically change the way the U.S. government worked, he analyzed and then copied what he saw as the strengths of the John Birch Society, the extreme, right-wing anti-communist group to which he, his brother David and their father, Fred Koch, had belonged. Charles Koch might claim that his entry into politics is new, but from its secrecy to its methods of courting donors and recruiting students, the blueprint for the vast and powerful Koch donor network that we see today was drafted four decades ago.

- What is political ‘dark money’ — and is it bad?

Why are so many people upset about dark money in politics?

Campaign finance reform activists argue that voters should know who is funding political advertisements. Such information, they assert, is essential to voters’ ability to evaluate the merits of political messages — and to know if certain special interests may be trying to curry favor with politicians. Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of Democracy 21, for one, has said that “history makes clear that unlimited contributions and secret money are a formula for corruption.” Likewise, the Campaign Legal Center has called the emergence of dark money a “serious threat to our democracy.” In a portion of the controversial Citizens United decision, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices agreedthat disclosure of money in politics was important because “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

- A Banner Year for 'Dark Money' in Politics.

The 2016 presidential campaign not only will feature more money than any since Watergate, but also more secret money than the days when black satchels of illicit cash were passed around.

The so-called dark money, or contributions that don't have to be disclosed, topped more than $300 million in the 2012 presidential race, and some experts believe that the levels may be far higher this time. There also is a risk that foreign money could be surreptitiously funneled into the presidential campaign because it wouldn't have to be publicly disclosed.

This flood of cash is occurring thanks to a ruse that permits political advocacy groups to claim that they are principally social welfare agencies and thus tax exempt and not subject to disclosure. These organizations court interest groups and rich donors, some of whom want the influence that political money brings but not the public association. It's a win for the interest groups and the candidates; the public is kept in the dark.

From the Washington Post: Two Clintons. 41 Years. $3 Billion.

This fits with previous discussions about money in politics. Both Bill and Hillary have made and cultivated powerful, wealthy friends. If you want to win high office - or to some degree any office - this is a requirement.

- Click here for the story.

Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

A couple items for 2306 from the Texas Tribune

- Texas Delegation Raises, Shares Big Money.

With the Dec. 14 candidate filing deadline looming ahead of the March 1 primary, Texans in Congress recently showed their fundraising prowess — or lack thereof — through third-quarter reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. And a closer look at those records shows which incumbents appear to be confident or possibly anxious about their re-election bids.

- Starr: "Little Doubt" Baylor Will Opt Out of Campus Carry.

Baylor University President and Chancellor Ken Starr said Monday that he has "little doubt" that the private institution will opt out of the state's new campus carry law when it goes into effect next year. During a daylong Texas Tribune symposium on higher education at Baylor, Starr said he thinks allowing concealed handgun licensees to carry their guns on campus is unwise.

I cant do better than this

From Vox: 40 charts that explain money in politics.

From the San Antonio News: Texas Supreme Court chief justice settles ethics fine

Here's a story that ties together the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Ethics Commission together - not in a way that that chief justice would have liked probably.

- Click here for it.

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht has ended an ethics dispute that languished in state court for nearly seven years, agreeing to pay a substantially reduced fine to settle charges that he broke state campaign finance laws.

The settlement, made public in court documents Wednesday, concludes a high-profile case that has become the longest-running appeal of a fine levied by the Texas Ethics Commission in the roughly two and a half decades since the agency was created.

Hecht was fined $29,000 in 2008, one of the largest campaign finance penalties ever issued in the state, after the commission determined he broke campaign finance laws while successfully fighting allegations that he abused his position by openly supporting President George W. Bush's short-lived U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

Hecht accepted a six-figure discount for his legal bill in the course of challenging the abuse-of-power charges. The commission concluded the discount was equivalent to a campaign contribution, one he failed to report, and that the total amount exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit on donations from law firms to judicial candidates.

Instead of paying, Hecht decided to fight the fine in state district court. And the lawsuit has stalled in the courts since it was filed in January 2009, raising the ire of watchdog groups that accused the state's Republican machine of working to bury the case.

Under the settlement, Hecht agreed to pay $1,000 and to "obtain a written fee agreement with any lawyer or law firm he hires to represent him either before or within a reasonable time after the representation commences."

Watchdog groups snarled at the final conclusion to the case, saying the commission let Hecht "off the hook" and that the fine is coming years late and "$28,000 light."

"This saga makes a mockery of so-called ethics enforcement," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a liberal consumer rights group that filed the ethics complaint against Hecht in 2008. "Apparently, the way high ranking officials can beat the rap is to simply delay the process indefinitely."