For as long as I’ve been a Republican precinct chair, my fellow activists have loudly opposed “pay-for-play” slates. Big Jolly Times readers are already familiar with the concept: candidate slates are mailed to subsets of Republican primary voters, and they purport to identify the most qualified or conservative candidates on the ballot. In exchange for these endorsements, candidates are pressured to donate money to support the mailer or purchase advertising inside it. Candidates who refuse to participate find themselves penalized on Election Day.
Anti-slate sentiment has reached a fever pitch in the wake of the May 22 runoff election for CD2 between Dan Crenshaw and Kevin Roberts. Roberts was supported by the three best-known slates: Terry Lowry’s Link Letter, Steve Hotze’s Conservative Republicans of Texas, and Gary Polland’s Texas Conservative Review. The Link Letter dove straight into the gutter to attack Crenshaw and support Roberts, baselessly accusing Crenshaw of bashing Christians and President Trump and of wanting to impose new taxes. This backfired badly: prominent Crenshaw supporters like radio host Michael Berry drew unprecedented attention to this issue using their own independent platforms, and Crenshaw won the runoff with 70% of the vote.
History leads me to part company with the many who wish to see the slates ended completely. When founded, these slates filled an important gap by supporting social conservatives at a time when social liberalism was much more widespread within the Republican Party than it is today. Pro-life and pro-family platform planks, now nearly ubiquitous, were controversial when first introduced—but the organizations behind the slates correctly sensed that the Republican Party could reap enormous electoral benefits by appealing to the majority of Americans who held socially conservative views. Older voters still reward the slates for the trust they built with the electorate during the 1990s—before the Internet came along, they were the only local alternative to the liberal media for conservatives trying to research downballot candidates.
Until recently, most efforts to combat the pay-for-play slates have met with failure. Competitor slates have been introduced, but they have a long way to go to build enough rapport with voters to truly wrest support for their candidates away from the old guard. Warnings on social media and practical efforts such as “Trash the Slates” receptacles at voting locations are not widespread in their reach. The best approach, in my opinion, is to lean into the problem: so long as we have one of the longest ballots in the country, accept that slates will play a role in the way many people vote. The Harris County Republican Party should take an active role in encouraging ethical slate behavior, while maintaining its own neutrality when it comes to the candidates and issues endorsed.
I advocate a three-pronged approach:
- Candidates will be offered the opportunity to forswear any payments in exchange for endorsements, and those candidates who sign such a pledge will be listed as having done so on the website and will be encouraged to mention it in their campaigns.
- Organizations will be allowed to certify with HCRP that they have not accepted any such contributions, and in exchange will be offered an easily-recognizable symbol or statement to include on their mailers indicating as much.
- Voters will be informed about the existence of pay-for-play slates through HCRP’s outreach efforts, and they will be encouraged to ignore any mail that does not include a statement indicating that no endorsements on the mailer were granted in exchange for payment.
I do not suggest this lightly, and I understand if such a program were improperly implemented, it could lead to violations of neutrality. But provided that those complications could be overcome, it is past time for the Harris County Republican Party to ensure its primaries are conducted fairly and ethically. If you agree, let me know via email.
Scott Bowen
Senate District 11 Chairman
Harris County Republican Party
As much as we criticize the slates, remember that they are mostly funded by candidates. Hopefully these results will send a message to future candidates that they can’t win just by sitting back and writing checks to two or three men (or their favorite go-between consultants).
I’m more concerned with systematic vote rigging >
Beverly Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org
Anyone that thinks the HCRP under Simpson can operate this “outreach” scheme fairly is very naive. Simpson and his puppeteer Ed Emmett hate the conservatism of the slates with every breath their body takes. That’s like asking the DNC to regulate Wikileaks, or DOJ to investigate the Trump campaign.
All slates compete in a market of free ideas. Scott, please stay out of the free market and let it work. The big three slates are incredibly valuable to “Total Conservatives” like me, and despised by liberal Republicans like the left-leaning United Republicans, created by uber-liberal fmr county chair Betsy Lake in 1992. Keep your hands of the slates – all of them, or create your own.
As a longtime supporter of United Republicans, I will note that they were the only major endorsing group to support Dan Crenshaw for Congress in the March primary. That hardly sounds “left-leaning” to me.
Thank you, Mainstream. As a board member and officer of United Republicans, I am pleased to say United Republicans were the first to endorse Dan Crenshaw. Also, when he wins in November, United Republicans’ record of picking Congressional winners will be unblemished. 100% since the first time Kevin Brady ran. No one who knows anything about United Republicans thinks it is a liberal group.
C’mon Karen, what rock have you been hiding under for 30 years? United Republicans is the longtime home of the now-closeted Pro-Choice Liberal Republicans. I have a candidate friend from years ago who went before it as a proud Pro-Life, Pro-Family candidate and was attacked by Betsy Lake herself and Segesketter in ugly terms because he/she proclaimed her/his strong beliefs in no-exceptions on abortion. They went berserk! Slates have always had far less impact on high profile races like Crenshaw-Roberts. In all my decades as an election judge, I’ve never once seen a voter bring the United Republicans card into either my polling places or early voting places that I’ve worked. Never once in 25 years of its existence, and 30 years of my tireless election work. However, if you want to know who the Pro-Choice Pro-Gay Marriage party liberal insiders support, they are famous for a long history of backing pro-choice candidates in the 1990’s and 2000’s, and today, those same candidates now call themselves 3-exception Pro-life candidates. If one understands anything about the abortion debate over the decades, its those open-ended easy abortion 3-exception Republicans are more than likely closet pro-choicers. They just can’t be viable candidates in party primaries today and be pro-choice, since the Republican brand, as defined in writing in the RPT Platform every two years by nearly 10,000 convention delegates, has been pro-life one exception and now no exceptions. Life is life folks, and the slaughter of 60 million unborn nearly-viable American citizens since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and 8 million of those in the “happy helpful” family planning clinics (read: butcher shops and killing chambers) of Planned Parenthood, will be Americas downfall before God, unless we stop the slaughter soon! Liberal Republicans like Mr. Texas Solutions talk about rewarding illegal immigrants with guest worker permits, while thousands of unborn American children die in America’s abortion centers every single day. Most on the United Republican board don’t want candidates that are committed to stop this – the Hotze-Lowry-Polland slates back candidates that want to stop the carnage. United Republicans typically support candidates backed by the illegal immigrant-dependent home builders like Weekley Homes, Perry Homes, etc. etc. who build our homes with illegal trade workers, aying fractional wages to illegals than true American workers. If you’ve been around as long as I have, you know why the certain big donors back certain candidates, but in the case of Crenshaw, it was his totally conservative positions on the issues, PLUS his incredibly personal physical sacrifice that caused thousands of Hotze-Lowry-Polland slate users like myself to vote for Dan instead of Kevin. Dan gave so many of us total conservatives such hope that he can be a great true conservative congressman, and neither United Republicans or the big 3 conservative slates, had any influence on this race to any significant degree. Dan will make a great congressman and he’s only 35 years old. Barring some mistakes in the future, he should have a long tenure as CD 2 congressman, and probably become Chairman of an Armed Services or Foreign Relations committee subcommittee like Culberson, and maybe even someday the committee Chairman like Kevin Brady. Congratulations to Dan and especially everyone in CD2! Looks like you got a great one for America’s future.
Patriot and I say that loosely…I am pro-life and have been my entire life. I am a practicing Catholic, graduated from a Catholic institution and attend Mass weekly. The candidate you are referring to is lying. None of what you purport has ever happened nor would it. United Republicans has always operated in a fair and balanced manner. Candidates seek out our endorsement, because we give everyone an equal platform and because they know the weight it carries in Harris County. We have lots of different viewpoints in our group and we unite for the purpose of electing qualified Republicans to office. It’s really fairly simple. However, you can believe whatever you feel fits your “comfort level.” I, will not abide by someone out and out lying about me and United Republicans of Harris County. United Republicans will continue its important work and continue to be an extremely important part of the election process. Here is a word to you…put away your obvious hatred and unite with all Republicans to get our ticket elected in the 2018 election cycle.
Since I was referenced, I’ll respond. Patriot, whoever you are, I do not hide behind a cowardly handle, I use my name. I’ve been here for quite some time, not under a rock. Your unhinged and outright lies about United Republicans have not swayed one person, most importantly our supporters. We as a board work many hours interviewing all candidates in contested primary races who wish to receive our endorsement. Everyone gets the same treatment. Our reputation is quite good, despite your attempted to paint it otherwise. We provide regular informative forums and guest speakers for the public to keep current on issues and meet candidates. The fact is that our record on endorsements is very good and candidates want our endorsement. That is a success.
Well. . . . . Many of these slates are more likely to operate in the market of “who can pay the most for an endorsement”. If you are relying on guys like Steve Hotze et. al. to tell you how to vote then you need to reconsider where your info is coming from.
Kevin Roberts campaign against Dan Crenshaw, assisted in no small part by Terry Lowery and Steve Hotze was foul and despicable.
Nope, they operate in the environment of who is the most total conservative. Money seldom has anything to do with an endorsement, as I’ve watched all these slates since their inception over my 30+ year here. Even Lowry takes money for advertising from anyone that will pay him his rate, whether he opposes them or not. This entire pay-for-play attack strategy is devised by the moderate-liberal Republicans like United Republicans, to try and denigrate the Big 3 totally conservative slates. It won’t work. They are at the foundation of Republican politics here, and always will be. Get used to it, because it is not going to change because they will always stay true to their brand and pick the most conservative (in their opinion) candidate. “Pay-for-play” accusations are the Ed Emmett-Patricia Harless-Paul Simpson axis of liberal Republicans trying to elect more Straus-like Sarah Davis-like Republicans at all levels. Hotze-Lowry-Polland always try and recruit a candidate to run against Ed’s puppet Paul. He and his similar liberal Republican minded donors have spent well over $ 500,000 in the last two primaries trying to keep Paul as chair. If you want to talk about pay-to-play, Simpson and Emmett should look in the mirror and see what real election buying looks like. That’s the “Pay-to-Play” that most of us total conservatives see a foot here. You donate to King Edward Emmett’s campaign, and he in turns donate to Paul, and directs his donors to do so as well. Why does he do this? Because he wants power over the local party structure, and where voter turnout efforts are focused and money spent. That way, his Sarah Davis liberal voters (Ed lives in her district, I’m told) get top priority in any Simpson GOTV effort. Must be nice to be king in a democracy. So it goes. Bacarrisse or Bettencourt would have made an outstanding County Judge, instead of little Napoleon.
LOL, it’s definitely a “market.”
But sometimes the slates do not endorse based on a candidates conservative values, but instead out of anamosity toward the candidate for no good reason. What people don’t know is that some of these slates won’t even interview candidates and refuse to provide any explanation. When this happens the voters are fooled into thinking that the slates have endorsed the conservative candidate. I think Scott’s idea is great.
I like Scott’s idea. Passing meaninglessness resolutions obviously hasn’t worked and I don’t have concerns about HCRP involvement as it is the precinct chairs who will oversee the administration of the program. You can judge the effectiveness if the slates can’t attract advertisers and the are no longer economically viable.
Dream on slate haters! The slates are empowered by the fact that slate users want total conservatives and have trusted those slates to interview and report on the most conservative candidates for over two decades each. Scott’s three bullet points are just an attempt to exterminate the slates. This is very disingenuous at best. Simpson and Emmett need to destroy the big 3 slates, in order to replace them with their puppett of United Republicans. It’s just a typical dogfight. HCRP has no business interfering in this market of ideas. None. And even worse, offends many slate using Republicans like myself by trying to destroy them for their own political advantage. Both Simpson and Emmett should be flushed, but we’re stuck with them for now. Vote Straight Ticket always.
The thing you all need to understand is that dear friend Scott is new to the area compared to many of us longtime activists, and thus does not remember what it was like before 1994 when many naive Republican voters brought the Houston newspaper “slates” into the polling places. It was insane! The newspapers were endorsing the pro-choice Republicans every single time, since they have always condoned the monstrous slaughter of millions of fellow Texans. They’re like the WWII German newspapers justifying the extermination of the jews and other enemies of the state. So disgusting! I started personally publishing (and paying for) my own slate to my precinct voters, but was greatly relieved when Hotze and Lowry in 1994 (and Polland in 2004) showed up with theirs countywide, and we total conservatives started beating the more liberal River Oaks-Memorial-West University-backed Republicans. Not surprisingly, Republican nominees started winning landslides in the fall of 1994 (60-40 and 55-45%), and we dominated countywide races for 14 years of Chairman Polland and Woodfill, until the Obama 2008 election. Why? Because total conservative Republicans, of which there are at least 3-4 times as many in Harris County than liberal R’s, elected the more conservative nominees, thanks to the lists in the Big 3 slates. They and the conservative independents came back in droves in the fall general elections. It’s was and is very simple. Lastly, Bowen’s third proposal is especially reckless and dangerous to the HCRP, because it puts the HCRP in the middle of the primaries, where you don’t want it to be. Very dumb! Secondly, it is guaranteed to generate a lawsuit for restraint of trade etc. from Lowry and possibly Hotze. Believe me, you do not want the HCRP in the middle of this conflict trying to prove that any of the big 3 slates is truly “pay for play”. Can you assemble sufficient courtroom-testable evidence that they are “pay for play”? Nonsense, no one can, and it’s marketing as a “threat” has just been Simpson, Emmett, & Hubbard’s attempt to tear down these 3 total conservatives slates, so they and their more liberal allies can nominate more liberal nominees. “Pay for play” was first introduced as a a campaign tactic term well over 10 years ago by losing HCRP Chairman Candidate Ed Hubbard, to smear and attack these big 3 total conservative slates by the liberal Republicans like himself and United Republicans in competition in the market with them. United Republican board members and their allies have tried desperately every primary cycle for decades to try and denigrate the big 3. Hotze created his slate at the same time Betsy Lake and her allies like Ed Chen created United Republicans. They are both competing in the marketplace. Everyone at that time understood that they were comprised of the two warring factions, which still war to this day (but supposedly not between June & November of election years). The other 18 months is a war for the Republican brand. As to Erin Lunceford’s complaint of not even being interviewed by one or more of the slates, she needs to understand that the slate leaders communicate with thousands of people over the course of every two years, and interview upwards of 50-100 or more candidates in each election cycle. It takes a lot of time to do that, and if background research on candidates for an office shows up a liberal cnaidate, then I’d cull them out and not waste my time on them either. Interviewing takes a lot of time, and some interviewees have been known to fib about their positions on an issue, in order to try and appear as something they are not. I used to interview a lot of candidates myself, and I’d say as many as 15-20% lied in order to try and get my endorsement. Thank God for the biannual state convention where about 10,000 elected Texas Republicans come together and write a platform that reflects the vast majority of Texas Republican viewpoints. About 20% of the candidates I interviewed had never read it, which is very bad when you consider they are trying to run as a Republican, and that document is the Texas Republican brand. If you disagree with the platform issues, then go to the convention as a delegate and just try and change it. Delegate representation at the convention is determined every two years by the number of voters for Republican governor candidate in each precinct (or non-Harris county) in the most recent gubernatorial election. That’s a very fair way to create a convention of widespread representative Texas Republicans, and sadly, no other state in the nation even comes close to us in this magnificent display of grassroots party democracy. Many state parties don’t even have state conventions, and their state executive committees consist of state chair appointees who usually are simply big liberal donors. Ohio and Florida would be nearly as red states as Texas, if they ever replicated our system of rules here in Texas by simply changing their state party rules. Of course, the big donors like controlling the party the way they do there, so they will never change the rules, and thus we could easily lose those states in future presidential elections. All so some rich donors can control the party and spout their moronic Kasich and Rubio version of Republicanism destructive to America. Disgusting! In conclusion, just remember that most every person mouthing outrage about the big 3 slates for “pay to play” is either 1) lying because they have no evidence that would stand up in court, 2) they are fundamentally a liberal Republican, or 3) is not old enough to remember the very liberal Republican world here in Harris County, and the dominance of the liberal newspapers in influencing the elections in the primaries of liberal nominees. We should not be so stupid as to have committees of precinct chairs try and party “regulate” the big 3 slates, and get HCRP into taking sides in the primaries and even worse, a near certain lawsuit from Lowry et al. It would be a pretty pathetic day for the HCRP legal counsel (and necessary outside counsel) to try and prove pay-for-play in court. Dumb, dumb, dumb, and dumber. Don’t go there. Not even Emmett, Simpson, Harless, and Sarah Davis, who seem to hate the big 3 slates with a passion, would want to go so far as to put the HCRP in such legal jeopardy. All they want is a continuing talking point railing at the slates, to try and tear down the slates, and none of them would want to see the HCRP have to be defended in a lawsuit, nor would I for that matter. Have a nice day!