Do you call it hypocrisy when a group pretends to be grassroots but is actually funded by one person? Is it hypocrisy when these same faux grassroots groups demand transparency from politicians but want their own finances to remain protected under the cover of darkness? If it isn’t hypocrisy, what is it? The reason for my questions is SB 346, a bill voted out of the Texas Senate and now under debate in the Texas House. It passed Second Reading yesterday on a vote of 99-46 as reported by Karen Brooks Harper in the Dallas Morning News’ Trailblazers blog, along with the blow-by-blow of the debate.
Let’s take a look at the HRO analysis to see what the bill actually does:
SB 346 would create political contribution reporting requirements for a person or group of persons that:
- did not meet the definition of a political committee;
- accepted political contributions; and
- made one or more political expenditures, with certain exceptions, that exceeded $25,000 during a calendar year.
The bill would not apply to labor organizations or their subordinate entities.
Under the bill, a person or group would be considered to have accepted political contributions if its members or donors made payments, including dues, that the members or donors had a reason to know at the time of payment could be used or commingled with other funds used to make political contributions or political expenditures.
A person or group of persons to whom the bill applied would be required to report as if they were a general purpose committee that did not file monthly reports. A person or group of persons to whom the bill applied would not be required to file a campaign treasurer appointment unless they were otherwise required to do so.
A person or group of persons would not be required to file a report under the bill if:
- they were required to disclose the expenditures or contributions in another report required under Title 15 within the same time frame;
or
- no reportable activity occurred during the reporting period.
Itemization of contributions required under the existing reporting provisions would be required only if the contribution exceeded $1,000 during the reporting period.
The first report required to be filed in a calendar year in which the $25,000 SB 346 House Research Organization threshold was exceeded would need to include all political contributions accepted and all political expenditures made in that year.
With the $25,000 aggregate threshold, and the $1,000 individual contribution threshold, I doubt it would affect more than a handful of Tea Party groups. Even if it does, so what? Their First Amendment rights are still fully in place and there is no limit whatsoever on speech. Why shouldn’t the public know who is funding political ads? Again from the HRO analysis:
The bill would not discourage honest political spending. In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that disclosure was an essential means of gathering data to detect violations in campaign finance regulations and deter corruption. Persons who are in compliance with the law should have no reason to stop contributing merely because they would be required to disclose their political donations.
Don’t we want to deter corruption in politics? I surely hope so. But be careful asking simple questions to those that are against it or this will happen to you as it did to me on Twitter:
All I did was ask a question and for that I get attacked. I absolutely support Speaker Straus and if that makes me a shill, so be it. But, if I’m anti-teaparty, why did I go on television yesterday and defend the Clear Lake Tea Party and the IRS attacks on tea party groups? As I have done countless times since I promoted and supported the first tea party rally in Houston in February 2009 and was the ONLY person supporting True the Vote when they were being viciously attacked by the left? But hey, truth doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And just who is trying to harass who into silence?
Many thanks to the Republicans that stood up to the pressure from countless faux-grassroots (and a few real grassroots groups) and voted for this bill. Now, do it again on Third Reading this Tuesday and send it to the Governor – where it will certainly be vetoed but at least you tried to be transparent.
And the next time you hear these groups yapping about this politician or that one not being transparent, just yawn and recognize it for the bovine-processed hay that it is.
UPDATE: For a different view on the “union” issue, see Jerad Najvar’s Fact-Checking Claims About the Inexplicable Union Exemption in SB 346 at his blog Lex Politico.
Why exempt labor groups?
Dixon, two reasons. First, any amendment on any subject would kill the bill. Read Harper Brooks’ piece for details. Second, unions are already known. There is a paragraph in the HRO analysis about that.
King’s amendment wasn’t really about unions. It was designed solely to kill the bill. After all, what R is pro-union, right? Fortunately, R’s recognized his play for what it was and tabled it.
Thanks, David. I was wondering what this hoopla was all about.
Well you've been mislead by David.
Transparency is to apply to GOVERNMENT not the actions of private people or groups. These groups do disclose, through their PACs, money spent in campaigns and for or against issues on a ballot – as the law already requires. This bill is deeming the dissemination of information to the public and the public pressing lawmakers to vote a certain way as "political" activity. With that definition there is no free political speech, each of us faces regulation of our speech. These groups have NO VOTE on anything, they are simply organizations of citizens who express political opinion.
By the way, these aren't fake groups. I've donated to Sullivan's group for years – in fact I sent the $250 or so dollars in the last month. I know many, many others who have donated to the group for years – so you assertion at the top of the story is demonstrably false. No doubt the group does have primary donors who give much more than the rest of us but that doesn't make them any more fake than any church or other group for which 20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of donors pay 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the bills.
Can you believe it, I just noticed your boots comment on the roundtable post. HAH! Thanks for all the links, great piece, and the boots (which were my grandfather’s) have finally been retired 😉
Keep up the good work.
I agree because I want to know who is funding certain Tea Party Organizations. Oftentimes I get the impression they are influenced behind the scenes by the establishment who feeds them money. I do filings and list my donors, I have no problem with this.
Why are Unions exempt? Transparency is not the problem, retaliation is. In my opinion, this is like a child's T ball team vs the Astros. Terry Lowry's approved hit pieces are one good example. I suppose the fear is Democrat groups will finance candidates under a Tea party banner to hurt Republicans. I have no doubt pressure and intimidation will be used in other ways.
Sally, see my reply to Dixon.
Also, directly to the bill: SB 346 advances the regulation of political speech in Texas under the banner of transparency. It continues a long march of state government reaching out to limit the political speech and involvement of citizens. It does so by classifying citizen involvement, and even the simple spreading of information about what politicians do in office, as some type of influence peddling which requires the disclosure of private information.
The arguments supporting the bill are based on the idea that there should be regulation of citizens when they band their money together, corporately, to report to voters the actions of officeholders and to organize like-minded neighbors to contact their elected officials and push them to vote in a certain way.
Non-profit groups that you choose to listen to or support, have no vote and have no power other than that of their members at the ballot box. The fight for “transparency” is about all in government being open and easy to discover and the term is grossly abused when politicians apply it to citizens outside of government.
Robert, the argument is not that the government should regulate the citizens. The argument is that citizens need to know who is corrupting their government. That is the entire reason for campaign finance law. This is nothing but an extension of campaign finance law so that we can work effectively to find out who is behind what politician and why.
I wrote about this bill several days ago after it was pointed out to me that it would be a good vehicle for beginning to end the pay for play slates in primaries that are so corrupt and killing the party, especially in Harris County. http://www.ponderingpenguin.blogspot.com/2013/05/support-sb-346-to-demand-transparency.html
It includes a good explanation of the process the bill took and those who tried to block it after discovering it passed the House committee. 🙂
Disappointing that after bold moves by those wanting to bring real transparency into the system, the governor will veto it.
Also, I’m gently boast that I, too, have supported True the Vote from its beginning, including asking them to set up a bloggers table at their 1st national summit and getting to blog for them at the first 2 summits. At the end of a president’s term in Memorial West Republican Women PAC, the president is given a monetary thank you gift from the club. Both years I received one, I donated them to True the Vote. Gotta support bold people doing good work.
This is a bad bill as long as it includes the labor union exception.
Oddly enough, those who wrote the Federalist papers anonymously would disagree with you.
Harper’s article doesn’t sufficiently explain the labor exemption. Why would “any amendments kill the bill”? What was wrong with the amendment requiring unions to report donations other than membership dues? If it’s all about transparency wouldn’t we want to know if George Soros gave $20M to the SEIU to forward some “progressive” agenda in Texas?
Mark, the reason that “any” amendment would kill the bill is that the Senate got cold feet after passing it and passed SCR 33 (http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/sjrnl/83r/pdf/83RSJ04-17-F.PDF#page=19) asking the House to “send it back to them” so that they could re-vote and kill it. That was led by Sen. Patrick, who voted for it, then presumably got a few calls from these groups. The House leadership chose to ignore this request and allowed the bill to be voted on. Thus, any change to the bill would have required the House to send it back to the Senate. No changes and it goes straight to the governor’s desk, where he will most assuredly veto it.
The union exception is as I noted to Dixon above. We already know who they are because the members fund it. Therefore, it was not critical to transparency to include them. King’s amendment wasn’t really about including unions, it was designed to make it hard for a Republican to vote against it, in hopes that the amendment would be adopted, thus sending it back to the Senate to kill it.
Mark, as for your SEIU question, that is already handled. If Soros gives the SEIU $20m, that would be included in the SEIU’s PAC report.
Not all union money spent on political action comes from members. The Soros example was pulled out of thin air. If the union exemption wasn’t in it, would the bill have covered donations not covered by the unions’ PAC report?
And does it really matter, if it was going to be killed by the Senate or vetoed by the Gov. anyway?
Mark, FWIW, Gerens said during the debate that he would “fix” the union exemption via the Texas Ethics Commission sunset bill.
I think that it matters a lot, even if Perry is going to veto it. It shows us which reps and senators can be coerced by these groups. This from Harvey Kronberg:
While it is an article of faith that Governor Rick Perry will veto SB346, an interesting parliamentary maneuver yesterday means that his endorsement of secret campaign contributions will take place before session end. This despite this year’s legislative mantra of “transparency”
The net result is that both the “Obama billionaires” (a phrase coined by a worried Republican consultant) and Michael Quinn Sullivan’s hidden contributors will be able to treat Texas as their secret political playground in the upcoming battle to transform or prevent Texas from becoming purple.
(It is too early to judge whether or not the Democrat’s Battleground Texas effort is on track, but secret Hollywood and Wall Street money could be as much a problem for Republicans as Koch brothers money is for Democrats and moderate Republicans.)
For the record, I’m for unlimited political donations with 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} transparency on every dollar contributed, no exemptions.
Mark, be sure and click on the update link for a view that supports yours.
What I haven’t read is the definition of political contributions and political expenditures. If we are talking about money collected and spent for elected official campaigns, disclosure is desirable. If the money doesn’t reach a candidate, then disclosure should probably not be required.
Contributions to fund and disseminate ideas about the mission of or limits on government or to support/oppose current issues, should be off-limits from disclosure. Who decided that free speech cannot be anonymous? Denying that disclosing these contributions and expenditures will not bring retaliation against the contributors is Utopian thought, which politics is anything but. Can anyone say IRS.
I might be persuaded to change my mind if the law were to apply to the endorsement slates of Steve Hotze and Gary Polland. You can already tell who gave money to Terry Lowry because he was forced by the Ethics Commission to adopt uniform pricing.
not true, they read those papers aloud in public and took authorship of them
I don’t like the bill.
Why should a group i support bear that extra accounting burden?
Why should I get put on the spot for supporting ideas?
Let’s say A rich person you liked in retail supported a position you supported. then she gets boycotted by the liberal group you don’t like and is forced out of running the family grocery chain by liberal sibings that you dont like. That big liberal client base owns their public stance.
Let’s say you are a commission salesman like me and your biggest client disagrees with your politcal positions? Do you want a 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} pay cut for giving a donation to support what you believe in? After this you also be fired for loosing the account. I have won big business over small polical matters
Or forget thoses life application lessions and what is going oning the govt now forcing PC support, since silence is being negative.
I don’t like “fake” grassroots, BUT I can’t agree with giving up my privacy rights on this one.
One of my clients likes to debate me in private. We have been friends since 1988 through 3 jobs.
In the end I have a right to privacy here and that is all that matters.
People can look me up and see who I give to already in all the cases that are mandated to report it.