Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

A Defeat, And an Opportunity, For the Harris County Republican Slates

by

scott bowen
Scott Bowen

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

Primary runoffs tomorrow – Harris County Republicans, who will you vote for?

by

There is only one county wide race on the Republican primary ballot in Harris County. That is for the 295th Civil District Court between primary front-runner Richard Risinger and Michelle Fraga. I doubt the majority of Republican voters are going to be rushing to the polls for either one, even though it is an important position. Such is the state of electing judges in a partisan manner.

So what’s going to drive turnout? Glad you asked. That would be the turnout in the runoff in CD2 between primary front-runner Kevin Roberts and Dan Crenshaw. On primary day, March 6th, a total of 47,428 ballots were cast in CD2, with 46,245 choosing to vote in this race. Given its high profile, a fair number of those voters will return to vote in the runoff. But it probably won’t be as high as your gut tells you. Let’s take a look at a few historical instances in Harris County.

terry lowry

Given the high profile and amount of money being thrown around in the CD2 runoff, let’s say that the turnout will be 70%, close enough to the last three high profile races. The problem is that drop off in the 2008 Harris County DA’s race, a very high profile race that was county wide. If only 23.7% of voters returned for that race, the drop off for a single judicial race is going to be huge.

Of course, there is one more race on to consider, that being the JP 5, Place 2 runoff between incumbent Jeff Williams and Mike Wolfe. There is a good bit of overlap between CD2 and JP5, so I don’t think that it is going to affect turnout one way or the other.

As you know, all three of the major slates in Harris County Republican Party politics “endorsed” Kevin Roberts. They split on the judicial race, with Hotze and Polland choosing Risinger, Lowry choosing Fraga. And then they were unanimous again in “endorsing” Wolfe.

Looked at in this way, you begin to see the mountain that Dan Crenshaw and Jeff Williams have to climb. Richard Risinger is a little better off because of Hotze’s mail ballot expertise with older voters but he is going to have to overcome the money behind Roberts, which is spewing dishonest trash against Crenshaw and Williams. Of course, Risinger was in a runoff in 2008 and Lowry attacked his family – Risinger lost. Lowry is not an honorable man.

Take a look at Terry Lowry’s Link Letter. Little fella has never been particularly honest but this year, he stoops to a whole new level of disgusting.

(click here to download the pdf)

I don’t know how many of Lowry’s acolytes are going to believe this trash and vote because of it but there will be some. Crenshaw is a newbie to politics and the consultants he is now using are new to Harris County politics, so the chances of offsetting this trash are not high. And if Lowry’s “good Christian” voters follow his lead, this trash might rule the day.

How then can Crenshaw, Williams and Risinger overcome this type of blatant dishonesty? With your help and only with your help. There is a guy I know that has a little line that he uses before meetings and it goes something like this: “When you say someone needs to do something, remember this: you are someone! So do something!”

That guy’s name is Tom Zakes, a long time Harris County Republican activist and Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club board member. Tom sent this out using the DHPC maillist:

It pains me to write this, because a good number of the people involved have been friends of mine for decades.

I have never been one to refer to the mail out slates in Harris County as “pay-to-play.” It could be that a candidate who buys advertising then gets an endorsement that he wouldn’t have had otherwise. But I have never seen that definitively in the Texas Conservative Review (Gary Polland & Marc Cowart), Link Letter (Terry Lowry) or Conservative Republicans of Harris County (Steve Hotze & Jared Woodfill). I have been approached by other groups that put out slates, asking me if I could “help them get the word out” about their endorsements if they backed me when I was running for city council in 1989 and for JP in 2016.

I grew up with bare knuckle politics, and I have never shied away from a political fight. I learned at an early age to read between the lines in political advertising. And I have seen how candidates and their operatives will often stretch the truth.

Though I expect negative campaigning, what I refuse to participate in is false advertising. And the runoff edition of the Link Letter has crossed that line. In addition to attacking former Navy Seal Dan Crenshaw, Lowry also draws a bead on Justice of the Peace Jeff Williams.

The basis of his ire is that Williams performs same sex marriages. But that is misplaced. After the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell, same sex weddings came to Texas, whether we liked it or not. After that, the Democrat County Attorney, Vince Ryan, issued an opinion letter to all the judges in Harris County: If you are going to perform any weddings, you MUST perform same sex weddings. Refusal to do so could result in action being brought to remove them from office. And we’ve seen how willing Vince Ryan is to waste county resources to remove public officials like Dave Wilson who he doesn’t like.

Williams and his counterpart judge in Precinct 5, Hon. Russ Ridgway, both stopped performing weddings in response to that directive. However, their constituents kept coming, wanting a simple wedding in front of a JP instead of a big expensive wedding at a church or rented hall. Ridgway and Williams had to decide: do we inconvenience more than 90% of our constituents because of a ruling we disagree with, or do we follow the directive from the County Attorney? They decided to go back to performing weddings. And remember, weddings performed by a Justice of the Peace are a civil ceremony, not a religious one. And as a side note, all 16 of the JPs in Harris County, including the 6 Republicans, perform weddings. Will Lowry go after the others, next?

Even more disturbing than what Lowry wrote is the “Guest Editorial” by my friend Eric Dick. Even the headline is a lie. It says “I’m voting for Mike Wolfe and You Should Too.” The problem with that sentence is that Eric and his wife (and two lovely daughters) live in Precinct 1, where they are registered to vote. So unless he commits vote fraud, Eric is NOT voting for Wolfe for JP.

He follows up with descriptions about how Williams allegedly acts in his court. The problem is, in the decade that Eric has been an attorney, he has appeared as attorney of record in a grand total of three cases in that court. And all three of those were filed when Bill Yeoman was the judge. Dick complains about an unnamed woman who was forced to stay in Court from 7 am to 7 pm three days in a row. But Williams’ Court has its earliest docket at 8 am, and the staff opens the doors at 7:30.

Wolfe has been invited to speak at our Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club about his race for JP. Both times, he accepted, and was scheduled to speak. Both times, he cancelled, the second time when he was the only scheduled speaker, leaving us to scramble to find a replacement in order to have a program.

I would have no problem with Eric Dick saying “I am on the Board of HCDE with Michael Wolfe, and encourage you to vote for him.” I would have no problem with Terry Lowry saying “I know Kevin Roberts from church, and think he’s a great guy. Please vote for him.” But to violate the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against one’s neighbor (Exodus 20:16), or committing an abomination by lying (Proverbs 12:22) are serious reasons not to vote for a candidate.

The runoff edition of the Link Letter is a lie. There can be no question about that and I’m glad that Tom has finally recognized that and said something about it. After all, he is someone. And so are you. See something, say something. Find a friend who lives in CD2 and make sure they know about the lies. You too are someone.

One of the more interesting things about this version of the Link Letter is that there are no “paid political advertising” disclaimers to be found. That is indeed interesting. Why do you think that is? My guess is that Lowry is trying to hide the amount of money that Kevin Roberts’ brother in law Mark Lanier is pouring into this race. After all, Lanier has been financing Lowry for years, allowing Lowry to spew his particular brand of hate. Why stop now? But that is only a guess. We already know that Fraga and Wolfe paid Lowry $15,000 for the primary. Will their new campaign finance reports list this trash as an in-kind contribution?

Kevin Roberts could have stopped this. But winning is apparently far more important to him than living a life for Christ. Hey, it happens. None of us are immune to the power of Satan.

But you can stop this. Vote for Crenshaw, Williams and Risinger. Tell your friends to vote for Crenshaw, Williams and Risinger. After all, you are someone.

2018 Harris County Republican Party Endorsement Slate Tracker

by

With early voting starting tomorrow, we thought it would be a fun exercise to compare some of the most popular Harris County Republican Party endorsement slates. This is not an all-inclusive list as it seems that our goal to dilute the marketplace by increasing the number of endorsement slates has been achieved and then some.

We have included a legend at the end of the list which includes which of these slates accept money from candidates, if the endorsements are chosen by a group of individuals or a single individual and if they are “for-profit” or simply trying to get their choices elected.

Click here to view a printable PDF. In the gallery below, there is an arrow at the top right hand side to expand the pictures to a larger size.

A few quick thoughts on these slates.

I like the path that the United Republicans of Harris County chose to take now that they are accepting money from candidates. I have long advocated that all of these slates should issue their endorsements before accepting money from candidates. It makes the process much more transparent and eliminates the perception, true or untrue, that certain slates endorse the highest bidder.

It always makes me shake my head when I see candidates purchasing ads in slates that do not endorse them. It’s the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. I mean, seriously, do these candidates really believe that a voter who is going to tear off a pre-marked ballot and take it into the booth is going to take the time to scratch out the slate’s choice and write in their own? If they do, perhaps the slate maker made the correct choice in the first place. Goodness, paying someone to tell a voter to vote for your opponent? That’s messed up.

I about fell out of my chair when I saw that Judge Sylvia Matthews had bought an ad in the little fella’s Link Letter. You remember Judge Matthews, right? She filed a complaint to keep Paul Coselli off the ballot and Chairman Simpson agreed. For that, Simpson was slammed by his opponent’s supporters, claiming that Simpson was biased and that is why Chris Carmona should be elected. Coselli eventually lost his fight to be on the ballot (it might still be on appeal but he is not on the ballot) and Matthews is going to be nominated. Her thanks to Simpson? Paying the little fella to attack Simpson and get people to vote for Carmona. With friends like this…..

Hey, at least the little fella let us know for certain why he and Hotze were supporting the opponents of Judge Jay Karahan and Justice of the Peace Jeff Williams. From the Link Letter’s tear off ballot:

link letter gay weddings jay karahan jeff williams

We’ve all known the little fella doesn’t like da gayz for a long time, so this isn’t a surprise. Of course, his quip about Williams isn’t exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth but we’re talking little fella here, so again, no surprise. I’m happy that he confirmed what everyone was saying as to why he and a couple of other slates were trying to oust those two incumbents who are following the law of the land. And making people happy too! Isn’t that a conservative value? I mean, it ain’t like they were marrying the little fella off!

I wish that he had said something about why they are trying to get rid of Judge Theresa Chang because that one is flabbergasting. Oh well.

Interestingly, as I was writing this post, I received an email about the little fella and truth in advertising:

Commenting regarding the unAmerican comments of Mr Terry Lowry in his “LinkLetter” regarding a true American Hero, retired Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw. I will not dignify said comments with repeating them except that Mr Lowry said NOTHING of Dan’s service, sacrifice, or injuries. as part of TRASH THE SLATES I would like to see you show said comments as well as his comments on other candidates and GLOWING words about the SLATE candidate, Kevin Roberts. As an American, wife of precinct chair xxx xxxxxx in precinct xx, and an election judge, I will NOT stand by to see this Congressional seat taken by those who SELL endorsements for money and then BESMIRCH an American hero. You can also call me at xxx xxx xxxx. I am not paid by anyone. I am just a grassroots activist who wants to DRAIN THIS SWAMP!!!

Well, I wasn’t going to show the little fella’s attack on Mr. Crenshaw but I aim to please:

link letter dan crenshaw

This is what the wife of the precinct chair is referring to when she mentions Mr. Crenshaw’s military service:

On Dan’s third deployment in 2012, his life changed forever. After six months of combat operations, Dan was hit by an IED blast during a mission in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was evacuated and awoke from his medically induced coma learning that his right eye had been destroyed in the blast and his left eye was still present, but badly damaged. Dan was completely blind and the doctors did not believe he would ever see again. Tara stood by him every day and night, keeping faith and praying he would see again. After several difficult surgeries, he eventually regained sight in his left eye, a miracle according to the head surgeon. Dan refused to quit and went on to deploy twice more, first back to the Middle East in 2014 and then South Korea in 2016.

Dan was medically retired in September of 2016, after ten years in the SEAL Teams. He left service with two Bronze Stars (one with Valor), the Purple Heart, and the Navy Commendation Medal with Valor, among many other recognitions. Soon after, Dan completed his Master in Public Administration at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. In September of this year, he was back in Houston, volunteering for days on end in areas of Katy devastated by Hurricane Harvey. He saw first-hand the unthinkable losses that his neighbors suffered, but he also saw Texan grit and resilience. He wanted to do more, and this November Dan and Tara decided that the best way to serve the people of Texas would be in elected office.

Dan is now running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Texas’ 2nd district, where Dan grew up and where his family lives now. He believes in service before self, and understands that there is no higher calling than service to the American people. His wife Tara is no stranger to service either: she comes from a career Navy family, and is an active fundraiser for families of fallen service members and suicide prevention.

Dan is a staunch Republican and knows the importance of carrying the conservative movement through to the next generation. Dan can no longer fight on the battlefield, but he can bring the integrity, leadership, vision, and tenacity learned in the SEAL teams to fight in Congress for common sense policies that ensure our nation’s prosperity and security, represent our Judeo-Christian values, and again give Texans a reason to be proud of their leaders.

What Mr. Crenshaw didn’t realize when he met little fella for breakfast is that Roberts is a freind of little fella’s and little fella was fishing for information he could use against him if necessary. Which he did because Crenshaw is running a strong campaign. The fact that Crenshaw doesn’t have a job because he (a) is medically retired, (b) moved back here to help after Harvey and (c) then decided to run for office escaped the little fella’s notes. Little fella deserves a noogie for that.

A caveat to the matrx above is that I do not have a hard copy of Polland’s endorsements yet and got the list from his website, which says it is incomplete. You don’t think he removed my name from his mailing list do you?

As far as the finances go, we’ll wait until the 8 day out reports are in to write about that. A cursory examination shows that we are probably approaching three-quarter million in Harris County Republican slate mailers.  Nothing on Polland, maybe he is footing the bill this year? There’s your laugh of the day! Enjoy.

UPDATED 2/21/2018:

We added two more slates to the tracker, bringing the total to 12.

What exactly are these ‘endorsement slates’ in Harris County Republican politics?

by

The filing deadline is today for those who wish to run for office in the 2018 primary races. The Harris County Republican Party primary has been dominated by ‘endorsement slates’ for the past two decades. This is primarily due to the high cost of campaigning county-wide in such a large county.

Fairly or unfairly, this system has the perception of being a ‘pay to play’ system, one in which the candidate willing to pay for highlighting the endorsement gets a relative bargain in reaching voters in addition to getting a boost at the polls. As with most things in life, the system is not black and white – there are many shades of gray. Not every endorsement is based solely upon the exchange of money.

Back in 2012, when we were aggressively trying to change this system, Ed Hubbard wrote a fairly comprehensive piece about the issue: Harris County Republican Party: The curse of the slate mailers. Ed’s comments have certainly held up well over the years. The endorsement slates that Ed mentions are the Link Letter, Conservative Republicans of Harris County (or at times Texas), and the Texas Conservative Review. Each of these endorsement slates take money from candidates to increase their reach. Most people refer to them as the ‘Big 3’.

Over the years, we’ve managed to dilute the playing field enough that while it is not completely level, the so-called ‘Big 3’ that ran the party for years cannot make the claim that they still run the party. There are now an abundance of endorsement slates that do not accept funding from candidates but are still able to raise enough money to get their endorsements in front of voters. If you look at the bottom of our primary comparison pages for contested races, you’ll find a matrix showing which slates are endorsing which candidates. Obviously at this stage, the matrices are not complete and we will eventually have a dozen or more on that list.

Clearly the ‘Big 3’ have not taken their reduction in power well. In 2014, Paul Simpson defeated Jared Woodfill and changed the power base of the party, reducing the influence of the men behind the ‘Big 3’. They want it back and they want it back now. In 2016, they ran a couple of candidates against Simpson, hoping that they could force a runoff, knowing that runoffs have notoriously low turnouts and thinking that would help their cause. The first part of their strategy worked but Simpson won the runoff handily. This year they are going with a single candidate and unlike their two candidates in 2014, Chris Carmona is a credible candidate.

In addition to trying to oust Simpson, it appears that they have teamed up in several judicial races. You’ll be able to see this easily once the matrix charts are completed after the filing deadline. I’ve talked to several candidates already that never had an opportunity to ask for the endorsements of the ‘Big 3’ before their endorsements were announced. And certainly well before the filing deadline. Clearly the intent of these endorsements is to discourage potential candidates from filing.

There is a lot of money at stake. The table below lists the amount of money paid to one of the ‘Big 3’ slates, the Link Letter, during the last round of non-presidential year primaries in 2014.

Filer Name Expenditure Name Amount Description Date
Texans for Dan Patrick , The Link Letter , $50,000 Print Advertising Placement January 16, 2014
Sitton ,Ryan The Link Letter , $50,000 Print Advertising Placement January 16, 2014
Opiela ,Eric C. The What’s Up Program , $50,000 Advertising January 16, 2014
Friends of Barry Smitherman (DISSOLVED) , The What’s Up Program , $50,000 Campaign Advertising Expense January 17, 2014
Paxton ,W. Kenneth The What’s UP Program , $50,000 Campaign advertisment in campaign mailer January 17, 2014
McCally ,Sharon S. What’s Up Program , $30,000 Feature Full Page Ad January 28, 2014
McCally ,Sharon S. What’s Up Program , $15,000 Feature Full Page Ad February 5, 2014
Prine ,Charley E. What’s Up Radio Program , $15,000 Advertising April 13, 2014
Paxton ,W. Kenneth The What’s Up Program , $15,000 mail advertisement April 26, 2014
Texans for Dan Patrick , The What’s UP Program , $15,000 Print Advertising Placement April 29, 2014
Merritt ,Thomas C. The What’s Up Program , $15,000 Advertising May 6, 2014
Phillips ,John F. The Whats Up Program , $10,000 Political Ad December 18, 2013
Prine ,Charley E. What’s Up Radio Program , $10,000 Advertising December 18, 2013
Wallace ,Jim What’s Up Program , $10,000 Advertising December 19, 2013
Hinde ,Daniel E. The What’s UP Program , $10,000 Advertising December 27, 2013
Schmude ,Harold John What’s UP Radio Program , $10,000 Full Page Ad – Link Letter January 2, 2014
Flowers ,Melanie W. The What’s Up Program , $10,000 Campaign Ads January 3, 2014
Pratt ,Denise V. What’s Up Radio Program , $10,000 Political Advertising January 4, 2014
Friends of Paul Bettencourt , The Link Letter , $10,000 Print Advertising Placement January 6, 2014
Walker ,Meca L. The What’s Up Program , $10,000 Full-Page Advertisement January 6, 2014
York ,Alicia Franklin The Link Letter , $10,000 Print ad January 10, 2014
Paul ,Dennis R. The What’s Up Program , $10,000 Advertisment in LINK Letter Voter Guide Edition January 14, 2014
Detamore ,Donna What’s Up Radio Program , $10,000 Advertising January 24, 2014
Ward ,Wesley R. What’s Up Radio Program , $10,000 Campaign advertisement February 4, 2014
Wittenmyer ,John D. The What’s Up Program , $10,000 Campaign Mailer February 10, 2014
York ,Alicia Franklin The Link Letter , $10,000 Print ad March 14, 2014
Sitton ,Ryan The What’s UP Program , $10,000 Print Advertising Placement April 7, 2014
Schmude ,Harold John What’s UP Radio Program , $10,000 Full Page Ad – Link Letter Runoff Edition April 16, 2014
Woodfill ,Jared R. The What’s Up Program , $7,000 Print ad January 21, 2014
Woodfill ,Jared R. The What’s Up Program , $5,100 Print ad January 22, 2014
Harris County Republican Party (CEC) , Whats Up Program , $5,000 Pct. Chair Recruitment Program October 10, 2013
Dean ,Sherill Y. The Whats Up Program , $5,000 voter registration and pecinct chair recruitment advise and information October 25, 2013
Lloyd ,Russell T. The What’s Up Program , $5,000 Print Advertising November 1, 2013
Riddle ,Deborah A. The What’s Up Radio Program , $5,000 Advertising in Publication December 3, 2013
Simpson ,Paul F. What’s Up Program , $5,000 Initial (50%) payment for full page ad in March 2014 Link Letter December 12, 2013
Hodge ,Ann F. The What’s UP Program , $5,000 ad January 15, 2014
Cain ,Briscoe R. Lowry ,Terry $5,000 Link Letter Advertisement January 16, 2014
Schofield ,Michael The Link Letter , $5,000 Print Advertising Placement January 16, 2014
McCally ,Sharon S. What’s Up Program , $5,000 Link Letter ad January 16, 2014
Parsley ,Katherine Cabaniss The Link Letter , $5,000 Print Advertising Placement January 20, 2014
Riddle ,Deborah A. The What’s Up Radio Program , $5,000 Advertising in Publication January 22, 2014
Lloyd ,Russell T. The What’s Up Program , $5,000 Radio Advertising January 29, 2014
Schofield ,Michael The Link Letter , $5,000 Print Advertising Placement April 7, 2014
Paul ,Dennis R. The What’s Up Program , $5,000 Political publication – The Link Letter April 7, 2014
Texans for Dan Patrick , The What’s UP Program , $5,000 Electronic Media Placement Radio April 7, 2014
Texans for Dan Patrick , The What’s UP Program , $4,950 Radio Advertising September 27, 2013
Friends of Barry Smitherman (DISSOLVED) , What’s Up Program , $4,950 Campaign Advertising Expense September 27, 2013
Hegar ,Glenn A. The What’s Up Program , $4,950 campaign radio advertising October 14, 2013
Opiela ,Eric C. The What’s Up Program , $4,950 Radio Advertising November 22, 2013
Texans for Dan Patrick , The What’s UP Program , $4,830 Radio Advertising December 19, 2013
Friends of Barry Smitherman (DISSOLVED) , What’s Up Program , $4,830 Campaign Advertising Expense December 19, 2013
Opiela ,Eric C. The What’s Up Program , $4,830 Radio Advertising January 28, 2014
York ,Alicia Franklin The Whats Up Radio , $3,050 Radio ads March 14, 2014
Schmude ,Harold John What’s UP Radio Program , $3,050 Radio Advertising April 16, 2014
Friends of Paul Bettencourt , The What’s Up Program , $3,000 Electronic Media Placement Radio December 11, 2013
Pool ,Joe R. What’s Up Program , $2,530 Radio Ads March 4, 2014
Devine ,John P. Lowery ,Terry $2,500 Contract labor April 4, 2013
Hoang ,Al The What’s UP Program , $2,500 ad January 15, 2014
Miller ,Sid What’s Up Radio , $2,415 Radio ads January 7, 2014
Walker ,Meca L. The What’s Up Program , $2,100 Radio Buy January 6, 2014
Schmude ,Harold John What’s UP Radio Program , $2,100 Radio Advertising – 60 Second Political Ad January 7, 2014
Texans for Joan Huffman , THE WHAT’S UP PROGRAM , $1,725 POLITICAL ADVERTISING January 28, 2014
Evans ,Catherine V. What’s UP Program , $1,725 radio advertisement January 28, 2014
Woodfill ,Jared R. The What’s Up Program , $1,575 Radio ads September 16, 2013
Woodfill ,Jared R. The What’s Up Program , $1,500 Radio ads August 16, 2013
Prine ,Charley E. What’s Up Radio Program , $1,000 Advertising October 2, 2013
Hoang ,Al The What’s UP Program , $500 ad payment January 30, 2014
Hoang ,Al The What’s UP Program , $500 ad March 14, 2014

That’s a lot of money. A total of $678,160 to be precise. And that is only for candidates that were running for State offices, not candidates in Federal or County races. And that is only to one of the ‘Big 3’. Imagine the combined revenue of the ‘Big 3’.  Now do you understand how the perception is that these endorsement slates are ‘pay to play’?

You might also want to read what I wrote before that primary was over. And if you are going to purchase an ‘ad’ in the Link Letter, be certain you read this one.

As I said at the top, there are many, many shades of gray in this process. As a voter, we’ll have to decide who we trust. I set up the primary comparison pages and matrices so that we have an extra tool to use to help in that decision. There are many (most?) times when I happen to agree with the ‘Big 3”s choice of candidates. After all, if they pick good candidates, their success rate rises and more candidates will fund them. It is a fairly stable business model, when used correctly. But the perception is that it has not always been used correctly, resulting in some very awful Republican candidates. Who subsequently become awful elected officials due to straight ticket voting. Or something like that.

So, to answer the question above, what are the ‘endorsement slates’ that charge candidates? In theory, they are a cost effective way for candidates to reach voters in a very large county. In practice, they sometimes allow unqualified candidates with the most money to win a race because voters are, in general, too busy to research every single candidate in every contested race on the huge ballots that we have in this very large county. The power of the ‘Big 3’ has been diluted by the many slates that do not charge candidates but we still need to be diligent in making certain that our friends that are not absorbed by politics the way we are understand the need to compare various slates and ask their informed friends for help.

Simpson’s Inability to Unite the Party

by

 

Will a #NeverTrumper be able to lead the Harris County Republican Party to victory in 2018? Paul Simpson has kicked off the new year with a series of meetings to try to justify his losing campaign of 2016. Simpson and his team met separately with bloggers, including David Jennings and me, candidates, and judges and he is now on a road show to explain his losing 2016 campaign. Simpson has a lot of data to go with his talking points as to why Harris County Republicans did so poorly. This is my review of Simpson & Co.’s efforts in the 2016 election cycle.

Simpson and his consultant, Kevin Shuvalov, prioritized voter turnout in HD 134, home to Sarah Davis. The re-election of Sarah Davis, the self-identified pro-choice “Republican” was a priority to Joe Straus as Davis carried all of Planned Parenthood’s bills last session.

In the 2016 election, Texas Right to Life specifically targeted and campaigned against two Harris County “Republicans”: Sarah Davis and Devon Anderson. By now, you know that Anderson prosecuted pro-life heroes David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for their brave videos that unveiled Planned Parenthood’s misdeeds. It should be noted that Davis endorsed Anderson.

Davis’s district is one of the most liberal Republican leaning house districts in Texas. When Anderson, in a last ditch effort to defeat her opponent, claimed that her opponent would be a weaker district attorney because of her sexual orientation, I know that Davis had to think twice about her endorsement.

Davis and the Harris County Republican Party were aided by Kevin Shuvalov, a political consultant who also does work for Straus. A very rudimentary knowledge of HD 134 and Harris County would have told you turning out the vote in the most liberal house district would not be helpful to countywide Republicans, it was not. It did help Sarah Davis.

At the outset, it was clear that Harris County Republicans would have an uphill battle. Given Ted Cruz’s posture, many of his supporters were #NeverTrumpers. Instead of using the momentum of conservative victories such as the defeat of the so-called equal rights ordinance, Simpson and the gang harnessed the #NeverTrump movement and explicitly directed voters to not worry about the top of the ticket but make sure that they vote for our judicial candidates. This approach was flawed in many ways.

First, Simpson never made a compelling argument for a Republican judiciary. Why are Republicans better on the bench? Second, by running a #NeverTrump campaign, Simpson failed to get Trump supporters to the polls.

Simpson is now claiming that two factors led to the downfall of Harris County Republicans: (1) Donald Trump and (2) Devon Anderson. Anderson’s horrendous decision to jail a rape victim and indict pro-life activists certainly did not help the Harris County Republican effort in 2016. Whether you agree or disagree with Anderson’s positions, the real damage was the endless fodder for campaign commercials that she provided to her opponent. Judging Anderson by her record, she was a failed district attorney and had to go.

Unbelievably, Anderson’s campaign made a succession of errors. First, she made this video immediately after Channel 2 broke the story on Jenny, the jailed sexual assault survivor. Then, it was revealed that another survivor and a witness were jailed in order to compel their testimony. The Anderson campaign, while criticizing her opponent for “using” Jenny, deployed Jenny’s father as a campaign tool to say that he supported the jailing of his vulnerable child by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

You cannot encourage people to vote straight ticket with a problematic candidate like Devon Anderson on the ballot. In the past, problematic candidates have been removed from the ballot to avoid a disaster like we saw in 2016. The party ballot is as good as its weakest candidate and this was true with Anderson.

Paul Simpson’s belief that moderate, establishment Republicans could win elections in Harris County without social and fiscal conservatives is a false narrative. The biggest mistake in the campaign was to not utilize our most recognized successful brands. There are three brands that have been out for over twenty years: Conservative Republicans of Harris County (Hotze), the Link Letter (Lowry), and the Texas Conservative Review (Polland). Voters are conditioned to these brands in primary and general elections.

All three brands focus on different turnout. Hotze messages to seniors in a mail-in ballot program. Hotze’s brand is very effective and seniors expect to get his piece in the mail the way they have for over twenty-four years. Lowry’s Link Letter focuses on early voters and systematically sends the Link Letter out to well-conditioned voters. Both Hotze and Lowry have an identifiable social conservative voting base. Polland is different and I will come back to that in a minute; however, the sophistication of these so-called slates is unique.

Branding is important and Hotze and Lowry understand that social conservatives are reliable voters. The social conservatives can sway primary votes and this is where their influence has been most visible. Simpson and company have underestimated these brands in general elections and actively worked against them. The 2016 election proved this point.

Gary Polland and the Texas Conservative Review focus on election day voters. Gary’s brand is a reflection of him and is the most moderate of the three brands. Gary’s brand is influential in general elections and has a conservative Jewish following. Watching what Barack Obama did to Israel on his way out the door gives us an excellent opportunity to expand our base in Harris County. Gary is Jewish in case you did not know. All three of these brands work well together in general elections.

Simpson does not want to recognize the importance of these assets. Donald Trump certainly knew that he needed social conservatives to win the Presidency just as Simpson needs social conservatives to win Harris County. I have asked Simpson more than once what his plan is to unite the local party. He does not have one. This will not sit well with Republican candidates on the 2018 ballot. Simpson may have been a transitory candidate and the efforts to replace him are well underway. The question is will he be replaced by a candidate who can reach out to all factions within the local party. This will not be an easy task.

David Jennings analysis

Tidying up the 2016 Harris County Republican election disaster

Harris County Republican Party disaster continued…last one!

Slate Wars-Harris County Party Chair Race

by

Star Wars Scroll

Paul Simpson claimed that he would eliminate pay for play slates. And he would use new technology for his GOTV campaign. The Simpson campaign was based on the bad pay for play slates. Simpson created and branded his own slates: Spring Branch Republicans, the Conservative View, and the Kingwood Tea Party. There were other minor slates too, Houston Realty Business Coalition (HRBC) and the C-Club, presumably the Conservative Club. The last two, HRBC and The C-Club, have been around a long time and have always been the Big Government Republican trough feeder slates.

“Beware – These for profit and dubious voter guides have a track record of supporting Democrats and taking money from and supporting unqualified candidates.”

Spring Branch Republicans

All of these slates new and old came together to battle the so called “bad” slates who were pay for play. The opponents were the Conservative Republicans of Harris County (Hotze), The Link Letter (Lowry), and The Texas Conservative Review (Polland). The Hotze, Lowry, and Polland slates have not lost an election when all three endorsed the same candidate in Harris County until Tuesday and their candidate was Rick Ramos. Rick is a former associate judge in the family law court of James Lombardino.

Now, if you look at the funding for these new slates, you see people like Dick Weekley and Norm Adams. Both men have fought efforts to oppose illegal immigration and have backed some of the most establishment rinoRepublicans in our area. This was the battle between Briscoe Cain and Wayne Smith in Pasadena and Baytown. Smith is an engineer and the darling of the Stephen Costello types. Smith contributors are a who’s who of Big Government pork barrel spending.

Let’s take a look at who the Spring Branch Republicans endorsed; Paul Simpson, Mary Lou Keel, Wayne Smith, Gary Gates, and Brent Webster. First, why were the Spring Branch Republicans even involved in a race in Crosby, Texas? Let’s be clear, Wayne Smith is the quintessential establishment Republican.  Smith is a Straus henchman working behind the scenes in the legislature to feed the Republican, Big Government trough. Somehow, the McReynolds brothers forgot all about the fight with Metro where Smith worked to kill all of the bills concerning Metro’s rail on Richmond. As we fought to stop the Metro light rail funding on Richmond Avenue, Smith sought to line the pockets of his engineering buddies with indifference to Houston’s worsening road conditions. The Spring Branch Republicans took Smith’s money to propagate their slate. What do you think Joe Bob in Crosby, Texas did with a mail piece from the Spring Branch Republicans? If there was a question on whether this was a pay for play slate let’s put this to bed right now, of course it was. Look at the money transfers from the Mammoth Group, Simpson and Straus’ consultant to the Spring Branch Republicans. This is pay to play Joe Straus style.

The mailer accusing Smith’s opponent, Briscoe Cain, of being gay is a very typical Allen Blakemore hit piece. Senator Joan Huffman can explain all of this to you. Any slate that did not immediately repudiate Smith’s gay bashing hit piece and pull their endorsement speaks volumes about their credibility. Even Steve Hotze dropped Allen Blakemore in the grease. Hat tip to the Log Cabin Republicans who immediately withdrew their support of Smith and endorsed Cain, Hotze’s guy. Everyone needs to think real carefully about that. Paul did not disavow the mail piece. How could the party chair not speak out against this injustice? Was that because Simpson and Smith were on all of the same slates?

Unbelievably, the Texas Conservative View endorsed “Scott” Walker over Brent Webster. Walker’s candidacy is widely considered a  joke. Walker ran for this statewide position in an attempt to exploit his name, which he happens to share with the Wisconsin governor, a former presidential candidate. Walker is a Dallas-based attorney specializing in veteran disability cases and his real name is Richard. He knows nothing of criminal appellate law. You don’t get to call yourself a criminal lawyer for pleading someone to a parking ticket.

Mary Jane Smith knows better. Her husband is a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the Conservative View endorsed Walker for this important position. Walker’s opponent, Brent Webster, is a longtime prosecutor with years of criminal appellate experience. The Conservative View is taking thousands of dollars from Austin insiders to get their folks elected. Worse, Mary Jane Smith paid herself $15,000 out of The Texas Conservative View PAC. So, The Conservative View is the shoo-in for the Pinhead Slate Award for this primary season.

My friends at the Kingwood Tea Party endorsed Mary Lou Keel. They did so knowing Keel’s culpability in extending her grand jury that indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt and not releasing the names of these grand jurors. It was a great disappointment because Robin and Jim Lennon stood with me on the courthouse steps on the day of Daleiden’s surrender. I know the Lennons deeply care about this injustice and the pro-life movement.

Paul chose to battle Hotze, Lowry, and Polland with more slates and funding from the Big Government establishment. As I stood at the polls for Briscoe Cain and watched many of Straus’ top lieutenants trying to protect Smith,  I wondered about the impact on the Harris County Republican Party. You have to ask yourself whether Paul’s pay for play, Big Government, RINO style slates is worse than what we had before. Congratulations to Briscoe Cain who won his race by 23 votes and will be in court this morning defending David Daleiden against Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson.

Briscoe Cain