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.
Ha, and you shouldn’t throw rocks at a glass house. You influence elections too.
Foolme: You obviously didn’t actually read the article. Or, alternatively, you’re just not very bright. The point wasn’t about influencing elections, it was about the corrupting influence of big money.
Hi Jolly, as a precinct chair for nearly 30 years and involved in every intra-party Republican primary competition in Harris County going back to Bush vs. Reagan, I must reply that you and Ed Hubbard miss the entire point of why the Big 3 slates are so successful, and will continue to be for years to come. First, prior to the Big 3, the first of which began in 1988, the only “slates” were the Houston Chronicle & Houston Post, both publishing liberal Republican candidate lists in the Republican primaries, since both papers were liberal leaning. For example, neither recommended Reagan over elder Bush in the 1980 primary. Then, around 1988-92, Lowry & Hotze started their slates, partially to counter the newspapers, with Polland coming along after he left County Chair office in 2002. The Big 3 are all dedicated to identifying the most conservative candidate in every race. So, for nearly 30 years, these slates have thankfully been carried into our polling places instead of the newspaper slates, because they are the more conservative candidate lists. Second, by promoting a conservative standard, both social AND fiscal (total conservatives), they have become the most TRUSTED slates for the majority of primary voters, who themselves are total conservatives, because of their 25+ years of providing what total conservatives want. It is those voters that lead primary voting, much to the consternation of Republican liberal leaders like you, Emmett, Davis, Simpson, and Hubbard. The Big 3 fill that need. I have never seen a voter in my poll bring in the liberal United Republican slate card. Never ever. So in the end, your characterization of them as simply “pay to play slates” is an ignorant and deceitful view, because no matter how they pay to print and mail, they are meeting the need of the majority of primary voters. Thus, the Big 3 are trusted to recommend the more conservative candidates. Sadly, your real motives in trying to tear them down is because they don’t support your more socially liberal primary candidates. So, stop your whining and envy, and recognize that they have earned the TRUST of the majority of Republican Primary Voters, whether you like it or not. Start acknowledging their well-earned record of consistently supporting the more conservative candidates, and that is why their endorsement means so much to the primary voters AND the candidates. It is most always the most conservative candidate in every race, and that’s what most Republican voters want, and not your socially liberal pseudo-Democrats. Start being more honest about why they are successful. Trying to discredit them using “pay for play” name calling is a dishonest smear trying to tear them down, since your candidates can’t beat them. Stop stooping to such low politics. You purport to be high and mighty, but you and your brethren are not when you do this. And also, tell Simpson’s minions to stop threatening candidates if they spend money to support publishing the Big 3 slates. That is a new low in this debate, but typical of what I would expect from liberals of any stripe.
Hi TexasRepublicanPatriot,
Thanks for the laugh. You are the first person to ever insult me! 😉 It would be far more interesting if you used your real name, don’t you think?
Sorry to burst your bubble but the ‘Big 3’ aren’t ‘trusted’ because of their recommendations. To the extent that they are ‘trusted’, it is because, as you pointed out, they were simply the first game in town and have a well known brand because of that.
Cheers, DJ
TexasRepublicanPatriot:
Speaking as an independent conservative, I haven’t trusted any of the “Big 3” for several years. It’s been obvious to any rational person that they aren’t interested in who is conservative nearly as much as they are interested in who can pay outrageous “fees” for questionable services.
If you want me to actually trust these guys, tell them to publish their set of financial statements for the last 5 years. But, forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting. . . . . .
Hey Jolly and Fatalbert, I got a real laugh at your attempted deflection of my point that the Big 3 are Trusted, and have earned it for decades. Ask any longtime precinct election judge, what slates are brought in to their polling places? It is no longer the newspapers, as in the pre-1990’s, but rather one of the Big 3. I know, it drives you, Ed Emmett and his puppet Paul Simpson insane too. They can’t stand it. Have you looked at the liberal people that fund United Republicans and most new slates? Those slates will never be trusted to the extent of the Big 3 because they are not as conservative as most Republican primary voters. Primary voters look to Lowry, Hotze, and Polland, because they are strong conservatives leaders, which United Republicans etc. are not. As those guys do everything they can to destroy the Big 3, the Big 3 keep on publishing, and publishing and publishing, and will always have funds to do so from total conservative candidates, like those they recommend. Whining and crying about “pay for play” is just a laughable joke to discredit them. You can’t discredit them because so many Primary voters trust them and will continue to trust them, as long as they recommend the total conservative candidates. Lying by saying they only recommend based on money is pitiful. Downright pitiful.
Hi, anonymous commenter:
United Republicans has been a major force in the endorsement process for 25 years now. It is hardly new. Our response from candidates wishing to have UR’s endorsement remains so strong because we offer a fair process. Last cycle, our slate was in the top 3 of winning candidates. Our conservative cred is strong. Our board members are all volunteers with strong grassroots backgrounds. The “liberal” moniker is laughable. I wonder why UR was named but not other slates with truly questionable history in GOP primaries.
Full disclosure: I am a board member of United Republicans of Harris County. I am currently Secretary on the board. Our endorsement process interviews began last night. I speak only for myself, not at the request of the other board members.
Wading into this discussion of the slates so late may serve no purpose other than to bring some clarity to positions taken by the author or readers on the value of the endorsement slates. In my races for three different Harris County positions over a twenty-year period, I have developed what I hope is an objective opinion about the operation of these slates. I have been both supported and opposed by the slates. As to the claim that these slates endorse the most conservative candidates, I think this was true in the early years of the slates existence, but it hasn’t been true for many years. Also, the slates have rarely valued actual qualifications such as related education or experience in making their endorsement decisions. At some point the egos of the slate leaders needing to be stroked and the accelerating need for money began to corrupt the endorsement process. Now, the slates have almost completely degenerated into just another version of the typical political machine. They endorse candidates in advance before filings are complete, don’t bother with interviews, and worst of all, in the end they really don’t endorse the most conservative or qualified candidate. The new cooperative, lets all endorse the same candidate, process of the slates is clear evidence of the degeneration of the slates from their original noble intent. The new crop of independent endorsers, although they do not take candidate money, are increasingly making similar irrational endorsement choices.
The slates at this point serve no-one but themselves: not the candidates, not the party, not the county. To even try to claim anything else is ridiculous posturing. Do they help some candidates get elected? Sure. But that’s a by-product of the process, not what they’re there to do. And in the meantime, the party shrinks, the liberals win, and the county goes down the crapper. Wonderful. Not.