The electioneering bill: I don’t get it
This is Todd Smith’s bill that passed on Friday. It is a good and much-needed election reform bill as a response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that corporate and union PACs may lawfully expend funds for the purpose of issue advocacy, but not for directly supporting candidates. This leaves a loophole known as “sham electioneering.” This tactic, often used in direct mail, typically employs an attack ad against a candidate for supporting or opposing a hot-button issue but does not ask the potential voter to support or oppose a candidate. Rather, it may say, “Call Representative Smith’s office and ask him to stop supporting baby killers.” This is bad stuff. Readers may recall the photograph of two men kissing that was used against Bill Ratliff a few years back.
My interest in the bill is political rather than substantive. The opposition comes from Republican party, the Texas Association of Business–Bill Hammond has always had an all’s fair in love an politics approach to elections, and from the activist groups on the extreme right of the Republican spectrum. Here’s what I don’t get: Why are the Republicans so opposed to this bill? I understand that these mailers have been used effectively in the past. Hammond took credit for winning the 2002 House elections that gave the Republicans a majority with his tort reform mailers. But he’s wrong. TAB didn’t win the election. The Legislative Redistricting Board won the election. Anyway, the bill isn’t about the past. It’s about the future. I fail to see any partisan advantage or disadvantage if this bill passes. Groups on the right and the left alike will no longer be able to engage in sham electioneering.
Only six Republicans voted for this bill, and four of them (Geren, Jones, McCall, Merritt) have been victims of sham electioneering. Todd Smith and Hartnett were the other two votes for passage. The reason for the low number of aye votes was that the extremist groups were demanding no votes from Republican reps. And the members folded like a canvas chair.
Under current law, Democrats as well as Republicans can practice sham electioneering. The current state of Texas politics is that the two parties are competitive, with a slight edge to the Republicans, but demographics favor the Democrats. Until recently, Republicans had a substantial advantage in fundraising, but the Democrats achieved parity in many legislative races during the 2008 cycle. Again I ask: Why do Republicans want to defeat this legislation? Have they forgotten about trial lawyers? They can raise a buck or two–or three million. Can’t the trials put out these mailers too? I see no particular reason why the Republicans are any better placed than the Democrats to win this arms race. As I said in the beginning: I don’t get it.
But wait: Maybe this is not about R versus D politics at all. Maybe this is about R versus R politics. Maybe the extremist groups want to use sham electioneering in Republican primaries, so that they can defeat moderate candidates in 2010. Maybe I do get it after all. And if that is the case, then Smith’s bill has no chance to become law. Either Dewhurst will kill it for the extremist groups, or Perry will veto it if the bill gets to his desk. They know who runs the Republican party.
Tagged: bill hammond, electioneering, pacs, texas association of business, todd smith.
Anonymous says:
“Either Dewhurst will kill it for the extremist groups, or Perry will veto it if the bill gets to his desk. They know who runs the Republican party.” You got it, Paul. That’s why everything that happened in Smith’s Elections Committee this session didn’t matter in the end.
It’s also why we’ll still wind up with a sham Voter ID bill (the Senate version) that really doesn’t do much of anything — no photo i.d. required; nothing addressing mail-in ballots, where any intentional fraud is likely to occur. It’s kind of funny, really — for all the rightwing clamor, their accomplishment is truly mediocre — and serves them right.
Any thoughts on why the R machine so desperately wanted a Voter ID bill in name only?
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
What about the 1st Amendment? Why should there be restrictions placed on political advertising?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Because the public is getting tired of big money and special interests buying votes and elections.
They’re tired of pseudo PAC’s bearing the name “citizen” or “Texan” that are really just big somebody trying to extract more money from the taxpayers’ pockets.
Reply »
Dick Trickle Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
well, we must discard those inconvenient rights when the public is tired.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Dewhurst and Perry had to have a bill for their own political purposes.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
As in, they wanted to be able to tell their “base” they did something — even if the effect was basically nil?
Reply »
Dick Trickle Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
evidence?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Oh, you get it, Paul.
Reply »
Jesse says:
I agree that LRB won the House majority for the R’s and that both sides are capable of raising and spending money to distort, attack and win, but what I don’t get why you and the Democrats think this is good legislation.
Political speech is supposed to be at the top of the protected speech hierarchy. If a group wishes to exercise its first amendment rights, it should be free to do so.
If (your example’s hypothetical, presumably not Todd) Rep. Smith is the target of a group suggesting that folks call his office and tell him to stop killing babies, then Rep. Smith’s friends and allies can excercise their 1A rights and respond accordingly.
It seems to me that the antidote to political speech with which one disagrees is more political speech, not restricting first amendment rights.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The problem comes when the free speech happens right before an election, effectively influencing the election with anonymous sources/funding and no time for a first amendment response.
Reply »
eam says:
Corporate personality under the Constitution is a “fluke” in an 1886 Supreme Court decision, where a headnote what interpreted as law in subsequent opinions (notably by the dubious Justice Fields in the 1910 cases).
The 1st amendment as it applies to the political process ought to be reserved for flesh and blood human beings (the sovereign), not the economic entities we create. Corporate free speech is a concept anathema to individual freedom in a representative democracy.
Reply »
eam says:
Typo: “… headnote was interpreted …”
Reply »
007 says:
im so tired of these extremist groups with their demands for freedom of speech. you’d think they believe they’re entitled to it as a right or some such nonsense
Reply »
Robert says:
Your a fool for not demanding freedom of political speech, even when it gets nasty. They’ll shut you down next.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This isn’t about Free Speech – it’s about spending corproate dollars in political campaigns with no reporting and no accountability.
Well you can’t have both. The Free Speech arguyment is BS. If you want to spend Corproate dollars in campaigns, fine. Report who the donations are from.
If you are not willing to report where the money is coming from you can’t spend it. it’s that simple.
Anyone who argues on this issue with free speech is free basing.
Reply »
007 says:
read the 1st amendment a little more carefully. citizens may peaceably “assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” sounds a lot like an advocacy group to me.
it doesn’t matter what “eam” thinks the 1st amendment “ought to be reserved for.” it DOES matter what the amendment reads.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Love the 1st Amendment “experts/advocates” here.
How many of you support the “Patriot Act”?
I’m guessing you don’t much care about THOSE constitutional rights, huh?
Reply »
Dick Trickle says:
yes, because if you support using electronic eavesdropping to break up terrorist cells in America you clearly hate free speech.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
You may have recognized what’s happening to your physical being as a result of the STD you contracted, but you clearly are unaware of how it has affected your brain.
Reply »
HW says:
The trial lawyers and gambling interests already use these tactics, look what they did to Phil King, Betty Brown and Nathan Macias.
Reply »
cyrus Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
What? Like get them un-re-elected?
Reply »
eam says:
The freedom of individuals to assemble to petition their government is a substantively different right than the right of a corporation (an economic entity) to engage in the political process as an equal — and frequently a superior — to a citizen or that assembly.
Checks & balances and transparency can’t be a bad thing for those who value the integrity of the American (and Texan) political process.
Reply »
jim says:
The Supreme Court, in McConnell v. FEC, in upholding McCain-Feingold, says that money is not exactly equal speech. A person has the right to contribute, but to a certain limit, and corporations and unions have the same right, with limits.
I don’t see what’s so unreasonable about that. There are several restrictions on 1st Amendment rights, so I don’t know where one gets off saying that there is an unlimited 1st Amendment right in this case.
Reply »
jim says:
sorry, equal TO free speech.
Reply »
Dick says:
Let’s go ahead and outlaw newspapers from making endorsements- they’re corporations right? And what makes them so qualified to endorse candidates?
Reply »
Dick says:
Oh yeah, Pious Paul, does this mean you won’t be doing your 10 best and worst legislators? Isn’t that your own brand of electioneering? Maybe we should resurrect Ronnie to launch another worthless investigation into you??
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 10:50 am
This is such a weird comment.
Reply »
eam says:
Before posting, read the text of the First Amendment.
“[T]he press” is explicitly afforded Constitutional rights in the express language of the First Amendment. Unfortunately for TRMPAC, Enron, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and others, they’re not. However, for the clever, Fox News, Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcast Group do a good job blurring the line.
Reply »
Dick says:
Blah, blah, blah. So all we’re left with is the press to inform voters? What a world that would be.
Reply »