Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Texas Ethics Commission’

Texas Ethics Commission Rejects adoption of a dangerous “advisory opinion”

Posted in Ethics, Good Government, tagged , , on January 28, 2016 |

UPDATE:

Ethics Commission rejects opinion to allow out-of-state donors to pay Paxton’s legal bills

Vote was 4 to 3 with one absent

At the beginning of the last legislative session, Governor Abbott announced he was making ethics reform an emergency priority for the Texas legislature to address.  In the end, very little ethics reform was passed, and now the Texas Ethics Commission is poised to adopt a dangerous “advisory opinion” Monday that hangs a “For Sale” sign on the Texas Attorney General’s office.

The draft opinion (AOR-605) invites out-of-state donors to give indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton unlimited amounts of money to pay his ballooning criminal defense bills (see Houston Chronicle story below). This opinion is a powerful magnet for political corruption, one drafted for the exclusive benefit of Ken Paxton, who is under indictment for alleged criminal securities fraud.

Send an email message today urging the Ethics Commission to:

  1. Reject the Paxton Loophole; and
  2. Pursue an absolute ban on all gifts for the AG’s criminal defense. 

Email your brief comments to:  Commissioners, Texas Ethics Commission at:  public_comment@ethics.state.tx.us,

Below is an article by the Houston Chronicle on the proposed ethics opinion

Proposed ethics opinion would let AG tap out-out-of-state donors for defense funds
By David Saleh Rauf and Lauren McGaughy
January 26, 2016 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN – Indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton could tap out-of-state supporters to pay his legal defense team but must ensure those funds have not been funneled from any Texas donors, according to a draft advisory opinion from the state’s ethics regulator.

The Texas Ethics Commission is scheduled to vote Monday on legal guidance that would give Paxton, or any employee in the attorney general’s office, the green light to accept gifts from some donors.

If approved, it would clear the way for the embattled attorney general to accept contributions to cover his legal expenses from out-of-state donors, with certain conditions.

State law prohibits agency officials from accepting a “benefit” from someone under the agency’s oversight.

However, the ethics commission has said situations exist in which Paxton and his employees could accept gifts – namely from an out-of-state donor with no pending matters before the attorney general’s office – but that safeguards would have to put in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest.

The draft opinion for the first time addresses the possibility of money bundling and suggests heightened disclosure for gifts to employees of the attorney general’s office to avoid the perception of corruption.

It comes as Paxton and his team of high-profile defense attorneys appeal a recent court ruling while preparing for a possible trial in his pending felony fraud case.

‘Diligent inquiry’

Paxton is accused of breaking state securities laws by encouraging investors to buy stock in a North Texas tech company without disclosing that he was being paid by the firm, and for funneling clients to a friend’s investment firm without being properly registered as an investment advisor representative with the state.

He faces two first-degree felony charges, which carry a sentence of five to 99 years in prison and a fine, and one third-degree charge.

Paxton repeatedly has declined to detail how he is paying for his attorneys, saying only that neither his $2.5 million in campaign funds nor taxpayer money is being used.

A draft opinion released in late November provided the initial blueprint for Paxton to avoid violating the state’s gift-giving laws while accepting a “benefit” from a donor in certain circumstances.

The opinion was crafted in response to an anonymous request that specifically addressed situations in which potential donors are from outside Texas, minimizing the possibility they could be subject to the attorney general’s vast umbrella of jurisdiction.

The commission sent the proposal back for more internal vetting after questions were raised about the possibility that an out-of-state supporter could bundle or mask the fact that funds were coming from Texas donors.

The commission now is set to take up the refreshed guidance, which makes clear that Paxton or anyone in his office accepting a gift first will have to root out the “true source of the benefit” to ensure he is abiding by the law.

“We do not think that a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of a public servant or a law enforcement agency can evade the restrictions … using another person as a conduit for making a gift to the public servant (e.g., by giving a benefit to another with the instructions that the benefit then be passed to the public servant),” commission staff wrote in a draft opinion released this week. “Similarly, the public servant would be prohibited from accepting a benefit if the public servant knows that the true source of the benefit is a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the public servant.”

The draft also proposes a set of “best practices” for disclosure, including recommendations that any such gift, along with its source, value and a description, be revealed publicly within 30 days.

A “diligent inquiry” also would have to be performed by whomever receives a gift to make sure the donor has no connection to Texas and is not under the attorney general’s jurisdiction. That inquiry, according to the latest draft, also would need to verify that the out-of-state donor “is not operating as a conduit” for someone else.

Not for sale

Watchdog groups reacted with swift criticism, saying the latest proposal invites the potential for an already-indicted attorney general to put a “for-sale sign on the AG’s office to pay for his criminal defense.”

“A close reading suggests that the commission has qualms about this convoluted ethical blank check,” said Craig McDonald, director of the left-leaning watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, which has filed multiple criminal complaints against Paxton, including one related to his current indictments. “The opinion should have been written in one word: No!”

The ethics commission does not identify who asks for an advisory opinion, but the circumstances laid out in the request mirror those of the attorney general.

At a recent hearing, the commission debated the issue with pointed comments specifically aimed at how the opinion could help establish the equivalent of a legal fund for Paxton.

Paxton also recused himself, without explanation, from all matters pertaining to the ethics commission just as the opinion request was being considered publicly.

The question of who is footing Paxton’s legal bill has become one of the mysteries in his ongoing criminal saga. His defense is expected to cost millions of dollars.

Paxton, a Republican, took office in January 2015 and was indicted six months later for allegedly violating state securities laws during his time as a state lawmaker. He was fined and reprimanded in April 2014 for not registering with the state as an investment adviser representative but has pleaded not guilty to all charges and asked for a jury trial in his home county.

No gift ban

Meanwhile, ethics regulators have been wrestling with the issue of gifts for employees in the attorney general’s office since July, when the request for an opinion first was lodged.

A blanket prohibition on gift-giving exists for the governor, lieutenant governor and members of the Legislature, along with their staffs, though there are several exceptions that allow freebies to flow to those elected officials and their employees.

There is no such comprehensive ban for the attorney general’s office, however, and the commission chairman has said he does not believe lawmakers ever intended for that to be the case.

“The Legislature didn’t make it illegal for an employee of the attorney general’s office to receive a gift,” Commission Chairman Paul Hobby said at a November meeting. “It did for other offices.”

 

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen bemoans Perry’s veto of Texas Ethics Commission Bill

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , , , on June 14, 2013 |

Texas’ governor is at it again.  Just 15 minutes ago, dozen’s of bills went down in flames under the governor’s veto pen.  This included a bill essential to providing more efficient enforcement of ethics violations in the Texas political process: the Ethics Commission sunset bill (SB 219), which passed by 97 percent in the House and 94 percent in the Senate.

Why veto such an overwhelmingly popular bill? It is because of a provision in the bill that would require members of the Railroad Commission to step down if they announce their candidacy for another office. This again demonstrates that the governor is more interested in protecting powerful politicians than protecting Texas residents.

Members of the Railroad Commission frequently seek higher office. Recently, two commissioners ran against each other for the same U.S. Senate seat. The commissioners, who serve more like judges than elected state officials, oversee complex oil and gas cases that require familiarity with the law and impartiality. When commissioners use their position as a springboard to run for another office, they often go absent from the commission, and the demands of campaigning reduce their ability to do their job.  This portion of the legislation could have been used as a model for how to adequately reform the Railroad Commission, but instead the governor shot it down.

It is worth noting that 81-93 percent of the total campaign donations to the commissioners come from the oil and gas industry, which is overseen by the Railroad Commission. Perhaps that’s why in 2012, despite handling 82 contested cases, the commission didn’t deny a permit to an oil and gas company even once. Clearly, the industry doesn’t want to risk losing members of the Railroad Commission who have been carefully cultivated.

It is a bad sign for democracy when a single person can veto the will of almost an entire legislature, and when a sunset bill for an entire state agency is sunk because of just one provision that would inconvenience the oil and gas industry.

Click here to see other bills vetoed by the governor and his justification for some of them.

Read Full Post »

Political favors – how to stop it from ruining your community

Posted in Campaign Finance, Sunset, tagged , , , on November 18, 2011 |

According to the Texas Energy Report, state environmental regulators appointed by Gov. Rick Perry issued a permit in January for a Houston-area industrial waste injection well to a company whose top investors include some of Perry’s close friends and campaign contributors.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved the permit over the objections of the Texas Railroad Commission (whose commissioners are elected) and every state and local official representing Montgomery County, and in spite of an administrative law judge’s recommendation to deny the permit because the well might pollute groundwater.

Perry’s presidential campaign opponents have criticized him for “crony capitalism,” the appearance of a pay-to-play culture that gets favorable state government treatment for his campaign donors. Perry also has been criticized for state environmental regulation that appears to put business ahead of environmental quality and safety.

All those issues are raised in the environmental commission’s actions on the permit sought by TexCom  Inc. of Houston and its investors with close ties to Perry.

Major investors in the injection well include Texas A&M University System Regent Phil Adams and Barry Switzer, a former football coach for the University of Oklahoma and the Dallas Cowboys.

Adams is a friend of Perry’s from their days as students at A&M. He has donated almost $300,000 to Perry’s state campaign fund, and at one time or another he has employed both of Perry’s children in his Bryan insurance agency. Another Adams investment became controversial in Perry’s gubernatorial re-election campaign last year when it was revealed that the company received a $2.75 million grant from the state’s Emerging Technology Fund.

Switzer raised more than $57,000 for Perry’s 2010 re-election and attended Perry’s primary election victory party. This August, Switzer hosted a fundraiser for Perry’s presidential campaign that took in $273,500.

Adams and Switzer are investors in a subsidiary of TexCom Inc. The company fought for five years to obtain the permit for a Montgomery County site for an injection well for industrial waste, mostly generated by the oil and gas industry. TexCom has reported that the site has the potential to generate $20 million a year in revenue.

Switzer became involved with TexCom in 2006 when he led investors to put $6 million into the company. Then in 2007, Switzer and two other Oklahoma investors founded Foxborough Energy Co. LLC and Montgomery County Environmental Solutions, which together bought at least a 60 percent share of the TexCom subsidiary that was seeking the Montgomery County well permit.

Adams’ state financial disclosure reports have shown him as an investor in the two Oklahoma companies since 2008.

Texas Ethics Commission undergoing Sunset Process

The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) has responsibility for civilly enforcing our state’s campaign finance laws. In the agency’s Self-Evaluation, they reported that in in 2009 they received 274 complaints from the public and there were zero initiated by the agency.  In 2010, they received 374 complaints from the public and again, zero initiated by the agency.  If the TEC is to be an effective enforcement agency, it must be restructured so that it operates like all other civil state law enforcement agencies.

Those concerned about the appearance of pay-to-play politics should ask the Sunset Commission to recommend the legislature make changes to the Texas Ethics Commission that:

  • Prohibit any contributor of more than $100 from being appointed to any board commission or office or contracting with the state  for 2 years after the contribution is made
  • Prohibit state agencies from contracting or giving grants to contributors of the Governor, Lt Governor or Speaker of the House.

Any community could fall victim to “crony capitalism” and Texans have an opportunity to ask their representatives to make it stop!

Read Full Post »

Harold Simmons: the political contributor who keeps on giving

Posted in Campaign Finance, Nuclear, Radioactive Waste, tagged , , , , , on January 20, 2011 |

In December Texans for Public Justice reported that Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons had contributed $620,000 to Governor Rick Perry.  TPJ’s publication Lobby Watch questioned how Perry’s appointees could objectively regulate Simmons’ nuclear ambitions. That question looms larger after Simmons gave Perry another $500,000 this in 2010. Having given him a total of $1,120,000, Simmons now ranks as the governor’s No. 2 individual donor.1

And now, Harold Simmons, is the largest benefactor for the new Railroad Commissioner, David Porter.  According to the report filed yesterday with the Texas Ethics Commission, which covered the period from late October until the fundraising moratorium triggered by the 2011 legislative session, Porter’s largest single donation came from Harold Simmons, the owner of Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists, who delivered a check for $25,000 to Porter on Oct. 27. . . .and another check for $25,000 the same day.    Simmons also made contributions to Porter in June to the tune of  $10,000, according to Ethics Commission reports.

I think the giving levels of Harold Simmons warrant watching, especially given the fact that much of his business is regulated by state agencies, and his predilection for spending money late in the election cycle (such as a gift of half a million dollars to Texans for Lawsuit Reform- a notorious tort reform super-PAC), a trick employed by Karl Rove to escape campaign finance scrutiny until an election is looooong over.

Read Full Post »

Drilling for Dollars: How Big Money Plays a Big Role at the Railroad Commission

Posted in Campaign Finance, Sunset, tagged , , , , , , on December 14, 2010 |

 

 

Andy Wilson talking at a press conference on campaign finance in the Railroad Commission at the Texas Capitol

 

Hey folks, here’s our press release about the report I’ve been slaving away over working on. Money’s a problem at the Railroad Commission. How bad? You have no idea. Read on, if you dare, and join us for our 1pm press conference in the Speaker’s press room in the Texas Capitol.

Sweeping changes are needed at the Texas Railroad Commission because of the huge amount of industry money being poured into the campaign coffers of sitting commissioners, a study released today by Public Citizen found.

The report, “Drilling for Dollars: How Big Money Has a Big Influence at the Railroad Commission,” details how fundraising by incumbents increased 688 percent between 2000 and 2008. It also shows that the biggest driver of the increase was donations from individuals associated with the fossil fuel industries – the same industries the commission is charged with regulating.

“We need fundamental reform at the Texas Railroad Commission,” said Andy Wilson, a campaign finance researcher with Public Citizen and one of the authors of the report. “The Legislature needs to change how railroad commissioners are elected or do away with electing commissioners all together.”

Cover of report Drilling for Dollars

The report details where the commissioners’ campaign money is coming from. By 2010, 80 percent of all donations to incumbents were from industry, up from 45 percent in 2000. The volume of donations from industry also increased nearly fivefold, from just over $420,000 in 2000 to more than $2 million in 2008. And while “big money” has always played a role, it has gotten even larger: In 2000, 80 percent of all money came in donations of $1,000 or more; by 2008, it was 85 percent and an astounding 92 percent for 2010.

“The Sunset Advisory Commission called campaign fundraising a ‘possible conflict of interest,’ and that is putting it mildly,” Wilson said. “What we see is the absolute domination of campaign money by the fossil fuel industries in Texas. One of every two dollars raised by sitting railroad commissioners comes from individuals and corporations whose fortunes rest upon the decisions made by the commission. Commissioners may play coy and act innocent – they may not even see themselves as being influenced – but the people writing the checks know exactly what they are doing.”

This is of particular concern to Texans because decisions made at the railroad commission affect them every day. Charged with regulating the oil and gas industry, the Texas Railroad Commission has failed to protect Texas families who live on top of the Barnett Shale. Gas drilling on the shale contributes more to air pollution than all of the cars and trucks in the Dallas-Fort Worth region combined, according to research done while at Southern Methodist University by EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armindariz. And just this week the EPA issued an endangerment order, ordering gas drillers to clean up contaminated drinking water.

Public Citizen’s report examined and catalogued campaign finance disclosures from the Texas Ethics Commission and identified those individuals and entities who identified themselves as being a part of the fossil fuel industry, a lobbyist or from a law firm. Concerned industry insiders and other public interest advocacy groups identified additional individuals and entities as being members of the industry.

The Texas Railroad Commission is undergoing a sunset review, mandatory every 12 years for every Texas state agency. In a special session of the Legislature in 2009, the review of the railroad commission, along with several other state agencies, was moved up by two years to be done in the 82nd Legislature, which convenes in January. The Sunset Advisory Commission will hear public testimony on the railroad commission on Wednesday at the State Capitol.

A copy of the report can be found at: http://www.citizen.org/drillingfordollars

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

 

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen’s website or Tom Delay on trial yesterday?

Posted in Campaign Finance, Consumers, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , on November 2, 2010 |

As the Tom Delay trial got underway, the State’s first two witnesses were Craig McDonald, a former Public Citizen Texas director and now the executive director for Texans for Public Justice, and Austin attorney Fred Lewis, both of whom the defense characterized as being from the left end of the political spectrum which they attempted to capitalize upon.  Twice the defense moved for a mistrial, claiming there was an effort by prosecutors to push political opinions on the jury.  Both motions were ignored by Judge Priest.

Craig McDonald said he focused solely on campaign donations while with Public Citizen and that there were discrepancies between what Texas Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) reported to the Texas Ethics Commission in terms of its income and what Republican National State Election Committee (RNSEC) reported to the IRS.

The defense, in examining McDonald, reviewed 60 candidate names on Public Citizen’s website — only one of which was a Democrat (gubernatorial candidate, Bill White, and that was from a blog on yours truly, Texas Vox, which showed up on the site through an RSS feed).  DeLay, however, was mentioned 100 or more times on the site. But McDonald maintained political neutrality in his testimony, noting that DeLay’s appearance on the website did not mean he was the only subject of Public Citizen’s research. (more…)

Read Full Post »

State Rep Kino Flores found GUILTY, exposes holes in our Texas campaign finance and ethics laws

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , on October 27, 2010 |

From the Statesman:

A Travis County jury today found South Texas lawmaker Kino Flores guilty of multiple counts of tampering with a governmental record and perjury in connection with omissions Flores made on financial disclosure forms required to be filed by state elected officials.

Flores, a 14-year state representative, was convicted of five counts of misdemeanor tampering with a governmental record, four counts of felony tampering with a governmental record and two counts of misdemeanor perjury.

***“This verdict represents the public saying to public officials that they expect elected officials to maintain the highest ethical standards,” Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said. “That accurate and full public disclosure is an important part of public service and that the public will not accept excuses like ‘I was too busy’ or ‘I just didn’t know.’”

Flores was found guilty of two counts of tampering with government records with the intent to harm or defraud the state for failing to report on the forms income that he was accused of receiving from a list of businesses in 2002 and 2003. He was also found guilty of the felony tampering for failing to report his son’s job with the Capitol lobby firm HillCo Partners.

The jury found that he did not intend to harm or defraud by failing to report a list of properties he owned on financial disclosure firms, including a Guadalupe Street condominium. Because of that lack of intent, the jury found the tampering with a governmental record counts related to those charges are misdemeanors.

Flores’ lawyers argued that he did not intend to omit the properties on the forms and dismissed some of the omissions as clerical errors. They argued that he was not obligated under the law to report the income because he was working as a consultant.

What’s important here is not what he was convicted for, but what he was NOT convicted for.  As the article says, this case basically amounted to “clerical errors” but this still stinks to high heaven.  Unfortunately, (and probably by design) we have a State Ethics Commission which is relatively toothless and whose only major enforcement actions are for paperwork violations. Kind of like this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWBlDC2-ss]

When lawmakers are given gifts or even campaign donations, there are obvious strings attached.  We ought to ban all gift-giving from lobbyists, etc and move to a system of full public financing of elections so the public can be absolutely certain no favors are being traded.

Otherwise, we just have a system where as long as they’re telling us they’re taking bribes and fill out the proper paperwork, it’s ok.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »