DA Probing Delay Money
This is a great article from the Houston Chronicle. I believe our State Rep and State Senator both benefitted greatly from TRM donations. I'll research it and post more later.
Jan. 10, 2004, 6:55PM
DA probing DeLay money
By RICK CASEY
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
U.S. REP. TOM DeLay is justifiably basking in his congressional redistricting triumph.
His new map is so effective that it should ensure that Austin, the state's most liberal city, goes unrepresented in Washington.
DeLay and his Republican allies divided the People's Republic of Austin into three parts, pairing them with far-flung provinces.
So U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a true liberal Austinite who has represented the city for nearly 10 years, now finds himself campaigning against a popular local judge 300 miles south in McAllen.
A nifty feat, this map. But there was one bit of gerrymandering DeLay was unable to accomplish. He lacked the power to redraw Travis County lines to put veteran District Attorney Ronnie Earle into, say, Chicago.
This failure may come back to haunt DeLay. DeLay's two-year campaign to reshape the state's political cartography is all over. Democratic hopes for a Supreme Court reversal are sheer fantasy. But a criminal investigation by Earle's office into the beginnings of the campaign appears to be gaining steam.
The story begins when DeLay formed Texans for a Republican Majority, an offshoot of his prodigious fundraising arm, Americans for a Republican Majority.
TRM's mission was simple. To get the congressional map he wanted, DeLay not only needed Republicans for the first time in 130 years to take control of both state houses. He needed a substantial majority.
He needed a majority that wouldn't be swayed by the goo-goo sensitivities of the likes of Republican state Sen. Bill Ratliff. None of this "spirit of collegiality." None of this bowing to a tradition of protecting the power of Texas in Congress by protecting incumbents. None of this concern that some day the Democrats might retake control of the state House and wreak revenge.
What DeLay needed, in short, was a majority that included a significant number of members who owed him.
To that end, TRM raised an impressive $1.5 million to help Republican legislative candidates in 2002. Anyone who thinks that sum didn't play a role in the GOP success probably believes Santa Claus is a Communist.
Fred Lewis, director of Austin-based Campaigns for People, estimates that 11 Republican legislators who won close races received an average of $61,000 from TRM, a substantial amount in legislative races.
DA Earle's interest is that $600,000 of TRM's money came from corporations, much of it from companies outside Texas that needed DeLay's friendship in Washington.
An example: $20,000 from the makers of Bacardi rum, for whom DeLay pressed a measure so odious that his fellow Republicans killed it.
Texas (and U.S.) law is clear: Corporate money can be used by groups such as TRM for administrative costs, but not to aid individual candidates. The notion that TRM spent more than a third of its money on administrative costs strikes investigators as, um, questionable. Specifics in TRM's filings raise more questions, for which we don't have space today.
Transactions such as Bacardi's explain why Texas populists a hundred years ago wrote the law attempting to keep corporations from buying our politicians. Teddy Roosevelt pushed through the federal prohibition several years later.
It's been a losing fight, but one DA Earle takes seriously, and it's no secret that he is leading a grand jury investigation of Texans for a Republican Majority.
DeLay's allies accuse Earle, a Democrat, of playing politics. But in more than two decades as DA, he has filed charges against 15 public officials. Of those, 11 were Democrats, including Attorney General Jim Mattox and House Speaker Gib Lewis.
Earle's investigation of DeLay's committee won't undo the Hammer's map. But it may, at least, help us understand the way it was forged.
Republicans in Van Zandt County seem to think that they win elections because their party platform and candidates appeal to voters more than those of the Democratic Party.
Not so. In this game, it's all about the numbers.
Take for example, the following numbers. See if you can figure out what the numbers are from (answers will follow, of course):
a.) 80 b.) 2,427 and 1,898 c.) 13,499 d.) 45
e.) 13,136 f.) 17,338 g.) 6,608 h.) 6,528
i.) 18,028 j.)4,529 k.) 9,168 l.) 3,867 m.) 7,888
n.) 5,188 o.) 8,836 p.) 4,200 q.) 17,888
Here's what these numbers represent:
a.) 80. The number of votes by which County Judge Jeff Fisher was re-elected in 2002. Hardly a "clear mandate." Barely a razor thin majority.
b.) The number of Republican and Democrat (respectively) straight-ticket voters in the 2002 election.
c.) 13,499. The total number of ballots cast in the 2002 election.
d.) 45. Roughly, the percent of registered voters who voted in the 2002 election.
e.) 13,136. The total number of voters who voted in the race for county judge in 2002.
f.) 17,388. The total number of voters who voted in the race for county judge in the 2000 special election.
g.) 6,608 and h.) 6,528. The total number of votes cast for the Republican and Democrat (respectively) candidates for county judge in 2002.
i.) 18,028. The total number of ballots cast in the 2000 election in Van Zandt County.
j.) 4,529. The number of FEWER voters who voted in 2002 than in 2003.
k.) 9,168 and l.) 3,867. The number of votes Rick Perry (R) and Tony Sanchez (D) received in the 2002 general election.
m.) 7,888 and n.) 5,188. The number of votes David Dewhurst and John Sharp (respectively) received in 2002.
o.) 8,836 and p.) 4,200. The number of votes John Cornyn and Ron Kirk (respectively) received in the 2002 election.
q.) 17,888. Total number of ballots cast in the presidential election in 2000.
certainly, these numbers show how independent the electorate in Van Zandt County can be. The wide fluctuation between votes for various candidates on both party's tickets shows many Van Zandters vote for the person and not the party.
But, these numbers also paint a different picture, one that Democrats need to understand, grasp, and work to change.
In short, these numbers show us we aren't doing everything we can do get all of our Democrat voters to the polls and second, to get all voters to the polls whether they are straight-ticket Democratic voters or not. Every single voter that goes to the polls is potentially a vote gained for one of our candidates.
Clearly, the numbers in the county judge's race in 2002 show that voters in this county tend to favor Democrats over Republicans at the local level. But, a total of only 13,136 voters cast ballots in this election (excluding those who went to the write-in candidate).
By contrast, the Democratic candidate just two years prior got 8,105 votes. Sure, the Republican that year got 9,233. BUT, if we'd had those other 1,577 Democrats who stayed home from the polls in 2002, we could have WON THAT RACE. Yes, if the exact number of voters that voted in 2000 voted the same way they did in 2002, the Republican could could have had an additional 2,625 votes. But, given his marked unpopularity, it is doubtful Jeff Fisher would have held on to even two thirds of those votes. In fact, looking at the percentage he won by in 2002, (just over 50 percent), there is NO WAY ANY REPUBLICAN VOTER EFFORT would have overcome the Democrats if we'd had all our voters at the polls.
5,244 people voted Democratic in the 2000 presidential election in Van Zandt County. Where were those additional Democrats (which could probably be counted as the core of Yellow Dog Democrat voters) in 2002, when Sanchez polled a mere 3,867 votes? We can't say they all stayed home because John Sharp polled 5,188 votes. But, again, we know all of Sharp's votes weren't from Democrats because of his bi-partisan support.
Regardless of how we try to interpret these numbers, the picture should be clear to us: we must make an effort to get more of our voters to the polls and we must make an effort to reach more voters who aren't voting.
The first one is obvious: the more of our people we get to the polls, the better our candidates do. The second one should be obvious: If we do some serious grassroots recruitment and registration, we can reach more people, inform them about our party and our candidates, and get more votes at the polls on election day.
It's hard to handicap elections in Van Zandt County because of the independent streak in most of our voters here. BUT, there is also no reason for Democrats to be discouraged and say we've lost Van Zandt County to the Republicans forever, or even the next few years.
According to the 2002 estimates from the U.S. Census bureau, there are over 50,000 people living in this county right now, at the very moment you read this post. Only about 30,000 of those people are registered voters. Less, actually when you consider deceased voters, voters in "suspense," and other factors. Subtracting those under 18 or who aren't eligible to vote, there are at least 10,000 potential voters in this county waiting to be registered, waiting to be energized by a party organization, waiting to learn the joy of electoral politics.
Why are we letting them escape our grasp? We MUST go out and register voters. We must get our voters to the polls. We MUST get our candidates' messages out to these people.
After 2002, we should all be committed to one thing: Losing by 80 votes is unacceptable. We can do more. It cannot all be left up to the candidates. Our party can and must undertake grassroots efforts to get voters registered and to the polls.
Every Democrat in this county should carry a purse, pocket, or glove compartment full of voter registration cards and literature on ALL our candidates. Every time we run into someone who is undecided or who isn't registered to vote, we need to give them this literature. We need to (professionally and kindly) encourage them to vote for our candidates and, above all, register to vote.
We could spend a million dollars on an election to get our candidates' messages out and we will STILL end up 80 votes shy if we don't go out and aggressively recruit new people into our party and onto our voter registration rolls.
The Republicans do not have a lock-down on this county. An 80 vote win in one of the most expensive races in county history damned sure isn't a clear mandate.
{{Contributor's note: This article is meant to make you think about what you can do to energize Democrats in Van Zandt County. We must "Overcome 80."}}
In an article in Saturday's Austin American Statesman Staff Writer Gary Susswein recounted the following tale of Congressman Lloyd Doggett's persistence in running in his new district:
*********
MISSION -- When Lloyd Doggett called her in October, Sandra Rodriguez wasn't interested in backing his bid to retain a seat in the U.S. House.
The politically active Hidalgo County woman had never met the Austin Democrat, whom her father supported years ago. Besides, she had a friend who also was weighing a run in the new 25th Congressional District, which snakes from Austin to the Rio Grande Valley.
Then Doggett called again.
And again.
And again.
"He was constantly calling. We were constantly talking," said Rodriguez, who threw her support behind Doggett even before her friend, Austin Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, decided not to run.
"Mr. Doggett's emphasis was `Sandra, I promise you, I will not forget the Valley once elected,' " she said.
With the persistence of a telemarketer and the earnest promises of a student council candidate, the 57-year-old Doggett has spent the past month entrenched in the Rio Grande Valley, trying to convince voters that he -- and not former local judge Leticia Hinojosa -- can best represent this high-growth, high-poverty region where he's never lived.
"What I spent most of my time doing there was trying to determine how I can be most helpful on the projects they've got," Doggett said this week after meeting with city leaders in Penitas, population 1,200.
"I'm here to apply for a job," he continued. "It's a job I didn't think I'd be here applying for."
*********
Too many times, candidates forget how important it is to doggedly (no pun intended) puruse the support and vote of the constituents they seek to represent.
Calling, going door-to-door, and attending community events is important. How important these things are can't be understated.
Showing the people you seek to represent that you care not only about their vote but about the issues that are important to them are paramount in any campaign. No matter how much money, fancy mailers, and phone banks the Republicans throw at our candidates, there is still no substitute for a candidate who really cares as opposed to one who cares more about the party line and serving a select few constituents who contribute money and control the support of the rest of their party.
Democrats are candidates who are for the people. Therefore, we should be out among the people, and not plotting policy and smoke-and-mirrors diversions in back rooms. While we must move our campaigns into the 21st Century at the local level and pay for direct mail, polls and the like, "grassroots" shoe-leather effort is key to helping our candidates win.
When our candidates get out among the people, the people will see that our candidates better represent their values and beliefs because our values and beliefs are local hometown values and beliefs. Our local candidates don't try to shove an entire right-wing party platform down the throats of our citizens. There is room in our party for everyone. And, when scores of our constituents swarm the commissioners court or halls of the legislature asking Democratic elected officals to do or not to do something, we listen. We don't ignore the wishes of the majority because it doesn't jibe with the right-wing extreamists who helped get us elected.
| |
