Groups sue to allow outside spending on House Speaker election

[sonias]

AAS 2/14/08
Groups sue to allow outside spending on House Speaker election
State law now bans Texans from trying to influence speaker races.

State law infringes on free speech by prohibiting Texans from spending money to influence the election of the speaker of the House of Representatives, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Austin.

The lawsuit is a rifle shot at two sections in a broader statute that governs campaigns for House speaker.

The American Civil Liberties Union and two conservative organizations, Free Market Foundation and Texas Eagle Forum, are suing to stop enforcement of the statute.

"To anyone with even the slightest interest in the First Amendment, this law is a disgrace," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Free Market Foundation. "Since when do legislators have the right to pass a law banning citizens from speaking about what those same legislators are doing?"

If the lawsuit is successful, groups or individuals could spend money to express support or opposition to Craddick or another speaker candidate as long as it was not coordinated with their campaigns. They would not have to publicly disclose their spending.

Strange bedfellows indeed. Expect to see more of Bob Perry's money in the arena if the lawsuit is successful. It is a bad law however.

Sonia

[Gman]

1. This is a BIG "be careful what you ask for" thing

reminds me of the RW free speech arguments against McCain/Feingold.

[sonias]

2. I know

I'm not asking, I'm just reporting. I'm concerned about the money spent in elections too. That's why I support a clean campaign/clean elections law for Texas.

But really in Texas you already have minimal limits to contributions right now. In fact there are no personal limits for the state legislature. This is why Bob Perry can contribute $20 million dollars to buy enough of the Lege to get tort reform passed.

The only laws we have on the books are the reporting laws, which many of our legislators fail to do properly anyway. And the law that prohibits corporation money going to actual campaign activity. Corporations can give money to PACs and parties if the money is used only to pay overhead. That's where DeLay and his groups TAB, and TRMPAC broke the law.

But the law these groups are going after is not about the legislators' contribution limits, it's about outside groups, similar to 527 PACs being able to advertise for or against the Speaker of the House specifically.

Sonia

[Gman]

3. Many companies and labor unions also contribute to the

state Democratic Party to cover administrative expenses. I don't have a problem with contributions to the parties. Nor do I have a problem with the simple concept of contributing to a Speaker's race, per se. I just have a problem with the argument they're making about free speech. If this one goes high enough in the court system and they win, it will likely be used as precedent for overturning limits from McCain/Feingold.

[sonias]

4. Judge lifts ban on outside money in House speaker's race

AAS article 2/28/08
Judge lifts ban on outside money in House speaker's race
Court order will be in effect until a trial later this year.

Texans, from individuals to corporations to political committees, can spend money to weigh in on the election of the next Texas speaker under a temporary court order issued Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel barred the state from enforcing portions of the so-called speaker's statute that restricts people outside the Texas House of Representatives from spending money to influence the election of the House leader. The court order is in effect until a trial later this year can determine whether the law is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as opponents contend, or until the state gets the order overturned on appeal.

(snip)

The court order opens up the possibility of organizations outside of the candidates' campaigns advocating their position on the speaker's election in fliers and commercials as well as lobbying of House candidates.

Lawyer Hiram S. Sasser III hailed the judge's preliminary order. He represents the American Civil Liberties Union and two conservative political groups that filed suit to overturn the law.

Well this is going to be a very interesting election year.

Sonia

[sonias]

5. House members' votes for Texas speaker opened up

Dallas Morning News 2/26/08
House members' votes for Texas speaker opened up
Judge's ruling allows information for political ads after 30-year ban

AUSTIN – Citing the importance of free speech in the political process, a federal judge has opened the gates to allow outside political groups to spend money and lobby Texas House members on whom to support in the election for speaker of the House.

With one week to go before the Texas primaries, the groups can also use the issue of speaker votes in ads for or against candidates. The issue is likely to play heavily in House races where last year's fight to remove Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick is a major issue.

(snip)

Advocacy groups also had been discouraged – if not outright banned – by the nebulous law from running third-party ads for or against House candidates based on whom they support for speaker.

In addition to their desire to use House members' position on the speaker in third-party campaign ads, the groups also wanted to be able to campaign outright for or against particular candidates in the speaker's race itself – a right previously reserved only for the 150 House members.

Craddick is not going to survive this.

Sonia