This from the left leaning Statesman:
Republican wants to give state agency power over election code prosecutions
Bill would give ethics commission veto in local prosecutions.
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
A member of Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick's leadership team wants to give the Texas Ethics Commission veto power over local prosecutors' prosecution of crimes under the election code.
Rep. Mary Denny, R–Aubrey, chairwoman of the House Elections Committee, would create an office under the state commission to conduct election code violation investigations such as Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's two-year investigation of the Texas Association of Business, Texans for a Republican Majority and Craddick.
House Bill 913 would prohibit a prosecutor from pursuing charges if the state office determines there is no criminal offense.
Shannon Edmonds with the Texas District and County Attorneys Association said the group is taking a wait-and-see attitude on the legislation but added, "It seems to keep prosecutors from prosecuting crimes."
Denny and Earle were not available for comment early Wednesday afternoon.
But a critic of the bill, Craig McDonald with Texans for Public Justice, said the Ethics Commission, appointed by state officials and split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, is not known for taking action against officials.
"I think it's incumbent politicians circling the wagons to protect themselves from prosecution," McDonald said. "It puts a roadblock in the way of local prosecutors, who should have a free hand in prosecuting violations of the law."
The Ethics Commission, created in 1991, has civil authority over election code violations and can refer criminal complaints to prosecutors. The agency, however, has never subpoenaed a witness or documents to investigate a complaint or referred a criminal case.
Immediately after the 2002 legislative elections Earle began investigating the use of corporate money by the state's largest business organization and Texans for a Republican Majority, created by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, in several crucial state House races.
State law prohibits corporate or union money from being spent on political campaigns.
A Travis County grand jury indicted three of DeLay's associates in September. The investigation is continuing.
Craddick has been pulled into the fray because of his role with Texans for a Republican Majority.
A special law bars outside groups from offering help to a speaker's candidate, and the candidate is prohibited from accepting that outside help.
Craddick first denied being involved with the group because he was running for speaker of the Texas House. But legal documents in recent months have shown that Craddick raised money for the group, had his staff distribute it to Republican candidates who supported him and consulted with the political action committee's associates about their activities.
Texans for a Republican Majority and the Texas Association of Business helped Denny in her 2002 election, particularly in a contested Republican primary.
statesman.com
My comment: Should local law prosecutors with their own political agendas really have a free hand? Perhaps this is inappropriate, perhaps not. It looks like Texas has some very odd laws on the books.
Thanks for your hard work. I had to sort through about a hundred links to find four from Texas that covered this story. You probably did too.
FYI: If you go to:
chron.com
it does not list:
chron.com
the last line of which is:
DeLay has not been indicted and denied wrongdoing in any campaign finance irregularities.
Lets let justice be served before we rush to judgment. As I have said before if DeLay is guilty then he must go.
For months, you have told me repeatedly how corrupt the Dems are and how honest the GOP is. The above scandal has been going on for over a year. T. Delay is so flagrantly corrupt, it astounds me. So what would you have me think about you? You say you're honest but then you ignore the above in your own backyard.....what should I think?
ted
Ted, you have pretended that lying under oath is ok as long as it is a Democrat President. You denied the similarity between Packwood and Clinton. You defend Democrats and only criticize Republicans. I said that Packwood was as bad as Clinton. I have stood always for morals. You may perceive differently. If you continue to perceive through Democrat colored glasses then you surely will.
Just as I was wrong when I judged Clinton guilty prior to his proving himself to be unfit to command, you may be rushing to string up Tom before anything has been proven or even prosecuted.
If you wish to compare this to the massive cover-up and obstruction by Janet Reno during the Clinton years, then lets debate if this rises to the level of that. BTW - Why did Clinton ask for the resignation of all 50 DAs? It had never been done before. Many people think it was to get rid of the Arkansas DA who was pursuing the Castle Grande and Whitewater investigation. Her removal set the investigation back several years.
Your keeping me abreast of the unfolding issue over Tom Delay is appreciated. The way this latest round started was not.
I have been less respectful towards you than you deserve. Please accept my apology for the latest round. Thanks is advance. |
