On Wednesday, April 5, only four Texas congressmen stood up for your right to free speech. One of these congressmen, Jeb Hensarling, hails from the greater Dallas area. Sadly, the rest of our DFW-area congressmen—many of whom I otherwise respect and admire—failed to take this principled stand, voting along partisan lines.

Presumably, they acted at the dictates of that wholly unsatisfactory group of government-loving individuals that we Republicans call our House leadership.

The House on April 5 passed legislation that will (if passed by the Senate) limit the political contributions of individuals to so-called 527 groups. Allegedly, Republicans are seeking to control corruption in the political process. But let’s not kid ourselves. The Republican House Leadership supported this bill for one reason and one reason only: 527s have done more to help Democrats than Republicans in recent election years.

This attempt by the Republican House to limit political speech follows somewhat quickly on the heels of another reprehensible piece of legislation: the so-called McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which was enacted with the assistance of Republicans in 2002. McCain-Feingold masqueraded as "reform," but in reality, its primary effect was to restrict Americans’ ability to make political statements with their donations. Most notably, the right of Americans to make certain donations to the national political parties was restricted, and the use of certain types of political ads was outlawed. Outrageously, the targets of this latter category were many ads that identify federal candidates by name, if aired in the weeks prior to an election.

But wait. Don’t we most need information on federal candidates immediately prior to an election? Or maybe incumbents really don’t want voters to have too much information before going to the polls—particularly about themselves.

Egregiously, the President signed the law, despite the fact that he had apparent misgivings about its constitutionality. Indeed, he had expressed these doubts during the 2000 presidential campaign, and he expressed them again when he signed the bill.

When the bill was enacted, Republicans were appropriately and roundly chastised by many in their conservative base. The cure for corruption is not less political speech. Less freedom to speak about those in power ultimately doesn’t do anything but protect incumbents. The real cure for any corruption problem is more speech. Rather than enacting reams of punitive laws, Congress should deregulate the campaign finance system and replace it with simple, straightforward requirements of open, full, and immediate disclosure.

After McCain-Feingold was passed, this author maintained some small degree of hope that congressional Republicans would note the outrage that followed the bill and realize that it was a mistake. Unfortunately, the exact opposite situation has taken place. If Republicans had listened to the concerns of their base on McCain-Feingold, then they would now be seeking to reverse the damage done by the bill. Instead, the 527 vote on April 5 shows that they are intent on making matters worse.

In the good old days, conservative Republicans used to understand the importance of freedom of speech during political campaigns. They knew that the Founders considered political speech—of all speech—the most important type of speech to protect. Moreover, they understood that only when citizens can speak freely on political issues will elected officials be held to account. Now, it seems that most Republicans have abandoned this principle, voting for any restraint on speech that is perceived to undermine the campaigns of Democrats.

House Republican leaders have prioritized selfish political ambition above their oath to uphold the Constitution. They should be ashamed of themselves.

As Dallasites, let’s make sure that we applaud the small handful of Republican congressmen who are swimming upstream against this trend. One of our very own, Jeb Hensarling, deserves to be applauded for voting on principle, rather than caving in to purely partisan considerations.

Reading press accounts, one would think this was 1973. In the wake of the Sharpstown stock scandal and a redistricting cycle, about half the House members did not return for another session.

But what happened in Tuesday’s election wasn’t a tidal wave. It was a warning shot. Much of what happened in the election was a continuation of trends already underway. A lot of it related to local issues, not statewide politics.

In short, rumors of Speaker Tom Craddick’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Additionally, this election cycle is not as bad for conservatives as some in the press would like the public to believe. Yes, some Republicans coming into the House in 2007 are more moderate than their predecessors. But some are more conservative. When the net changes to the House membership are analyzed seat-by-seat, one or two seats may have shifted to the left. Noteworthy, but not a tsunami.

The Parent PAC

Much has been made of the success of the Texas Parent PAC - a political action committee with ties to school administrators - in recent Republican primaries. But the success of parent PAC candidates is not as bad for conservatives or for Craddick as some might think.

A lot of people are discussing Susan King’s victory over Kevin Christian in House District 71. But King, an opponent of school vouchers, replaces Rep. Bob Hunter (R-Abilene), who vocally opposes vouchers and has friendly relations with the school community. This isn’t a pickup - the Parent PAC simply replaced one sympathetic member with another.

Others are making hay out of Jimmie Don Aycock’s victory over Dale Hopkins in House District 54, noting that one of James Leininger’s PACs gave money to Hopkins . Aycock’s campaign manager, however, is Michelle Wittenburg, Craddick’s former general counsel. Aycock is endorsed by the Texas Farm Bureau’s AGFUND and proudly calls himself conservative. When LSR interviewed Aycock, he said he is a loyal Republican who looks forward to working with the current Republican leadership.

Drew Darby ’s victory over Rep. Scott Campbell (R-San Angelo) probably is a setback for the leadership but not an unexpected one. This race turned on some personal mistakes Campbell made two years ago, not statewide policy issues.

Tan Parker narrowly leads (48 votes at last count) PAC-backed Anne Lakusta in a conservative Denton County district. This is noteworthy because it shows candidates with school board experience can do well even in very conservative districts. At the same time, Lakusta said she has a conservative record on the Lewisville school board and on her website announces support for pro-life policies and expanding the authority of the elected State Board of Education.

It may be fair to view the March primaries as evidence that the leadership’s education message is not selling back home. Certainly chairman Kent Grusendorf’s loss hurts the cause of education reform. Yes, the successful Parent PAC candidates do have views on school issues that differ from some in House leadership. But on non-school issues, some of the Parent PAC candidates espouse conservative positions and some have ties to the existing House leadership.

Certainly if the upcoming special sessions get botched, that could be bad news for leadership. But that hasn’t happened yet. The warning shot fired Tuesday didn’t signal the end for conservative leadership in the House.

The Democrats

Results in the Democratic runoff continue earlier trends and probably present more of a challenge to the House leadership.

Rep. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), one of Craddick’s most vocal critics, easily won. One of Craddick’s chairmen, Rep. Al Edwards (D-Houston), lost to Borris Miles. Edwards is yet another Democrat who played ball with the GOP leadership losing a Democratic primary. And his bill to ban overly suggestive cheerleading, which was the topic of a skit on The Daily Show and lambasted on the House floor as “stupid” by fellow Houston Democrat Senfronia Thompson, probably didn’t help.

The key message here is that Democrats who represent Democratic districts should not get on the bad side of the trial lawyers. Democrats in swing districts, such as Rep. Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs), are given more flexibility by their party.

Some in the press have portrayed Miles’ victory as an instance of Democrats telling their own to stay away from the GOP brass. There’s some truth to that. But Rep. Vilma Luna (D-Corpus Christi), who has a great working relationship with Craddick, never faces opposition. That’s partly because of her effectiveness on local Corpus Christi issues, partly because of her ties with the plaintiff’s bar. (She helped work out a compromise on House Bill 4 in 2003 that made the “government standards” provision less hostile to plaintiffs.) She also votes with key Democratic constituencies on education and other issues important to Democrats.

As in 2003, Democrats in Democratic districts are expected to vote accordingly and should be careful about supporting Republican priorities. As in 2003, this year’s Democratic primaries will reduce the level of bipartisanship in the House.

CLOUT and other runoffs

In Houston , Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (CLOUT) went one for two. CLOUT pushes for lower caps on property tax appraisals. Executive director Edd Hendee is a talk show host on KSEV Radio (home of Sen.-elect Dan Patrick.) CLOUT endorsed John Zerwas over David Melanson. This race turned out to be a regional contest. Melanson handily won his home county of Wharton . Zerwas handily won his home county of Fort Bend . The race was decided by Waller County , which Zerwas narrowly won, and by higher turnout in Fort Bend .

The CLOUT-endorsed candidate, Mike Schofield, lost the race to replace retiring Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston). Instead, voters tapped Houston Community College Board member Jim Murphy, who had a long history in the district, ran a business improvement district there, and had a significant grassroots following.

This race makes the Houston political scene a bit more interesting. In March, Patrick’s influence dominated the primaries in most races. But in this race, he endorsed Schofield. Nixon endorsed Murphy, albeit late. Both Nixon and Murphy are clients of Houston political consultant Allen Blakemore, whereas Schofield used Patrick’s political consultant, Court Koenning. Patrick may have significant influence in Houston Republican politics but not necessarily total control.

Voters should be careful about reading ideological connotations into the Murphy-Schofield race. Both candidates actively supported property tax limits. Murphy had a respectable slate of conservative endorsements, including Nixon and Cathie Adams with the Texas Eagle Forum. This race was an example of the old-adage “all politics is local.”

In Austin , Bill Welch defeated Alex Castano for the Republican nod in District 47. Valinda Bolton knocked off Jason Earle for the Democratic slot. Both races were more about electoral effectiveness than ideology. Some statewide observers will be surprised at the defeat of Travis County Dist.Atty. Ronnie Earle’s son. But Bolton turned out to be much more effective at grassroots politics and a superior speaker. The HD 47 race is in play in the fall.

Lessons

Elected officials aren’t bulletproof. Voters can and will replace House members who have scandals over their heads, break their promises to their constituents, or vote against their districts. Leadership support alone is not enough to win. The other key lesson is, voters expect action on public school finance. The status quo likely will prevail if the special sessions go smoothly.  Shut down the schools, and all bets are off.  These are all trends that developed in the first round in March, but the runoffs confirmed that these trends are for real.

As legislators prepare to go into special session to debate the Perry/Sharp plan to shift the tax burden away from high property taxes and Robin Hood to a 1% tax on businessess, the Dallas Morning News continues to push editorially for higher taxes and less property tax relief.  It has a front page editorial in its Points section pushing its agenda of a higher tax for businesses and less property tax relief.  Bill McKenzie, an editorial writer at the News, has been pushing hard for higher taxes on businesses and less property tax relief.  From this observer's perspective, that is a real way to kill any possibility of getting something done this special session.  Maybe, that's why the title of the story on school finance on the front page of the News Sunday is "All uphill on school finance." 

My own sense in talking with those involved in the process is that John Sharp has done a masterful job of crafting a plan that is acceptable to a broad range of interests affected and that the Perry/Sharp plan stands a good change of passage.  We will soon see if this latest approach proves acceptable to a majority of the Texas legislators.

I have been a critic of the SMU athletic department for a number of years. I am a former student athlete and graduate (SMU ’74; MBA ‘76). I was reasonably successful as an athlete. Former SMU great Eric Dickerson and other critics have been vilified by the likes of Kevin Blackistone in the Dallas Morning News for our criticisms of SMU. Mr. Blackistone felt we should just give our money to the program and shut up. Of course, the Morning News was one of SMU’s principal cheerleading vehicles even though there was serious grumblings in the Black community about the troubling state of race relations in the athletic program.

Unproven NCAA violations allegations aside, Jimmy Tubbs firing was not unexpected. I talked to Tubbs shortly before he actually took the job. I expressed to him at that time I did not feel SMU understood diversity well enough to support him in his quest to bring back winning basketball to the campus. Tubbs then made some critical mistakes. First, he did not win. Second, he did not sign any Black player from the DISD. Third, he did not hire a Black assistant from the DISD. And fourth, Tubbs had little or no relationship with the Black political community in Dallas thus failing to understand at the collegiate level, politics are sometimes as important as winning.

No matter what SMU President, Gerald Turner, and Athletic Director, Jim Copeland, told Tubbs, they expected him to win right away. Unfortunately, Tubbs did not understand the nature of SMU’s sordid history with the Black community here. From ignoring former Black athletes who have no role at the university to insulting former Black alumni by only referencing them when they are trying to recruit in the Black community, SMU was a text book case on what not to do with Black athletes, a public school district, and Black alumni.

SMU, fumbling maybe its last chance to connect with the local Black community, finds itself searching for a new basketball coach while the Black community fumes. SMU has proven they have no clue as to how to create an environment where African-American athletes, coaches, and alumni will feel comfortable. SMU has now earned the “death penalty” and not from the NCAA, but from the Dallas Black community. Why would anyone send a good Black athlete to SMU? And if they did, given SMU’s horrible history with the Black community, would an athlete come under suspicion from the NCAA? Would not the perception be why go to a school with SMU’s reputation in the Black community unless you got paid to go?

There are some fine people associated with Southern Methodist University. Unfortunately, I don’t believe they are the ones in charge at SMU. Is it racism? Do they just not really care for Black people? Or is it that kind of arrogance that makes Anglos feel they really know Black people when they really don’t know us at all? Whatever the answer, the university will now suffer from another deadly athletic disease: apathy. When the Black community no longer cares what the university does, the institution becomes dead to us. At least that is how I see it from South of The Trinity.