The Back Hall
January 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
It’s only the third day of the session, and already the kids aren’t playing nice in the Texas House. Lawmakers are debating permanent rules for the 80th session this afternoon. Things got testy over Waco Democrat Jim Dunnam’s amendment to ban lobbyists from the hallway behind the House chamber while lawmakers are debating bills. House rules already forbid lobbying in the places “adjacent” to the House floor. Of course, there’s some dispute over which areas exactly fall under “adjacent.” The back hall, behind the chamber, is closed to the public and most lobbyists. Some, however, have been reportedly spotted in the back hall or in the nearby speaker’s office. Coincidentally enough, those lobbyists happen to be close to the speaker. Dunnam’s proposal would have clarified the House prohibition on lobbying in the back hall. “There was unfortunately an owner’s box in the Texas House last session and in 2003,” Dunnam told the chamber. “Do you want to be on record saying that a registered lobbyist should have better access to the power of government than the general public?”
This issue is close to our hearts. The most infamous, though unconfirmed, incident of a lobbyist in the back hall occurred during the combative debate over school vouchers in May 2005. Rumor had it that, during the debate, voucher advocate James Leininger, a major Craddick campaign contributor, was camped in the back hall or speaker’s office lobbying House members. We here at the Observer filed an open records request for the security video in the back hall to confirm Leininger’s presence. After a nearly two-year legal battle with the Department of Public Safety, we haven’t seen the video yet, but may soon.
Dunnam’s plan met with GOP resistance. “It is overkill,” said Rep. Fred Hill (R-Richardson). “It doesn’t need to be done.
The exchanges got heated. “I thought things were going to change,” Dunnam said, referring to the recent speaker’s race and talk of ending the atmosphere of intimidation in the House. “Yet here we are on the first day [of debate]…and Mr. [Burt] Solomons [R-Carrollton] has apparently gone from loving [the amendment] to being told that he has to be against it.”
Dunnam’s amendment went down by an 83-59 count; that’s notably similar to Tuesday’s key vote in the speaker’s race (80-68). It’s a good bet we’ll see those kinds of numbers a lot this session.
