Redistricting Redux
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
A lot to report from today’s symposium on the 2003 Congressional redistricting in Texas at the UT School of Law. Some bits to mention quickly from this morning:
The second session of the morning, on the criminal case against Tom DeLay, lost a bit of its lustre when District Attorney Ronnie Earle opted not to participate, sending only a written statement in his place. That left only two speakers, Dick DeGuerin, who represents Tom DeLay, and J.D. Pauerstein, who represents DeLay’s former lieutenant Jim Ellis. Interestingly enough, Ronnie did send two members of his staff to take notes on all that the opposing counsels had to say on the case. The move begs the question on whether Earle ever intended to show or just wanted a free glimpse into the thinking of the opposition.
DeGuerin and Pauerstein insist that their clients did nothing wrong and did not violate money laundering statutes when they sent $190,000 in candidate-unfriendly corporate money to the Republican National Committee which then turned around and sent it back as usable funds for specific candidates. The Observer has written extensively about this issue and the facts certainly appear damning.
What was a tad surprising was the lawyers’ agreement that Texas should reform the current system by putting a “low cap” on campaign contributions. The cap should be accompanied by a removal of the state’s ban on corporate cash, they added. “It’s not intuitively clear to me why it’s okay for certain homebuilders and other individuals who are immensely wealthy to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to single candidates, but a corporation can’t give a thousand dollars,” said J.D. Pauerstein, referring to Bob Perry, election ATM of the rightwing. Pauerstein, who says that he’s tired of being hit up for contributions, hopes that the limits would be small across the board.
In an earlier session, West Texas Democrat state Rep. Pete Gallego said that he thought it unlikely that the Legislature will enact campaign reform this session. Any reform effort would be seen as an attack on the current leadership, opined Gallego.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Many vetrans want a plan for the war in Iraq. Americans now believe the war is the most important issue facing us as a nation. Should we have a time line for withdrawl or not? Staff Sgt Blake Baxter discusses a timeline for Iraq, is it possible to have a timeline for troop withdrawl without letting the country fall into the control of terrorists? What’s your view? What would you say?