Houston Democrats

May 11, 2005, 12:06AM

'Ethics' cops hinder probe
By RICK CASEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Sometimes the gods wrap things so neatly you think they're writing a novel. So it is with the latest legal wranglings surrounding Tom DeLay's controversial political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority.
ADVERTISEMENT

Today lawyers for two DeLay associates who have been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate donations to help elect Republican legislators in 2002 will try to convince Austin State District Judge Bob Perkins that the law is unconstitutionally vague.

The next day, the very same Judge Perkins will hear from state "ethics" officials trying to keep secret the name of a mystery lawyer who worked deftly to try to keep the law vague.

For more on today's proceedings, see R.G. Ratcliffe's story on this page. As for tomorrow's hearing, here's the story.

Since 1905, Texas law has been clear that corporate money may not be used to help elect Texas politicians. Nor can union money.

The law was passed in the wake of terrific scandals involving railroads and other corporate titans.

Revisions of the law did allow political action committees to use corporate money for "administrative" purposes.

The apparent thinking was that a corporation that wanted to set up a political action committee to which its employees would contribute could use corporate funds for office space, secretarial help and phones to administer the PAC.

In other words: No

In 1998, someone sent the Texas Ethics Commission a letter saying his or her client, a corporation and other corporations had been solicited "to donate a substantial sum of money" to be used for administrative purposes by a political action committee unconnected to the corporations.

The lawyer wanted to know if his client could give to a political action committee "which has no relationship or connection to the donating corporation" and whether the donation would be reported to anyone.

Two months later, the commission sent the lawyer a draft opinion. Its conclusion, after seven pages of analysis: "A corporation may make expenditures to defray administrative expenses of a general-purpose political committee only if the corporation participated in the establishment of the general-purpose political committee."

In other words: No.

In addition, the opinion made it clear that the expenditure of corporate funds was limited to rent and utilities and such.

"In contrast, expenditures for fund raising for the committee or for support of candidates are not administrative expenses."

TRMPAC allegedly used corporate funds for fund raising, polling to see how favored candidates were doing and targeted mailings praising favored candidates.

The lawyer, obviously knowledgeable of the peculiarities of Election Commission rules and practices, read the opinion and sent the commission another letter.

"My client wishes to withdraw the request for (the opinion)," the letter said. "We apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused."

If you ask the attorney general for an opinion, your request and that opinion are public record. If you ask the Federal Elections Commission for an opinion, your request and the opinion (and its draft) are public record.

But with the Texas Ethics Commission, the draft is shown privately to the requestor. If he doesn't like it, he can ask that it be withdrawn. And by law, the requestor's name is secret.

In this case, however, the grand jury looking into alleged abuses in 2002 has subpoenaed the letter with the requestor's name on it.

Since part of the argument of the defense in the indictments already issued is that the accused were acting in good faith based on the advice of their attorneys, the district attorney would like to know if one of their attorneys was the person who asked for the opinion. Lawyers I talked to said it could be devastating for that defense if one of the lawyers associated with TRMPAC was the secret requestor.

Amazingly in the eyes of some law enforcement officials, the Texas Ethics Commission is fighting the grand jury subpoena.

Prosecutors tell me grand juries have very broad powers. They can get bank records, medical records and a wide variety of material not available to the public.

Since grand juries are secret, those records remain secret unless there is an indictment and trial.

The Texas attorney general has refused to represent the Ethics Commission on this issue. His spokesman would not say why, but one possible reason is that his office sometimes obtains subpoenas for confidential information. To argue in favor of the commission would go against the interests of law enforcement, an untenable position for the attorney general.

Because the Legislature wants the Ethics Commission weaker than boarding house tea, it has no budget to hire a lawyer, so two lawyers who are commissioners will argue before Judge Perkins. I hope they sweat.

For ethics commissioners to suggest that their agency, of all agencies, is immune from criminal investigations is, itself, a brazen assault on the spirit of public ethics.

You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail him at rick.casey@chron.com.