You are here
Government Ethics Is Grandly Unified in Texas
Wednesday, March 26th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
According
to Wikipedia, a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is "a model in
particle physics in which at high energy, the three gauge
interactions of the Standard Model which define the electromagnetic,
weak, and strong interactions, are merged into one single
interaction."
It appears that the case of Michael Quinn Sullivan and his trio of organizations, Empower Texans PAC, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (a 501(c)4) organization), and Empower Texans Foundation (a 501(c)(3) organization) may provide a Grand Unified Theory in the field of government ethics, bringing together the fields of campaign finance, lobbying, transparency, and conflicts of interest.
According to an article yesterday in the Dallas Morning News, complaints have been filed stating that Sullivan has failed to file and make disclosures as a lobbyist (one can be found here). He insists that he is not a lobbyist representing special interests, but rather that he and his groups represent grass-roots conservatives, and that disclosure of the source of their funds would violate First Amendment free speech rights.
But since two of the three organizations do not have to report donors, there is no way for the public to know whether or not Sullivan et al are representing special interests as lobbyists, thousands of individuals as advocates, both at different times, or whatever.
An additional issue is that lobbying is not just about communicating directly with legislators. Much of lobbying now consists of setting up grass-roots organizations to get thousands of people communicating with legislators. This means that lobbying can be funded without paying one penny directly to the person who is putting together an important public relations effort. The organizations that the lobbyist sets up to do this can pay the lobbyist. Then the question is, who is providing the organizations with seed money and continuing funds to pay for its efforts?
As long as such organizations are not transparent, there is no way to know if they are the arms of a lobbying effort (Astroturf organizations), actual grass-roots organizations, lobbying creations that have become actual grass-roots organizations, shells for political and criminal money laundering, or fronts for small groups of wealthy individuals or companies to make huge campaign contributions (there are claims that nearly all of Sullivan's organizations' money comes from one individual).
The Grand Unified Theory, then, is that, without disclosure of funding sources and expenditures, and of the topics and frequency of communications with which officials, there is no way to tell the difference between special interest lobbying, issue advocacy, political campaigns, political money laundering, and pay-to-play operations. There is also no way to tell the difference between grass-roots and Astroturf organizations.
When there is no way to tell the difference, the public has a First Amendment free speech right to accuse anyone involved with "dark money" organizations of being up to just about anything. Hell, for all anyone knows, the money comes from government grants and subsidies, or a foreign intelligence unit.
A recent article in the Texas Observer says that the state ethics commission decided to go ahead with a rulemaking process that might require the disclosure of now-secret donors. "The anonymity of Sullivan’s operations has always been a key part of what gives him special power in state politics." The governor vetoed a bill that would have done this. It appears that transparency, which is central to the Grand Unified Theory, is at the center of a political battle, and that the state EC is in a position to do something about it, something that might have repercussions nationwide.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
It appears that the case of Michael Quinn Sullivan and his trio of organizations, Empower Texans PAC, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (a 501(c)4) organization), and Empower Texans Foundation (a 501(c)(3) organization) may provide a Grand Unified Theory in the field of government ethics, bringing together the fields of campaign finance, lobbying, transparency, and conflicts of interest.
According to an article yesterday in the Dallas Morning News, complaints have been filed stating that Sullivan has failed to file and make disclosures as a lobbyist (one can be found here). He insists that he is not a lobbyist representing special interests, but rather that he and his groups represent grass-roots conservatives, and that disclosure of the source of their funds would violate First Amendment free speech rights.
But since two of the three organizations do not have to report donors, there is no way for the public to know whether or not Sullivan et al are representing special interests as lobbyists, thousands of individuals as advocates, both at different times, or whatever.
An additional issue is that lobbying is not just about communicating directly with legislators. Much of lobbying now consists of setting up grass-roots organizations to get thousands of people communicating with legislators. This means that lobbying can be funded without paying one penny directly to the person who is putting together an important public relations effort. The organizations that the lobbyist sets up to do this can pay the lobbyist. Then the question is, who is providing the organizations with seed money and continuing funds to pay for its efforts?
As long as such organizations are not transparent, there is no way to know if they are the arms of a lobbying effort (Astroturf organizations), actual grass-roots organizations, lobbying creations that have become actual grass-roots organizations, shells for political and criminal money laundering, or fronts for small groups of wealthy individuals or companies to make huge campaign contributions (there are claims that nearly all of Sullivan's organizations' money comes from one individual).
The Grand Unified Theory, then, is that, without disclosure of funding sources and expenditures, and of the topics and frequency of communications with which officials, there is no way to tell the difference between special interest lobbying, issue advocacy, political campaigns, political money laundering, and pay-to-play operations. There is also no way to tell the difference between grass-roots and Astroturf organizations.
When there is no way to tell the difference, the public has a First Amendment free speech right to accuse anyone involved with "dark money" organizations of being up to just about anything. Hell, for all anyone knows, the money comes from government grants and subsidies, or a foreign intelligence unit.
A recent article in the Texas Observer says that the state ethics commission decided to go ahead with a rulemaking process that might require the disclosure of now-secret donors. "The anonymity of Sullivan’s operations has always been a key part of what gives him special power in state politics." The governor vetoed a bill that would have done this. It appears that transparency, which is central to the Grand Unified Theory, is at the center of a political battle, and that the state EC is in a position to do something about it, something that might have repercussions nationwide.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
