Campaign Finance

 New PAC’s Postcard Slams Martinez

Progress for Austin hits Martinez for
Open Meetings Act violations, legal fees

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Thursday December 4, 2014 9:42pm
updated Friday December 5, 2014 3:16pm

A postcard funded by a new general-purpose political action committee (PAC) hit mailboxes today, aimed to undercut support for mayoral candidate Mike Martinez by pointing out he was part of the City Council investigated for violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The Progress for Austin PAC’s postcard—which cost nearly $20,000—also attacks Council Member Martinez for getting taxpayers to pay the private lawyer who defended him in the ensuing investigation of the violations by the Travis County attorney and for his rash statements in e-mails, for which he apologized when the e-mails became public.

The Austin Bulldog broke the story of the Open Meetings violations on January 25, 2011; filed public information requests for e-mails exchanged by the mayor and council members; and sued when these elected officials refused to turn over e-mails about city business they exchanged on private accounts, resulting in the release of those communications. The Bulldog also broke the story that the City spent $157,636 to defend the elected officials during the 21-month criminal investigation, including $24,657.50 for attorney Joseph Turner, who defended Martinez.

The postcard features a large photo of Martinez being quoted in the Austin American-Statesman of March 11, 2011, based on his letter to the community, in which he apologized for the derogatory statements he had made in the e-mails: “I have eroded public trust and confidence in my ability to be a leader in this community.”

Bo Delp, deputy campaign manager for Martinez, commented on the mailer. He told The Austin Bulldog, “This demonstrates that Steve Adler and his allies are out of ideas for how to address the issues that are most important to middle-class families in Austin and quite frankly this distortion of Mike's unimpeachable career as a public servant and firefighter is disappointing.”

Referring to the Open Meetings Act violations, Delp said, “My understanding is that Mayor (Lee) Leffingwell was also associated with this particular process, and if Steve Adler thinks it’s such a terrible thing, I assume he will be refusing Leffingwell’s endorsement.”

New PAC in town

 Fair Campaign Funds Allocated Unfairly

Two of the three candidates who split the money
may not be entitled, city rules are in question

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Monday December 1, 2014 5:17pm

The Austin City Clerk deemed three candidates in the City Council runoffs eligible for equal shares of the $83,965.74 held in the Austin Fair Campaign Finance Fund, which provides partial public support for qualifying candidates. The Fund is built through lobbyist registration fees, donations, money collected for violations of campaign contracts, and candidate filing fees.

District 3 candidates (and siblings) Susana Almanza and Sabino Renteria and District 7 candidate Leslie Pool were notified November 14 they would each get checks for $27,988.58, City Clerk Jannette Goodall told The Austin Bulldog. They picked up the checks between November 18 and 21, she said.

None of the other candidates involved in runoffs for mayor and council signed the voluntary Austin Fair Campaign Contract.

Almanza and Renteria, however, may not have been entitled to those funds because they signed the Austin Fair Campaign Contract too late, according to one City Code provision.

To be eligible for a share of the Austin Fair Campaign Finance Fund, City Code Section 2-2-11 requires that candidates must sign the Austin Fair Campaign Contract agreeing to abide by limitations on contributions and expenditures and to participate in a series of candidate forums.

Section 2-2-11(B) states “A candidate must personally sign the campaign contract the earlier of (emphasis added):

(1) 30 days after he or she becomes a candidate under the Texas Election Code; or

(2) the date the candidate files for a place on the ballot.

Goodall said she had consulted with the Law Department and Ethics Review Commission and followed the same procedure used in past elections to disburse money to these three candidates based on the dates they filed for a place on the ballot.

“We had always used the ballot application deadline as a trigger and we kept with that date as well for this election,” Goodall said.

Tradition trumped City Code

Downtown Alliance Rail Spending Questioned

 Civic activist Rodgers warns City of Austin not to
reimburse $440,000 in Let’s Go Austin contributions

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Tuesday November 25, 2014 10:09pm

Civic activist Brian Rodgers sent a letter to City Manager Marc Ott and other city officials today to urge the city not to reimburse the DAA for political contributions it made to a pro-rail campaign as such payments might entail a “potential criminal violation.”

The Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA) contributed a total of $440,000 to the Let’s Go Austin Political Action Committee (PAC) to help fund the pro-rail campaign, according to campaign finance reports filed by the PAC.

The November 4 election sought approval for a $600 million bond for an urban rail starter system if the city also provided $400 million for roadway improvement projects. Voters soundly defeated the $1 billion initiative by a vote of 108,396 (57.2 percent) to 81,107 (42.8 percent).

DAA Executive Director Charlie Betts said he has been with the DAA for 17 years and this is the first time a question has been raised about the organization making political contributions.

Betts said, “We have contributed to issue-oriented PACs many times in the past, such as the Health District, the last two transportation bond issues, and the PAC to support the last affordable housing bonds campaign. We have never contributed to a political candidate.”

“That doesn’t make it legal, it just means they didn’t get caught,” said Austin attorney Bill Aleshire of Riggs Aleshire & Ray PC, who assisted Rodgers in drafting the letter to city officials. “The fact they got away with it in the past doesn’t make it any less of an issue.” (Disclosure: Aleshire is one of the attorneys who represents The Austin Bulldog.)

How DAA is funded

PACs Indy Spending Tops $262,000

Another $68,000 dumped into campaigns
in last three days to back favored candidates

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Monday November 3, 2014 1:40pm

Local political action committees (PACs) have already spent more than a quarter-million dollars trying to influence the outcome of the mayor and City Council elections set for Tuesday November 4.

For the pick of the big-money PACs look no further than District 10 candidate Robert Thomas. He has garnered nearly $60,000 in independent expenditures, so far, including a whopping $50,000 from the Austin Board of Realtors—a sum that far exceeds the total amount of independent expenditures made on behalf of any other candidate. The rest of support for Thomas came from the Austin Firefighters Association, Austin Police Association, and some free billboards courtesy of Reagan National Advertising.

Total independent expenditures jumped almost $68,000 in just the last three days of reporting as PACs chipped in to push last-minute ads, mailers, phone banks and block walkers aimed at getting preferred candidates elected. Of if not elected outright, at least getting them into a runoff where independent expenditures may be even more effective in influencing who serves as the new mayor and fills 10 council seats.

While amounts already spent are significant and might make a difference in the outcome of the general election, these PACs are sitting on more than $800,000 that can be deployed to influence voters in the seven weeks of campaigning to come, after the November 4 general election and before the December 16 runoffs.

Independent expenditures are monies spent for electioneering communication or express advocacy to support or oppose a candidate without consulting with a candidate’s campaign.

Political consultant Peck Young is advising a number of council candidates in this election, some of which have gotten support through independent expenditures.

“As long as you have ridiculously low limits on campaign contributions you need some mechanism to support candidates and that's what these independent expenditures are for,” Young said. “Until we get rational contribution levels these independent expenditures are it.”

Gallo ‘Statesman’ Ads Missing Disclosures

Wednesday ad and newspaper wrappers
both failed to include required statements

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Friday October 31, 2014 3:44pm

District 10 candidate Sheri Gallo's political advertising published in the Austin American-Statesman and printed on wrappers for subscribers’ newspapers did not include key disclosures required by the Texas Election Code and Austin City Code.

Texas Election Code Section 255.001 requires disclosure of the fact that express advocacy is political advertising and the full name of the person who paid for it. The disclosure required by Austin City Code Section 2-2-14 requires stating whether the candidate has—or has not—agreed to comply with contribution and expenditure limits of the Austin Fair Campaign Chapter.

In a telephone interview today, Gallo said, “We realized the problem Wednesday evening and contacted the paper.”

“I take full blame,” Gallo said. “It’s my duty to make sure things like this don’t happen.”

The 4-1/4-inch by 9-1/4-inch ad published on page A6 of the October 29 Statesman focused on a few of her qualifications and notes she has been endorsed by three former Austin mayors and a former mayor pro tem.