Taking small, but good, steps

How exciting to see this article from the Corsican Daily Sun in Navarro County.

The article reports that Navarro County resident Joe Hazewski attended the Navarro County Commissioners meeting last week to ask why Navarro County was paying money to belong to the Texas Association of Counties:



Speaking during the public comment section of the Navarro County Commissioners court meeting, Kerens resident Joe Hazewski, who is a regular contributing columnist to the Daily Sun, claimed that the organization is funding the activities of 22 lobbyists, at a cost estimated at $560,000 annually. Hazewski said doing so with public money is illegal. Hazewski said he obtained his figures from the Texas Ethics Commission.

Also:



“I want the county to take it up with TAC — they will not respond to private citizens,” Hazewski told commissioners.

Also:



Hazewski said Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson ruled against TAC’s lobbyist efforts in January, calling it illegal and instructing Williamson County not to pay any dues into TAC as long as they continued. Hazewski was unsure if the ruling was only effective in Williamson County, or was meant to apply statewide.

“They’re costing us a lot of money, and not always in our best interest,” Hazewski said.

Great job, Joe.

If anyone else out there decides to attend your county commissioner's meeting to ask similar questions, please let me know.

It's not a conservative or a liberal issue

It's a basic fairness issue.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for the professional advocacy of policies they object to.

That's what the West Virginia teacher's union said in 2003 when they filed suit to stop this practice:

The American Federation of Teachers - West Virginia has filed suit against the West Virginia School Boards Association (WVSBA) seeking to block the organization’s advocacy efforts. The teachers union argues that state laws allow WVSBA only to provide training to school board members and characterizes other activities as “taxpayer-funded lobbying.” “The School Boards Association has gotten very aggressive in its lobbying,” said a spokesman. “We think it’s wrong.”

TFL and research

Here's an angle on this problem I hadn't thought of, about publishers who benefit from taxpayer-funded subscriptions hiring lobbyists:

JISC consultant Fred Friend said: “It would be galling if publishers are using large sums of money derived from taxpayer-funded subscriptions to pay a media consultant to formulate messages against taxpayer interests. It is an extreme example of the lobbying publishers have been undertaking to thwart the clear wish of many members of the academic community to disseminate the results of publicly funded research more widely.”

A Montana objection to taxpayer-funded lobbying

Montana reporter George Ochenski of Missoula (Montana) News writes about the history of attempting to solve the taxpayer-funded lobbying problem in the Big Sky State and notes:

While the bill will probably face the same grim fate as its predecessors, it raises the important issue of lobbying by local governments—and lobby they do. Last week a hearing room was packed with local government officials testifying in support of the local option sales tax. One might wonder just how many of those testifying at taxpayer expense had the approval of the taxpayers to lobby for more taxes. My hunch is that none of them did. Nor, I suspect, did they have taxpayer approval to use taxpayer-funded equipment, supplies and facilities to lobby for more taxes. But make no mistake: with or without the public’s approval, they came to the capitol to lobby for more taxes.

I added the highlights.


See Inside Influence: Should state agencies lobby the Legislature? by George Ochenski.

Halls of power.

Halls of power.
Originally uploaded by Mr. Wright.

The west hall of the Texas state capitol.

They've got it right in South Carolina

I figured that Texas couldn't be the only state that has taxpayer-funded lobbyist groups.

Turns out that at least one state, South Carolina, is ahead of the curve in dealing with it:

State agencies shouldn't be allowed to use taxpayers' money to lobby for more is an article published on January 11, 2007 in a South Carolina newspaper.

When a state agency hires a lobbyist, it is turning taxpayers' money against them.

The State Ports Authority made the correct decision this year when it declined to hire lobbyists to work on lawmakers in Columbia.

Usually, agencies hire lobbyists to maximize their budgets, but in this instance, the authority is concerned about a conflict over construction of a new port in Jasper County.

The authority chairman said the decision not to rehire lobbyists was made because: "We've heard assurances that the state's interests will be protected … ."

The Ports Authority should have recognized that the General Assembly's duty is to make sure the state's interests are protected. Agencies always speak of their own interests as if they represented the interests of the state. The truth is that they usually hire lobbyists to make sure they get the biggest piece of the state budget pie possible or to make sure that their area of authority in the state is not compromised. These interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of the state.

Gov. Mark Sanford has introduced plans to merge some state agencies as part of government restructuring to increase efficiency and save money. You can expect lobbyists for these agencies to oppose these plans. And it won't be because of the state's best interests. It will be because of the bureaucrats' interests.

Agencies also will be pushing for more money in their budgets. This is an egregious abuse of taxpayers' money. The government takes money from the people of the state and gives it to an agency to fulfill that department's work. The agency then uses the money to hire a lobbyist to convince lawmakers to take more money from taxpayers and give it to the agency.

When multiple state agencies do this, the sum of their actions is to lobby for a larger state budget and higher taxes.

It is the job of lawmakers to look at the interests of the state, to judge which agencies need more money and which do not, to decide which policies are in the state's best interest. Agencies can advise lawmakers, but it is not their role to make policy. And they have no business using taxpayers' money to pay for lobbyists to influence policy.

Whether the purpose is to influence a port location or a budget decision, state agencies have no business hiring lobbyists. The governor recognized this fact when he prohibited agencies under his control from doing so. Lawmakers should extend this rule to all state agencies.

Disclosure: A First Step

Representative Ken Paxton has introduced a bill, HB 1517 that will require school districts, cities and counties to at least disclose how much money they are spending on lobbying.

One of the important provisions of the bill is the new requirement that cities, counties and school districts, if this bill passes, will from now on be legally required to report on an annual basis the:

(C) membership dues or fees paid to organizations that engage in legislative communication on behalf of the local governmental entity and similarly situated entities.

This is a good first step.

The Dallas Blog comments here.

Old and new bosses

In a post at the national left-leaning blog Crooks and Liars there's a discouraging new post, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss commenting on an article in the New York Times about ways lobbyists have found to get around the rules:

In just the last two months, lawmakers invited lobbyists to help pay for a catalog of outings: lavish birthday parties in a lawmaker's honor ($1,000 a lobbyist), martinis and margaritas at Washington restaurants (at least $1,000), a California wine-tasting tour (all donors welcome), hunting and fishing trips (typically $5,000), weekend golf tournaments ($2,500 and up), a Presidents' Day weekend at Disney World ($5,000), parties in South Beach in Miami ($5,000), concerts by the Who or Bob Seger ($2,500 for two seats), and even Broadway shows like "Mary Poppins" and "The Drowsy Chaperone" (also $2,500 for two).

The lobbyists and their employers typically end up paying for the events, but within the new rules.

Instead of picking up the lawmaker's tab, lobbyists pay a political fund-raising committee set up by the lawmaker. In turn, the committee pays the legislator's way.

There are plenty of Texas taxpayer-funded lobbyists operating not just in Austin but also in Washington, DC. We'll have to keep an eye on whether any of "our" lobbyists in Washington have been part of this dodge.

Feeling like a tiny choo-choo train in the wake of the Big Diesel, I note that LoneStarTimes already has its Anti-city Jihad brings chill to Houston city hall story up about today's noon rally.

One point the article notes is:

Last legislative session, taxpayer-funded lobby groups took $52 million from local governments.

That's a lot, but an additional cost is all the additional special-interest government spending those highly-paid lobbyists wrung out of Austin. How much was that?

Blogger Big Jolly posts for our reading pleasure all the handouts we could have picked up, had we been there. Reading this material is the first time I'd heard of Citizens for Public Accountability. Looks like a good group.

The Houston Chronicle has a new blog devoted to covering City Hall. I'll look forward to seeing whether this blog covers the rally.

Fun Idea for Valentine's Day: An Anti-City Jihad. Yee-Hah!

LoneStar Times notes that the anti-city jihadists at Americans for Prosperity are rallying tomorrow on the steps of City Hall in Houston.

Is that combat babe Cheryl Johnson or Peggy Venable?

Plus: He's a Republican.

With all their taxpayer-funded lobbyists and professional communicators that you pay for, when is the Texas Municipal League going to apologize for referring to a law-abiding (should I even have to say that?) Texas citizen as a jihadist?

More to the point, I assume that Peggy Venable lives in a city that pays dues to belong to the Texas Municipal League. So, her tax dollars went into a city general fund that was used to pay dues to belong to a group that is now calling her a jihadist.

Here's the Smoking Gun.

The Shark Tank in Austin

This photo is of the Capitol extension, from above. According to the photographer, "The lobbyists come out here during the session to use their cell phones. They call it the shark tank."

Photo originally uploaded by mkwng at Flickr.

An article in today's Lufkin Daily News is about Lufkin's new lobbyist.

The article provides a series of pros and cons about this, and that brings up an interesting part of the problem with taxpayer-funded lobbying.

The pro-taxpayer-funded lobbying soundbites come from the lobbyist. He is someone who is paid to spin and positively represent his side. In fact, he was paid by the taxpayers of Lufkin to explain to this reporter why it's a good idea for the city to pay someone like him the big bucks.

Meanwhile, the other side, if it's lucky, has at best one or two reasonably articulate spokespeople to represent the "con" side. In this case, the "con" spokesperson is Peggy Venable of Americans for Prosperity--a group that raises all its money from willing donors, versus Lufkin's lobbyist, some of whose "donors" are not glad about how their money is being spent.

The Hutchinson News, from Hutchinson, Kansas, quotes a taxpayer there who is struggling against taxpayer-funded lobbying in his state:

"If you can't level the playing field, at least don't make me pay the other team's salary," Flaherty said.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying is a non-partisan problem

It's human nature to be for or against an issue depending on whose ox is being gored but I hope that we can develop a broad consensus that taxpayer-funded lobbying should be eliminated.

I've done some Googling to see what our friends on the left and our friends on the right have had to say about the problem of taxpayer-funded lobbying over the years.

Here are some miscellaneous links about that, and about the problem in general.

The Dallas Morning News reported last year that:

“Public entities in Texas spend between $10 million and $23 million a year on private lobbyists to push projects and defend their interests in Austin.”

Texans for Public Justice have highlighted the possibility that a state lobbyist might have converted taxpayer dollars into GOP campaign contributions.

More recently, the same organization took a more benign view of taxpayer-funded lobbying.

San Antonio Lobbying: Double the Trouble? This is $500,000 straight from their general revenue fund to pay for lobbyists in Austin.

Off the Kuff reports on the successful reduction of Texas lobbying of the federal government:

The following is a statement by House Democratic Leaders in response to reports that the taxpayer funded lobby contracts with two Washington D.C. lobbyists (Jack Abramoff crony, Todd Boulanger, and former Tom DeLay Chief of Staff, Drew Maloney) were cancelled. Since 2003, House Democrats have repeatedly called on Republican elected officials in Texas to cancel the exorbitant and unnecessary lobby contracts.

Democratic members of the U.S. Senate proposed a bill in 2005 to Stop Taxpayer Funded Government Propaganda.

Here's a PDF of Rep. Dunman calling for an audit of some taxpayer-funded lobbying.

Common Dreams points out that the Bush Lobbying Effort Skirts Law.

In Texas, most of the work against taxpayer-funded lobbying has been done by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that successfully brought a lawsuit against the Texas Association of Counties.

"A raft of other professional associations"

Education reporter Karen Ayres has a telling paragraph in the Dallas Morning News about a pro-voucher rally:

The Texas Federation of Teachers and a raft of other professional associations built around public schools argue that a voucher program would hurt them, their schools and their students, and could become the first step in a larger plan to privatize public education.

Who is paying the bills for that "raft of other professional associations built around public schools" to get out there and lobby against the voucher program?

Parents and taxpayers at the rally, there to show support for vouchers, are partially footing the bill for these lobbyists.

They should not have to foot the bill for lobbyists to argue against a position they believe in.

Five Reasons Why Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying is bad for a democracy

I'm starting to feel shellshocked as I realize that there is a huge proliferation of these taxpayer-funded lobbying groups.

Check out the Texas Association of Midsize Schools. Legislative lobbying activities are clearly their main purpose. Now look at their membership application for the tell-tale "purchase order" section, which signals that people don't join this group with their own money. They join it with your money.

Same for the Texas Association of Community Schools. Look at their membership materials.

This brings me to Reason Number One about why taxpayer-funded lobbying is bad for a democracy.

There is no accountability to those who are paying the bills.

Who sets the legislative agenda for the Texas Association of Community Schools? Who decides what bills they will lobby for and which bills they will lobby against?

Do the taxpayers who pay the taxes which get converted into dues and checks from many school districts all over the state make these decisions?

No. They don't even know this is happening.

Do the school boards who are ultimately responsible for the budgets in their districts get to set the legislative agenda for TACS (or TASB or TASBO or TASA, etc.)?

I doubt that the members of most of those school boards are aware of what is going on, and I'm positive that even if they do know about this, they don't get a vote in determining TASC's legislative agenda.

Do the individual teachers and administrators who "belong" to TASC get to set their legislative agenda? I don't know but I'm going to find out.

What is particuarly worrisome is the possibility that the Associate Members TASC brags about on its front page might be involved with setting this group's legislative agenda.

That means that lobbyists funded by your tax dollars may be hearing a lot from these private corporations and associations:

Association Insurance Management
The Cooperative Purchasing Network (TCPN) (Exclusive)
A. Bargas & Associates
DriversEd.com
Henslee, Fowler, Hepworth & Schwartz, LLP
Johnson Controls, Inc.
PBK Architects, Inc.
Powell & Leon, LLP
Power Scholarships
Saxon Publishers

These are groups that obtain a direct, personal financial benefit from more and bigger public schools--regardless of whether those schools are delivering a quality educational product.

Shouldn't they have to pay for their own lobbyists?

A Big Government Perpetual Motion Machine

In his article, Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying: A National Problem, Phil Kerpen points out that taxpayer-funded lobbyists work in DC, not just in Austin:

The effect is far greater than the already sizable amounts spent by local government entities on lobbying, which is about $50 million in Texas alone. A 2004 study by the Center for the Public Integrity found that local governments spend $380 million on federal lobbying over a six year period. This fails to include the even more pernicious practice of ostensibly nongovernmental organizations that receive tax dollars and engage in lobbying, often with no disclosure.

This is a self-perpetuating problem: the national effect of taxpayer-funded lobbying, though difficult to quantify, is likely many billions of dollars in higher spending and higher taxes, at the state and federal levels, that were not requested or wanted by voters.

No disclosure is part of why this is such a serious problem.

A many-headed hydra

I began the work yesterday of listing all the groups in Texas that are supported by dues from public entities (cities, counties, school districts), and who turn around and use that money to send lobbyists to Austin to promote whatever their special interest agenda might be.

I already knew that the big-ticket "I want you to pay for my freedom of speech" organizations were the Texas Municipal League, the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Association of School Boards, and the Texas Association of School Administrators.

What I didn't know is how many others there are out there, quietly collecting your tax dollars, flying under the radar and paying Austin lobbyists.

Check out this link, helpfully provided by the Texas Association of School Administrators.

Clicking through the links, I'm both surprised and dismayed to see how many of these groups are supported by payments from school districts and also engage in lobbying activities.

Have you ever heard of the Texas Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance?

But click on their website and you'll see that legislative action is promised as one of the benefits of membership. Then, click on their membership application and you'll see -- at the lower right -- the part where they arrange for the membership fee to be paid by the school district.

That means that although individuals could pay the membership fee, so might a school district--and that means with your tax dollars.

How many Texas voters--how many Texas education reporters!--do you think are aware that tax dollars via school district membership fees are being used to support the legislative agenda of the Texas Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance?

The purpose of this new blog

An old-time plutocrat once said, "A million here, a million there...pretty soon, it really starts to add up."

That thought came to mind as I began to realize the extent of the problem with taxpayer-funded lobbying in Texas.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying is when cities, counties and school districts pay our tax money in dues to belong to organizations who then go out and spend that money to hire lobbyists, who head on down to Austin to lobby for whatever they lobby for.

Usually, what they lobby for is legislation that costs the taxpayers even more money.

But even if these lobbyists were heading down to Austin to beg for lower taxes and smaller governments, it still wouldn't be right.

It's not right when your hard-earned tax dollars go to pay a lobbyist to argue on behalf of legislation you don't agree with.

This violates fundamental ideas about fairness and democracy.

What has surprised me as I've studied the taxpayer-funded lobbying organizations in Texas is how many of them there are.

A little here and a little there...pretty soon it really starts to add up.