Current Events

Last year, the Governor called legislators into special session to deal with school finance. Instead, we wound up with telecom deregulation. Wonder how that happened?

The San Antonio Express-New just posted an excellent article the power of monied lobying interests here in Texas. The saddest thing: while lobbyist influence is coming under the microscope in Washington, it's biddness as usual here in Texas.

The potential for abuse is enormous, and the state agency in charge of monitoring lobbyists has received 1,500 sworn complaints since its founding in 1992. However, the Texas Ethics Commission has never conducted a complete audit or subpoenaed a single document, or subpoenaed and met with a witness in person.

Since 1992, the commission has initiated only one sworn complaint, has conducted one formal hearing and has not forwarded a single case to a law enforcement agency for criminal prosecution, the commission acknowledged.

Jack Abramoff may have made Washington lobbying a bad word, but that hasn't put a dent in the lobby's influence in Texas.

The full article is here.

Update: There are people trying to do something about it.

The Bob Gammage for Governor campaign has started spamming me. Sorry, Bob, I vote for politicians that want to end spam, not ones who do it.

Political spam is ugly and annoying, but it's not illegal. That's because the politicans exempt themselves whenever they write laws to outlaw spam. Nonetheless, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Spam is abusive and politicians shouldn't do it.

The exemption for politicians isn't necessarily a bad thing. Political speech deserves a much higher level of first amendment protection than commercial speech. Spam laws tend to focus on just the latter. That may be one reason why they've survived all court challenges to date. But it does create a huge loophole for sleazy campaigns to crawl through.

The Gammage campaign spam is some of the worst I've seen. First, the periodic mailings are annoying, ankle-biting screeds that just attack his primary opponent. Worst of all, there is no way to stop them. The campaign does not put an "opt out" link in the emails. If you try to respond to the email to ask them to stop, your message just bounces. This goes beyond annoying into the realm of incompetent, which is not a quality I want in my Governor. (By the way, I hadn't a position of any kind in this race until Gammage started spamming me.)

The reason why politicians spam is that it's a cheap and easy way to reach people. Traditional mechanisms, such as covering a neighborhood in door hangers, take significant money, effort, and volunteers. Those factors are built-in inhibitors: there is only so much a campaign can do, and they have to work hard to make sure what they do is most effective. Spam, on the other hand, requires few of these resources, so candidates can, if allowed, send you as much crap as they want.

The best way to end spam is to make it ineffective, so here is my plan: from now on whenever a politician spams me I will make a nominal donation to their opponent. If enough people do this then politicians would be harmed more than they are helped by campaign spam. Then maybe they will stop. Or, at least, maybe we'll elect fewer spammers to office.

In the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, John Dickerson writes an interesting article in Slate on how lobbying really works. He explains, unlike what many people think, there is no quid pro quo. Lobbying isn't a trading cash-for-votes deal.

Instead, lobbying is a much subtler activity. The lobbyist gets access, and the legislator (or their staff) use them as a resource to understand an issue. In this way, the legislator's position can become aligned with whichever lobbyists get the access. That's why, after all, SBC has almost as many lobbyists as Texas has legislators. If it was just about cash then SBC would just need one lobbyist and a wheelbarrow. It isn't, it's about influence. Each lobbyist is a touchpoint to increase influence.

Dickerson makes clear that although Abramoff-style kickbacks are not a normal part of the lobbying process, cash is important because it buys access. I hope that when the post-Abramoff lobbying reforms happen, they may restore a little balance, so that the shallow-pocketed citizen groups will become more effective.

Anybody wonder why Salon hasn't had any coverage of the Sony "rootkit" debacle?

I hadn't, until I saw this show up this evening:

The link goes to an ad for "Bruce Springsteen, Born To Run - 30th Anniversary Edition". The ad does not indicate whether the box set includes any of the spyware Sony has been shipping on their other albums.

Dear Senator Hutchison:

The most essential duty of our Federal Government is the safety and security of its people. Last week the Department of Homeland Security suffered complete failure in its execution of this mission.

I am furious that the Senate is even considering as its first order of business the repeal of the estate tax--an action that will benefit those who need it least, and jeopardize those who need it most. (I have heard stories this may be changed, and I pray that is true.)

What this Senate should be doing is delivering relief to the stricken in the southeast. And when that's done, it should be investigating why this colossal failure occurred.

In light of the problems demonstrated last week, I ask you to reconsider your position on tax cuts for the wealthy elite. Please prioritize FEMA funding over relief for the rich.

After 9/11 we declared, "Never again." Can we really mean it this time?

If you have thoughts to share with the Senator, use this form.

This November, Texans have an opportunity to enshrine bigotry in our state constitution. The No Nonsense in November PAC has just launched their web site to oppose the marriage constitutional amendment. Austinite Glen Maxey is leading the charge.

I give them an A+ on effort, but, unfortunately, I'll have to give the web site a B- on execution. First, not everybody is web surfing at 1600x1200 resolution. Many folks, particularly older folks with less than 20/20 eyesight, are browsing at 800x600. Your site ought to look reasonable at those resolutions.

And speaking of scrolling, is there anybody out there that thinks the iframe-type scrolling effect for the body text is good? I think it's further proof that just because you can do some cool effect, doesn't mean you should.

I recently wrote about how Rep. King tried to attach his bad telecom bills as amendments to SB 408, the otherwise innocuous PUC sunset bill, thus creating a dangerous telecom frankenbill. The problem is that when you start monkeying with a bill in this way you risk that it can be killed with a parliamentary maneuver called a "point of order." That's exactly what happened today.

Soon after the changes were passed out of committee, Rep. King started backpedaling. Presumably not because he was swayed by good policy arguments, but because of this risk. The muni network ban was removed. The local cable franchise killer remained, albeit changed to try to make it more germane to the bill topic, and thus reduce the risk of a point of order.

Turns out that was not sufficient. A point of order was raised, claiming that the bill did not match the analysis. The chair sustained the point of order so now the bill is dead.

Points of order often are driven more by politics than technicalities. There was widespread displeasure at what Rep. King did. Sen. Shapiro, the original bill sponsor, was reportedly livid over the changes. These circumstances created ripe conditions for the chair to sustain the point of order, thus killing the bill.

(Note: The muni network ban lives on in HB 789.)

May 19 update: This article points out that the bill is not technically dead, but rather goes back to committee to be fixed. This late in the session, that's nearly as good as dead.

May 19 second update: Aw crap. The bill is alive. I'm hearing that King stripped two of three provisions he added, leaving in the provision that kills local video franchises, and rushed it back to the House to be scheduled for a vote.

We are in the final month of the Texas legislative session. Midnight this morning was a key date in the legislative calendar. Any House bills that have not had their second reading (this means reported out of committee and brought up for a vote on the House floor) are now dead.

I believe that HB 3179, the bad telecom bill I discussed yesterday (and the subject of all the dueling cable/telco ads we're seeing on Austin TV) may be one of them. If so, that's good news. I'm trying to get confirmation before getting too excited about it.

The bad news is that the bill (along with HB 789 and its muni network ban) lives on as a backdoor amendment to SB 408, which is still alive, albeit bottled up in the Calendars committee.

I hope they won't be in a big rush to get that one to the floor for vote. It deserves the same fate.

Here is the letter I just sent to Texas state Rep. Elliott Naishtat on the bad telecom legislation currently in the Texas house. This legislation would do terrible things like outlaw community Internet and take away local control of cable franchises.

If you care about these telecom issues, please consider contacting your state representatives. This web site makes it easy. For more information, see the Save Muni Wireless and the Free Press action alerts.

Dear Rep. Naishtat,

The House Regulated Industries committee has attached some very controversial telecom legislation (HB 789 and HB 3179) to the PUC sunset bill (SB 408).

HB 789 would prohibit municipalities from offering wireless internet access. HB 3179 takes cable franchises out of local control. These bills are harmful to Texas consumers, and harmful every business in the state but SBC.

Attaching these provisions to SB 408 is a cynical attempt to sidestep public hearings in the Senate. Public input on these matters is crucial. Please help stop these bad telecom bills, in whatever form they may take.

Thank you.

9:26a.m. update: I also called the Governor's Office at 800-252-9600. I sat on hold for a few minutes, but not too long. They took down my name, the list of bills that concerned me, and my position on them. It's easy, you don't have to give a big oratory on your position. In fact, I suspect they'd prefer you didn't.

There is a bill in the Texas legislature that could improve public safety and save taxpayers a bunch of money. What it does is strengthen the probation system so that criminals have a real incentive to go straight. This should reduce recidivism, and it should save taxpayers a bunch of money. The ACLU has setup an action page that makes it very easy to take action on the issue. Please check it out.