DeLay had Zero Impact on GOP Texas Victories

Everyone seems to "know" that former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee bought the Republicans majority control of the Texas House.

On Sept. 29, the Austin American-Statesman editorialized that "DeLay sowed the seeds that led to a GOP majority in the Texas Legislature after the 2002 elections." On Oct. 5, another editorial said, "DeLay helped fashion a GOP effort to take over the Texas House." The Statesman reported that a documentary titled "The Big Buy" is being made, and that it stars Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

And even DeLay's personal lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said, "Tom DeLay changed the face of Texas politics — nobody can deny that."

Well, I do deny that. In fact, DeLay and his committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC, had no impact on the elections for the Texas House. Their efforts won no state representative his or her seat. None. Zero. Zip. And if TRMPAC did not exist, the Republicans still would have won the same 88 seats in 2002.

This is not an attempt to exonerate DeLay, who has been indicted on criminal charges of money-laundering related to the 2002 election. But his alleged violation has absolutely nothing to do with whether TRMPAC had any impact on the outcome of that election.

Let's look at the numbers. Forty-seven Republican state House members were elected in 2002 without Democrat opposition. Another 30 were elected with at least 14 percent more votes than their Democrat opponent. In short, 77 seats were won in landslides that could not have been prevented.

Only in 11 races, all won by Republicans, was the margin of victory under 14 percent, and none of those races was particularly close. Usually we have one or two legislative races separated by fewer than 300 votes. In 2002, the margin of victory in the closest race was 1,835 votes, or 4.7 percent.

Our candidate in that race did receive $56,000 from TRMPAC. Based on a study of more than 100 legislative races, we can predict that TRMPAC's $56,000 contribution probably lifted this candidate's margin of victory by 0.8 percent — well below 4.7 percent. In 2004, this candidate won a rematch with a margin of over 23 percent — without receiving any TRMPAC money.

That same study of 100 legislative races showed that every time you double a candidate's expenditures, you increase his or her vote margin by 3 percent. So money does not have the impact on races that people believe it does. Most TRMPAC contributions probably helped GOP candidates gain 0.6 percent, or 240 votes — less than one tenth the victory margin.

When you run the numbers, you find that 70 percent of the variance in election outcomes is determined by a district's voting history. This is why redistricting is so important, and why about 90 percent of districts simply can't be won by the party they weren't drawn for. Another 20 percent of the variance in election outcome is determined by the candidate. Only about 10 percent is determined by campaign spending.

I'm not saying spending makes no difference. In a normal election year, TRMPAC's contributions might have changed the outcome in one or two close races. But they didn't in 2002 because Gov. Rick Perry won by a landslide, and the Democrats simply didn't do well.

Texans for Public Justice reported that in 2002, Texas' statewide and legislative candidates raised $195 million. The Texas Democratic Party had the largest PAC contributions to candidates, with $2,149,308. TRMPAC made contributions totaling $635,577 — only one three-hundredth the total amount raised by all candidates.

It isn't logical to think that a $635,000 contribution can somehow buy control of the Texas House, or even one election, when Texans for Public Justice states that the PACs in both political parties spent $43.5 million to support state candidates.

Republicans won the 2002 elections because Texas has become a Republican state. In the 2000 elections, 59 percent of all votes cast for a state House candidate were cast for the Republican. Yet Republicans only received 49 percent of all House seats, less than a majority, because of prior redistricting that favored Democrats.

Once redistricting was completed, I predicted in Quorum Report that Republicans would win 87 state House seats, plus or minus one. We won 88 seats. And Tom DeLay had nothing to do with it.

No one can or will buy our Legislature. If people believe our elections and government can be purchased, they will cease to believe in our democracy's legitimacy. Our legislators' ability to represent their districts will be harmed if they believe that their re-election is dependent on PAC money. When we cease to believe in the basic fairness and goodness of Texas' democracy, Texas dies.

Austinians Now Sick of Ronnie Earle?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Indictments of Tom DeLay
Monday, October 10, 2005

Earle's personal agenda

I am really tired of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's diminishing respect for the law by using his office to pursue his personal agenda. His actions have made a joke out of the grand jury process.

Between shopping charges through multiple grand juries and seeking charges of violating laws that were not in effect at the time, we should have no faith in the legitimacy of a grand jury under Earle. The voters of Travis County need to stand up and recall Earle and prevent him from throwing anymore hard-earned taxpayers' dollars away.

VERN WILLIAMS

Round Rock
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/10letters_edit.html

########

Making Tom DeLay look like a victim?
Monday, October 10, 2005

What appears to be a desperate dash by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to correct problems with the original indictment of Tom DeLay last week caused some lawyer types to scratch their heads and others to roll their eyes.

In case you missed it, the original indictment accused DeLay, the former House majority leader, of conspiring to violate a Texas election law that bars corporations for contributing to political candidates. The original indictment, returned Sept. 28, alleged acts that occurred in 2002. Trouble is the law didn't include conspiracy as an election code violation until 2003. Legal experts differ on how big a problem that is. Very generally speaking, it's a technical legal argument over how explicit the statute has to be.

In any event, the grand jury that returned the indictment had been dismissed, forcing Earle to seek indictment from a different grand jury on Sept. 29. The second balked, propelling Earle to yet a third grand jury — one that had just been impaneled — on Oct. 3. For Earle, the third time was the charm. DeLay supporters cited the mad dash as confirmation that the prosecution of their guy is not only sloppy but strictly political.

All that prompted cynical court watchers to crack wise. "Earle has a brilliant career in public relations after he leaves the DA's office," joked one. "He may be the only guy on the planet who can make Tom DeLay look sympathetic."

That's Earle, brother.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/10Asides_edit.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.