| Inadmissible
December 08, 2008
Dependent Daughter?
A complaint that Houston activist John R. Cobarruvias filed last week with the Texas Ethics Commission against Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick raises an interesting question: Does a woman in her mid-30s meet the Texas Election Code's definition of a "dependent child"? Cobarruvias alleges in the complaint, which he says he filed Dec. 1, that Craddick, R-Midland, is violating Election Code §253.041 by using $625,000 in campaign contributions since 2003 to pay his daughter, Christi Craddick, for personal services. Christi Craddick, who is listed as an Austin solo on the State Bar of Texas Web site, works for the Stars Over Texas Political Action Committee, which raises campaign funds for Republican state legislative candidates. Austin solo Ed Shack, who represents Tom Craddick in the complaint, says Christi Craddick also runs the political side of her father's activities. Shack says Christi Craddick is not a dependent child. "She is an independent woman," Shack says. But Cobarruvias alleges in the complaint that the Ethics Commission's own instruction guide for officeholders states that "a child is considered a dependent if you provided more than 50 percent of the child's support during a calendar year." Cobarruvias further alleges that Christi Craddick's dependent status is revealed by the passage of S.B. 1102 in 1997. As alleged in the complaint, Tom Craddick pushed for passage of the bill, which allows the adult children of state officials to continue to receive state insurance until they marry. "As a result of this bill, Rep. Craddick was able to keep his daughter on his state insurance, regardless of her age," Cobarruvias alleges in the complaint. Shack says he does not know whether Christi Craddick is on the state's insurance. A message left at a telephone number listed for a Christi Craddick was not returned.
Pro Bono Isn't Free
On Dec. 4, the Texas Ethics Commission fined state Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht $29,000 after finding he violated state election laws by accepting and not reporting as a political contribution about $100,000 in free legal services from Jackson Walker. Charles "Chip" Babcock, a partner in Jackson Walker in Houston and Dallas, had represented Hecht in 2006 when Hecht successfully challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's public admonition of him for speaking out publicly in support of Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. Miers, now a partner in Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell in Dallas, withdrew her name from consideration for the high court post. According to evidence presented to the Ethics Commission during its public hearing, Hecht paid Jackson Walker $313,700 in fees originally billed in December 2006 at about $470,000. Tim Sorrells, the Ethics Commission's deputy general counsel, told the commission that Jackson Walker reduced its bill by 15 percent, resulting in an actual charge of about $410,000. Austin solo Ed Shack, Hecht's attorney, said the firm provided a portion of its legal services for Hecht pro bono. "Pro bono is not a political contribution to an individual," Shack argued. R. James George Jr., a partner in Austin's George & Brothers and an expert witness for Hecht, testified that Babcock represented Hecht in a case important to the First Amendment rights of judges. "I would have done this case free," George said. Cassandra Mitchell, the Ethics Commission's assistant general counsel, said Title 15 of the Election Code does not prevent an attorney from representing an officeholder for free but that there is "no exception in Title 15 for pro bono work." In an interview with reporters after the hearing, Hecht says, "I'm disappointed, but I respect the commission's decision." Hecht has the option to appeal the decision to a state district court but says he has not decided whether to do that. Alex Winslow, executive director of government watchdog group Texas Watch, filed the complaint against Hecht in July 2007. "This represents accountability for Justice Hecht, and that was our ultimate goal," Winslow says.
No Prosecution
Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson announced on Dec. 3 that he has closed his investigation of his predecessor, former DA Chuck Rosenthal. In a press release, Magidson announced that he had ended an eight-month investigation of Rosenthal "with the finding that there is insufficient evidence to seek prosecution." Magidson was investigating whether Rosenthal could face criminal charges for his alleged use of government resources, including office e-mails related to political activities. Rosenthal resigned in February after some e-mails he sent became public. Those include messages he sent from his office computer seeking help arranging a barbeque to kick off his re-election campaign. Texas Penal Code §39.01(a)(2) forbids office seekers from using state equipment for campaign purposes. When Rosenthal resigned, he said that prescription drugs had impaired his judgment. The Texas Office of the Attorney General assisted Magidson in the investigation. "After a careful and independent review of this matter, I have determined that there is insufficient evidence for prosecution," Magidson wrote in the release. Magidson leaves office at the end of the year, and the newly elected DA, Pat Lykos, will be sworn in on Jan. 1, 2009. Rosenthal, who has an unlisted telephone number, could not be reached for comment. Lykos says she has asked each of the prosecutors at the DA's office to submit a two-page résumé, which she will review. She expects departures to follow her reviews. Bert Graham, first assistant to Magidson and previously to Rosenthal, says he will retire in January after 36 years at the DA's office. Lykos says, "He provided good service for many years." Lykos adds that she expects to reorganize and streamline the DA's office and intends to assign a full-time lawyer to do post-conviction reviews, a task previously performed on an ad hoc basis.
