PAAT Members:
Today, the District Attorney in Travis County settled the one remaining issue in the TAB litigation which began six years ago.
By a plea of guilty to deferred adjudication on a Class A misdemeanor, the Texas Association of Business, through its president, Bill Hammond, acknowledged violating laws that related to the use of a corporation’s resources for campaign purposes. Download the plea agreement.
In this case, the corporate resource involved was the time that Bill Hammond and Jack Campbell, both employees of TAB, spent doing campaign related work in legislative races in 2002.
In a statement released by Hammond on behalf of TAB for the press conference, and in the statement by Ronnie Earle’s office, there are several important points that we all should take very seriously.
Hammond noted that it was a violation of the law for him, as a salaried employee of TAB, to travel the state advocating for the election of candidates for the state legislature.
Earle noted that any activity that uses any corporate resources, with only limited exceptions, is a violation of the law, and that his office would continue to use that as the standard for the future. He specifically stated:
“Under the law in Texas, there is no exception for de minimus activity funded by corporate resources. Any use of corporate resources of any nature to benefit a campaign for public office is a violation of the corporate prohibition, including the use of corporate facilities, corporate property, corporate employees or corporate expense reimbursement.”
The TAB leadership also issued a more formal press statement about the legal battle, which you can download here.
I believe that this case and the disposition of it in this manner is a relief, in that it clarifies a longstanding concern: that the use of any corporate resources in a Texas campaign is fraught with danger, and should be carefully avoided as much as possible. Because Earle’s standard clearly includes de minimus activity to assist a candidate (and I would include in that the incidental use of space, computers, telephones, etc.) as a possible felony violation of the law, we now clearly know what we can expect. And, because the case is now resolved, as opposed to continuing to be argued about for months and years to come, our clients and companies now can more clearly weigh the risk of any activity in this area.
There is one particular piece of very useful guidance in Earle’s memo on how a corporate employee should act if they want to spend personal time on a campaign:
“Any corporate employee that wishes to donate his or her personal services to a candidate or political action committee must do so on his or her own personal time, which should be noted in advance and clearly documented in corporate records.”
I suggest that you read the rest of the District Attorney’s press release for more insight into their interpretation in this area. Again, some might not specifically agree with all the conclusions, but at least we have some clarity that we did not have before, which means a lot to those of us who just want to know what the law is so we can follow it.
Finally, because this case is over before the legislature comes into session, they can decide whether the standards in this case need to be legislatively addressed.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Jack Gullahorn |
