The largest association in the state of Texas, the Texas Association of Business, pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor charge, unlawful direct campaign expenditure, and paid $10K in fines to the state. After a six-year investigation into the campaign practices of the TAB's political action committee, this is the last lawsuit they'll have to deal with (unless 2008 turns out to be a especially corrupt election year.)

Apparently, the association's PAC was paying for the salaries of its President Bill Hammond and chief lobbyist Jack Campbell as they traveled around the state convincing voters to support state GOP candidates, attending fundraisers and speaking to the media on behalf of the candidates and their campaigns.

Earlier in 2007 District Judge Mike Lynch dismissed two indictments of TAB after the association spent over $1.7M on mailers and television ads on behalf of state GOP candidates. But now, with Texas redistricting on the table for the 2008 and 2010 state legislatures, the temptation to flood swing districts with political ads is hard to ignore. This latest decision by the district court will (hopefully) keep some of the corporate PAC money out of the airwaves and off voters' front stoops. Let's be honest, however, in today's stock market, paying $10K for pumping over $1.7M into local political races is a steal. Now, these business leaders have a host of state legislators in their back pocket. At least, that is how the public will perceive it. The return on investment is better than owning stock in Google (at least a couple months ago anyway). TAB obviously understood this after they moved their headquarters to the state capitol in 1990.

A closer look at the Texas Association of Business shows, once again, a revolving door between elected officials and lobbyists. Hammond, now President, was formerly a four-term member of the Texas House of Representatives. While there, he authored the Texas Education Agency Sunset Bill that was criticized heavily for opening up failing public schools to control by private entities (corporations, universities, non-profits could all essentially manage a public school under the bill). Two years later, after Hammond had left public office, his old boss, the Speaker of the Texas House, named him to lead the Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness.

This, all while aggressively advocating for specific TAB-endorsed candidates around the state of Texas.

In a rather pathetic show of guilt, TAB lawyer Joe Turner complained that the laws around campaign finance law are just too confusing:

Association attorney Joe Turner called upon the Legislature to clarify "this treacherous area of the law," which he said can be confusing for people like Hammond who must wear multiple hats: salaried employee, representative of a political action committee and citizen.

"This is an accounting nightmare," Turner said.

Ok, i understand that the law might be confusing. But I don't tell the state that the reason I didn't pay any taxes for nine years was because, "Gosh, tax law is just really confusing." It is, but you find someone to guide you through it.

Here's another idea: how about individuals like Hammond and Campbell don't wear four different hats, all of which have severe legal implications if ever worn at the same time. The fact that they knew they had to wear different hats shows they understood the vague, but existent, legal divisions created between each one.

I highly doubt TAB understood that it was breaking the law. Perhaps they thought they were bending it. And ignorance is rarely a ticket out of guilt, which is why TAB agreed to pay the $10K fine and move on. Regardless, they are under the reform microscope for the next few cycles.

According to Rasmussen, the American public is ready to hit the Congressional "Reset" button. In a recent poll 59% of voters said they would like to "throw them [Congress] all out and start over again." Only 17% felt that they should keep their jobs. This is a frightening statistic, especially for the 440 members of Congress who are up for re-election in a mere 29 days. Oh, and it gets better:

Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure.

.

So, hey, you wanna run for Congress? The hardest part is getting your foot (Ferragamo or not) in the door.

More than 90% of Congress will most likely (barring a revolution) retain their positions as the people that speak for us this November 4th. The power of incumbency is tough to beat, especially when gerrymandering allows members of Congress to effectively pick their own voters, not the other way around. Mix in some high name recognition, full staffs funded by tax-payer dollars, easy access to news coverage and an unmatched money machine, and suddenly running for office is reserved for those who are either very wealthy or very crazy (read "courageous"). Seriously, we have a better chance at winning scratch-off tickets than winning a seat for Congress.

As the article notes, the nation's founders believed that Congress should (and would) have a 50% turnover rate, and indeed, for the first 150 years the House of Representatives experienced exactly that. But ever since the 1940's Congress' turnover has been dropping to what it is today, somewhere in the single-digits.

Combine this with the back-to-back approval rating of 9% and you have to admit, it's not a good year to be a member of Congress.