Welcome to "The Brick Wall!"



Well, it's been a bit since I've updated this site. Frankly, I just lost interest. But, with all of the apocryphal political machinations happening, I've felt compeled to update it now. So, we've got a presumptive Clinton vs Trump, a lost SCOTUS judge, and Brexit. My, hasn't the world been busy. Here's some more fat to chew on, then:

You do not have the constitutional right to come to this country, nor the constitutional right to citizenship after you’ve gotten here illegally.
You do not have the constitutional right to not be offended, nor do you have the constitutional right to shut down any such opinion you oppose.
You do not have the constitutional right to claim usurpation of constitutional law with any other law, religious or otherwise.
While you have the constitutional right to free speech, you do not have the constitutional right to be heard, nor be take seriously.
If you are so filled with stupidity and incompetence that you cannot, or will not, ’agree to disagree without being disagreeable’, then, by all means, leave. You are simply not wanted or needed here.
If you are so filled with stupidity and incompetence that you cannot, or will not, assimilate into the free and open society that is the US, then, by all means, leave. You are simply not wanted or needed here.
So, grow up and get a job making things rather than parading your stupidity and incompetence for all to see.

And, don’t bother emailing me your opinions (pro or con) about these tenants of constitutional law, as I could not possibly care less what they are. That, too, is my constitutional right.


I've now posted my latest paper, "So, What is a True Conservative, Anyway?", delivered to The Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, May 21st, 2008.


My thoughts on the Fletcher/Van Arsdale Texas House Republican Primary, District 130:

I've been remiss in writing on this subject, but with Super Tuesday just around the corner, I felt it was time to once again to bring this site out of hibernation and make comment on this particular race.

Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale has a 'history' with certain factions in this race, and as we're seeing on the National races, politics can be a contact sport. Such things are not unexpected from those of low character, but that's the reality of political climate we live in. Take, for example, this race.

As indicated below (at the date of 2/20/06), Rep. Van Arsdale took issue with low character displayed in the State Senate Race of 2006 by our currently serving State Senator for Texas State Senate District 7, Dan Patrick. This resulted in an endorsement for his opponent in that primary, and this has not been forgotten. As a result of this grudge, Senator Patrick has been able to collect into his cabal like-minded individuals of equal or lesser character than his own in another attempt to 'sandbag' yet another state election. This, of course, being done with lies, deceit, a local radio station Sen. Patrick owns, rumors (I stress rumors, mind you) of loophole contributions to technically beat campaign finance rules, and all of it being wrapped up into the blanket of high moral character and accountability to 'the people' as they define it.

This is par for the course for such people, but it's truly shameful when such people like Mayor Gretchen Fagan, of Tomball, and her mother and conservative political activist Pat Bailey, get involved with actually recruiting such people as Billy Allen Fletcher for the race against Rep. Van Arsdale. Having convinced Mr. Allen that he'd be doing us all a 'favor', he actually moves his family 1500 yards into Texas District 130 just a few weeks before the filing deadline.

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar? It gets better.

A mailer was then sent out full of inaccuracies and outright lies and mailed to voters in District 130, for which Rep. Van Arsdale has satisfactorily responded to:

From the Monday, February 18th, 2008 email entitled, "Corbin v. Fletcher debate on the Web--Fletcher's erroneous mailer on votes":


"2. Fletcher's false, misleading mailer on Corbin's votes -- In three debates last week, Fletcher admitted he never saw his mailer before it was mailed out and had no explanation for the erroneous claims and accusations the mailer made. For example, Fletcher claimed that HB 13 (a major immigration bill) died in committee when in fact it passed out of the House and Corbin voted for it. Fletcher also claimed HB 2656 (dealing with sex offenders) died on the floor, when in fact it passed out of the House and Corbin voted for it. Fletcher also claimed HR 11 was an immigration resolution and died in committee. In fact HR 11 was honoring the memory of recently deceased woman in Richardson, and it passed out of the House. Fletcher had no explanation at the debates for this or any of the other false and misleading info in his mailer."


I'd love to be able to provide you with the mailer in question, but searches on Billy Allen Fletcher's own campaign site does not contain it. Nor does it appear anywhere else on the net, apparently. It's like it never existed. However, audio from one of these debates (Feb 12, 2008) can be accessed here.

This is a demonstration of low character on the part of Mr. Fletcher. And, here is another:

From the blog, "Red Ink: Texas", dated Feb. 23, 2008 entitled, "Billy Allen Fletcher has a snit":


"Saturday, February 23, 2008

Billy Allen Fletcher has a Snit

Appropo of absolutely nothing I suppose, but word of an interesting exchange reaches my ears. It is interesting because it shows the sort of personality that Billy Allen Fletcher has and how he reacts to people in authority.

Fletcher arrived at the Tomball early voting place Tuesday the 20th with a stack of pizzas for the poll workers. That in of itself is a good thing, poll workers are only paid 7 dollars an hour and work their tails off. But Poll workers must also take an oath to protect the sanctity of the election process too. Accepting food from a candidate is verboten. What makes it worse, he waltzed into the polling place with "vote for me" buttons on his jacket. That also is not allowed by state law. It is called electioneering. No one may electioneer inside the 100 ft markers. Yes, that means Billy Allen Fletcher too. The election judge, which on election day has the same power as a district court judge, asked him to either remove his buttons or depart the exclusion zone. He turned and left in a huff but he did not leave the exclusion zone, he camped out at the front door, prompting the election judge to have to ask him to leave AGAIN. After that second confrontation in which Fletcher reportedly was quite belligerent and the election Judge was concerned that he would need to call the Constable's office to remove him, he finally left in a cloud of tire smoke as he left the parking lot. It would seem Fletcher has a small problem with following the law and how he interacts with people in positions of authority.

posted by Rorschach @ 2/23/2008 09:19:00 AM"


While I don't believe that the offense rises to the occasion of legal misconduct, it is his response to being confronted that is illustrative. Eye witness accounts can be slanted or misleading, but I have other accounts of such conduct (confidences prevent me from relaying them here) that reinforce what has been witnessed to, above. Again, a display of low character of Mr. Fletcher that is reinforced by a cumulative effect.

My final comment on this is, "Like puppeteer; like puppet." Perhaps Sen. Patrick should more properly 'screen' his 'candidates' in the future. Then again, maybe this guy is right up Sen. Patrick's alley....



I haven't posted anything lately, but want to add my 2 cents worth on the Pace University student being charged with a "hate crime" for allegedly dumping a Quran in a toilet. You can read a selected thread on this at Michelle Malkin's web site, michellemalkin.com. This issue, and the fear of offending Muslims dove-tails into mentioning of a paper on a similar subject.

On April 17th, 2007, I presented a paper to The Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society entitled, "So, What Is A Radical Muslim, Anyway?" I provide it here for your information.


It was interesting to see how dedicated Senator Patrick was at spinning a profound defeat of a 30 - 1 vote on the "Blocker" rule change into some type of moral victory for the downtrodden and underclass he has selectively chosen to be anointed by. He may represent one of the more populated Texas State Senate Districts, but in the Senate, he has exactly ONE vote, period. One vote he used yesterday (Tuesday, 01/09/07) which effectively demonstrated just how important his one vote truly is. You see, NO ONE in the Senate will ever trust him, because there will never be anything 'off-the-record' if he happens to simply disagree with it. He simply does not possess the character to be that honest, as this web site and the article in the January 2007 issue of Texas Monthly Magazine has proven. I will now elaborate further.

This is a snapshot of an online search within the FCC web pages about the radio station KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas Texas deal that Senator Patrick and his Democratic opponent, Michael Kubosh are investors in. It is a "License to Cover" application summary that indicates when this process of investment in KVCE in Dallas began:

As the arrow indicates, this process of investing in KVCE by Senator Patrick and his investors began in January of 2006, more than 2 months before the March Primaries; an investment in which he and his political opponent are investors in. Proof of the investment is here, in this "Assignee's Ownership" filing with the FCC:

Both of these documents can be found on line with the FCC, and are in PDF format here and here.

We now know the answer to what percentage Mr. Kubosh's investment has garnered him, but the answers to the rest of the questions about this cozy little arrangement remain unanswered. I suspect that they will go unanswered until a law enforcement official is willing to make the necessary inquiries into this deal.

I asked, below, if this deal was "quid pro quo", and I stand by it. I now also ask: Was the November 2006 Election for the Texas State Senate District 7 fixed?


Executive Editor Mimi Swartz, of Texas Monthly Magazine, has written a very thorough piece in the January 2006 issue of Texas Monthly Magazine about Dan Patrick, entitled "Here Comes Trouble". It can be accessed, with a subscription, here. Copyright requirements prevent me from reprinting it here, but it is safe to say that it does give a complete picture of our new Senator's character. Or, lack of it. However you choose to interpret it. I can also confirm that this web sight, and it's contents, below, was among the sources used in the article's creation. There is much, much, more that Ms. Swartz includes in the article, though, so do take a close look at it, and reach your own conclusions. As of this writing, there has been no response from Mr. Patrick, as he's been off the air for the holidays. But, I'm sure he'll have one, and it'll be commented on by me as soon as he does.

There is one quote from the article that I would, however, like to comment on at this time, and here it is:

From the January 2006 issue of Texas Monthly Magazine:

"Here Comes Trouble" by Executive Editor Mimi Swartz

"The general election posed no problem, as Harris County Democrats had written off the district. In fact, Patrick's opponent, Michael Kubosh, was a Republican who registered as a Democrat simply out of disgust for his own
party's abandonment of its far right wing. He looked like a fringe candidate; heavyset, with white hair and a carefully trimmed white beard, he was sort of a Santa Claus for conservatives. After Patrick won his primary in
March, Kubosh signed a waiver with the FCC freeing Patrick from giving Kubosh equal time on his station and thus allowing Patrick back on the air. The two men got on so famously that in May of 2006 Kubosh became a $580,000 investor in Patrick's Dallas radio station. At the very least, Patrick saved a small fortune by not having a real Democratic opponent in the race. Kubosh hopes for the best when Patrick goes to Austin but knows there are pitfalls ahead. ''There are lots of demons out there," he told me, "Some of them have money in their pockets and some of them have short skirts. But I believe if Dan does the right thing, maybe in eight years he will be the governor."


It is this investment, and it's timing, that I believe needs thorough investigation. Let's examine it further, here.

As we all know by now, Dan Patrick was elected State Senator for the 7th District. The vote was 70% Republican and 30% Democrat. However, some new information has come to light about the business relationship between the 2 candidates which calls into question the validity of this race. Here are the facts:

  1. Michael Kubosh is indeed an investor, with his Republican opponent Dan Patrick who is a majority owner in Dallas Broadcasting, the corporation purchased that operated what is now being called KVCE, 1160 AM in Dallas, Texas . This was confirmed by Mr. Kubosh himself on an interview with his opponent on Nov. 13th , 2006, on the Dan Patrick Radio Show between 4:00pm and 6:00pm on AM 700, KSEV in Houston.
  2. Michael Kubosh claims, above, that he invested $580,000 in this corporation set up to own KVCE.
  3. Mr. Kubosh claims, above, that this investment was made in May of 2006.
  4. Mr. Kubosh confirmed, in this KSEV interview, his involvement with the Patrick campaign by watching the returns together with his opponent the night of the general election, and appeared with his opponent on stage when Dan Patrick announced his state senate victory.
  5. Formal broadcasting as KVCE began that same day, just 6 days after the general election.
  6. Takeover of the station's operation began informally on or around Sept. 18th, 2006, just a little over a month before the general election.
  7. Purchase of a majority stake in Dallas Broadcasting and its station KMGS 1160 AM was announced Thursday, June 1st , 2006.
  8. Mr. Kubosh released his Republican opponent, Dan Patrick from any requirement of equal time on or around March 21st , 2006, just 2 weeks after the republican primary.
Now, let's begin with some questions:
  1. If Mr. Kubosh is an investor in KVCE, on what date did Sen. Patrick approach Mr. Kubosh with this investment opportunity?
  2. On what date in May did Mr. Kubosh make these funds available to Sen. Patrick's investment group?
  3. What percentage ownership, in the corporation set up to own KVCE, did Mr. Kubosh receive for his investment?
  4. If the announcement of the purchase took place June 1st , then how long does it take to:
    1. Find a station for sale
    2. Analyze the business to determine it's true value
    3. Come to a reasonable tender offer
    4. Arrange for venture capital to be gathered
    5. Negotiate ownership percentages
    6. Make the tender offer
    7. Negotiate and accept final terms of the sale
    8. Complete the sale
    9. Apply for the sale authorization from the FCC
    10. Receive sale approval and broadcasting license
    11. Take over station's operations
    12. Begin broadcasting utilizing current revenue streams until new programming and new advertising contracts kick in?

You see, with the time line needed for such a process to be able to be successfully completed by June 1st, it is my opinion that this investment Mr. Kubosh made had to have been in the works at least months (if not longer) before the May 2006 date given by Mr. Kubosh as his making the figure of $580,000 available. Just from a simple process assessment, that would have to put the initial contact of the investment to be around the time (or even before) the primaries, and that's a very optimistic time line given the bureaucracies involved with successfully completing this purchase.

Bottom line: things are simply not adding up, here, in my opinion. Was this deal quid pro quo? As it says, above, much money was saved by the Patrick Campaign by not having a real candidate to run against in the general election. This is simply more confirmation as to the character of both Dan Patrick and Michael Kubosh in this deal.


Yesterday's election yielded no surprises, really. The spin on both sides was typical and uninspired, as though both sides had pre-packaged their respective responses. It was equally no surprise that Dan Patrick won his bid for the State Senate District 7 seat. Regardless of his platform, it is unremarkable to have won with 69% of the vote when your opposition is your alleged business partner (see below) who conveniently chose not to even campaign for the position. You would think that the Democratic Party in Harris County, Texas would have bemoaned this, and their utter silence in equally telling. Of course, now that the election is over, such conduct on both candidates behalf has now become potentially felonious, based on the information presented below. Had Mr. Patrick lost, this would not have changed anything. The results, and how they were acquired, speak for themselves.


Here is a very interesting article that appeared in the Dallas Morning News this past weekend. Here is a snippet of what I want to deal with here:

Conservative host prepares for Legislature, second station
By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press Writer
September 2, 2006


After the primary, his challenger, Democrat Michael Kubosh, signed a waiver that would allow Patrick to continue broadcasting through the election.

Kubosh, a former Republican, also is one of 12 investors who helped Patrick buy Dallas radio station KKDL.

"God brings you the people he wants you to meet, or defeat sometimes," Patrick said of Kubosh.

Kubosh said he decided to run as a Democrat because he was disenchanted with the state's GOP leaders. But he soon discovered that Patrick's views were very similar to his own.

He helped Patrick go back on the air to "give the governor a hard time."

"He's doing exactly what I wanted to do," Kubosh said.

The Dallas station, scheduled to begin broadcasting Sept. 18, will be known as KVCE, or "The Voice." His 35,000-watt signal will reach from Dallas north toward the Oklahoma border.


I believe that these two candidates may now be attempting to “fix” the Texas State Senate District 7 Election. Mr. Patrick's Democratic opponent, Mr. Kubosh, agreed last spring to sign a waiver letting Mr. Patrick return to the air last March on his own radio talk show on his Houston station, AM-700 KSEV. What Mr. Patrick failed to mention publicly was that his Democratic challenger in the race is one of the twelve investors in Mr. Patrick's new Dallas radio station, KMGS, AM-1160. It is interesting to note that Mr. Kubosh did not withdraw from the race, even though he had until late August to do so. It would also be of note to possibly learn the nature -- and the timing -- of Mr. Kubosh's investment in a business that his political opponent in the race for Texas State Senate has also invested in, and is now a business partner of the front runner in this election.


I've heard from the Texas Ethics Commission on my complaint against Dan Patrick. And, as I expected, it was dismissed. I did learn, though, that the TEC wants the complainants to spend their time, money and energy doing the 'investigating', and then they will be more than happy to 'analyze' that evidence and then make a ruling on it. I didn't know that; and now I do. I guess it was naive of me to think that they would have spent so much time and effort investigating the Delay case, and none whatsoever on my complaint against Dan Patrick's campaign.

Oh, well, at least I tried. Here is the document, for those who'd like to see it...


As you can see, its been another while since I updated the blog. I've been busy configuring my new blog spot and preparing a podcast process. I'll make the announcement later, when it's ready for prime time.


It's been a while since I've updated my site, and it's been because of research I've been doing into the overall process in which this past political primary cycle developed and turned out. What is not unusual is the pattern of political demagoguery that emerged. What is unusual is where I recognized the pattern emerge.

I admit I am not the first to recognize it, as the document I've been studying these past few weeks was forwarded to me by an elected official that has been in the cross-hairs of the political opportunism that has disguised itself as populist activism within the Patrick Campaign. And, this type of opportunism has not been limited with this single campaign, either. But, it seems that Pennsylvania has had a 'reckoning' take place with Republicans In Name Only, or RINO's for short. It is a good example of how such populist activism should be done, and you can then compare the Pennsylvania example to the Houston example for effect.

What should be noted here is the difference between the disaffected conservative who has tired of the ideological shortcomings of their elected officials and the disaffected conservative that has been sold a bill of goods by a candidate that sells such things for a living. The Pennsylvania Primary of 2006 is a prime example of an electorate not needing to be proselytized in order for genuine populist activists to succeed in bringing about political change. You see, there was no radio station owner candidate here. No PAC like C.L.O.U.T was needed to bring about a change in leadership. No former radio station employee was needed to do the dirty work of a candidate to destroy the opposition candidate(s) in this election. The incumbents in Pennsylvania self-destructed on their own. The voters, being of conservative mind and sound body, voted, and change was created.

Let this be a lesson to all who read this, because a core pattern of the type of activity, chronicled on this web site below, has its roots in a more baser process. It is what I will now call, "How To Destroy Your Political Enemies In 7 Easy Steps". Lets begin.

“Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist(s), while biased journalism is the result of missing journalistic skills….and/or professional pride.”

•  Hege Lovdal Gulseth, The use of Propaganda in the Rwandan Genocide: A Study of Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)

Spillman and Spillman, in "On Enemy Images and Conflict Escalation" (1991, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 57-76) identify the following seven characteristics as belonging to the syndrome of the enemy image:

1. Distrust. Everything originating with the enemy is either bad or, if it appears reasonable, created for dishonest reasons.

2. Placing the guilt on the enemy. The enemy is responsible for the tension which exists and is to blame for everything that is negative under the current circumstances.

3. Negative anticipation. Whatever the enemy does is intended to harm us.

4. Identification with evil. The enemy embodies the opposite of what we are and what we strive for, and wants to destroy what we value most and must therefore be destroyed.

5. Zero-sum thinking. Anything which benefits the enemy harms us and vice versa.

6. De-individualization. Anyone who belongs to a given group is automatically our enemy.

7. Refusal of empathy. We have nothing in common with our enemy; human feelings and ethical criteria towards the enemy are dangerous and ill-advised.

Its no surprise that these 7 items sound familiar. These techniques transcend political parties and their objectives. What is a surprise is its application. You see this is all from a document, linked above, about the Rwandan Genocide of 1996.

I'm not intending to link the Rwandan Genocide with a cheesy local political campaign; just examine the baser process of what has transpired, and why. And, if the 7 steps above are a bit disturbing to you, good. Welcome to the real debate.


My paper presented to the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society entitled "Political One-Stop-Shopping: The Unique Campaign of Dan Patrick" is now available.


I'm posting Kristen Mack's article from today's Houston without any other comment than a quote from State Representative Corbin Van Arsdale, made to me a few weeks ago: "I have complete confidence in the truth."

March 31, 2006, 12:46AM


Will Patrick practice what he preaches?

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

WE won't have to wait months to find out who showed up and what they contributed to Dan Patrick at his first Austin fundraiser last night.

"People in my district will know who we're getting money from, how much and when," said Patrick, the Republican nominee in state Senate District 7.

He plans to post the information within a couple of weeks on his Web site, www.danpatrickforsenate.com.

While campaign finance reports are available on the Texas Ethics Commission Web site (www.ethics.state.tx.us), candidates are only required to update them at certain intervals specified by law.

"We don't need a law to do that. Why can't we just do it ourselves?" Patrick said. "I want to be sure no one ever has any questions about who is supporting me. I will have full and immediate disclosure."

Well, not quite. Only when a check rolls in for $2,000 or more will we know about it. But Patrick says he will post those contributions on his Web site within 10 days of receiving them.

It's not a politicianlike approach. But Patrick campaigned as a political outsider.

Lobbyist hosted fundraiser

During the primary, Patrick referred to one of his opponents, state Rep. Joe Nixon, as the "special interest candidate," based on his strong lobby support.

And Patrick denounced the influence of the lobby.

Yet within days after Patrick captured the GOP nomination, which all but guarantees him the seat in the strongly Republican district, an Austin lobbyist decided to throw him a fundraiser.

Thursday's event was organized by Steve Bresnen, whose clients include the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Texas State Association of Fire Fighters and the Bingo Interest Group.

Yet Patrick says he will refuse money from trial lawyers, who represent plaintiffs in personal-injury cases, and people trying to expand gambling, among other groups.

He sees no contradiction, he said, in taking money from lobbyists who represent those interests.

"If you want to support my issues, I'm glad to have your help," he said he will tell future contributors. "If you want to influence me, we'll escort you to the door and you'll never be allowed back again. We will not take money from those who oppose us."

That's a convenient line of rationale that may be hard to practice.

Although Patrick says his principles haven't changed, whom he takes money from is not the only thing he's changed his mind about.

A game of gotcha

Early in the campaign, Patrick called for a $1,000 limit on campaign donations. Now he says a $5,000 limit would be more reasonable.

People who are carefully watching to see if Patrick the candidate is different from Patrick the politician — the Houston Chronicle included — are only trying to play a game of gotcha, Patrick said.

"People in the party are waiting for me to make a mistake because they are angry," he said.

The idea to post his contributions online came to him while he was live on the radio, Patrick said.

Another idea he claims as his own is to "put a tax on all money wired out of Texas, to countries south of the border, in order to pay for border security, health care and education."

He said it will be the first bill he files as a senator.

Not a new idea

Democratic Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia came up with a similar plan during last year's legislative session.

While the proposal didn't become law, it is being studied as part of the Senate Finance Committee's interim charges — matters the committee researches between sessions.

"When I came up with this, I had no idea that anyone else had thought of it," Patrick said. "It just made sense to me."

Garcia proposed a measure that would impose a fee on international money transfers — 50 cents for every $100 wired — as a way of funding indigent health care.

That would generate at least $17.5 million a year in Texas, Garcia estimated.

The Senate interim committee is looking at the constitutionality of the proposal, quantifying the actual number of transactions and developing a pilot program in Harris County.

Garcia says her intention was to have the money go entirely to indigent health care.

She faced some heat from immigrant advocates who viewed the fee as an unfair tax that would fall hardest on poor people.

But Garcia believes such a plan would defuse the arguments that Harris County should not provide medical services for undocumented workers, as currently mandated by federal law.

At least this way, she reasons, many poor and illegal immigrants would be contributing to the county health system that serves them.

Patrick could make the same argument, but since he has described border security as his "top priority," he may be concerned about more than immigrants' health.

kristen.mac k@chron.com



Here's a good illustration of what I believe are the ethical principles at work in the Texas State Senate District 7 election process. Let's say that Mr. Gotrocks, of Gotrocks Industries, has a bill before the state legislature that could make Gotrocks Industries a lot of money. And, let's say that in order to get that bill influenced enough to pass, he's going to need to buy himself a state senator. He only has to do 2 things; a) find one for sale, and b) figure out how to pay for it. So, Mr. Gotrocks sees a radio station owner that wants to be a state senator, and Mr. Gotrocks has himself an idea. If Mr. Gotrocks drops a few million on advertising with an advertising agency, and that agency is told to buy advertising time on that radio station that candidate owns, why, he might just have himself a successfully passed bill on his hands if that radio station owner wins the election November 7th, 2006.

Think this is a joke? An unfair character assassination? Are you thinking that the radio station owner, who is professing such loyalty to the voters, and possessing such upstanding character, would never do such a thing?

I present to you this article that appeared in the Saturday, 3/25/06, edition of the Houston Chronicle:

Lobbyists organize Patrick fundraiser
Nominee flayed primary foe over donations from special interests

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - State Senate nominee Dan Patrick, who blasted an opponent in the recent Republican primary for taking contributions from lobbyists, is having a fundraising reception in Austin next week, hosted by lobbyists for a range of special interests, including casinos.

Lobbyist Steve Bresnen, whose clients include the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Texas State Association of Fire Fighters and the Bingo Interest Group, said he organized the Thursday event at the private Austin Club.

He said he wanted to give other lobbyists a chance to "meet and greet" the conservative radio personality, who is expected to handily win Houston 's District 7 Senate seat over Democratic and Libertarian opponents in November.

"It was strictly my idea," Bresnen said.

Bresnen also lobbies for the North Harris County Regional Water Authority, thousands of whose residents live in District 7, but he said the water authority wasn't involved in the reception.

It is not unusual for newly elected legislators or legislative candidates to have Austin fundraisers, but Patrick, campaigning before the primary as a political outsider, all but condemned the lobby.

In a campaign television spot, he urged voters to help him "take our state back from the special interests and the lobbyists."

"It's time for change," he said.

In an interview Thursday, Patrick said his principles haven't changed. He said he still isn't soliciting special interest money but would take some donations if they were offered with the understanding that no strings were attached.

"I have a lot of debt (more than $300,000) to retire," he said.

If a donor later suggests that he has bought his influence, Patrick added, "I will escort him to the door."

The nominee said he will refuse money from abortion rights groups, trial lawyers and people trying to expand gambling. He said that ban didn't apply to lobbyists, such as Bresnen, who represents trial lawyers and bingo interests but has other clients as well.

"You know how the system works. One person (lobbyist) represents a lot of interests," he said. "They (lobbyists) want to meet me. People in Austin don't know me."

Swamped opponents

Patrick swamped three opponents — state Reps. Joe Nixon and Peggy Hamric and former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis — to win the GOP nomination to succeed the retiring Sen. Jon Lindsay.

The fight between Patrick and Nixon, who enjoyed strong lobby support, was particularly contentious.

At a candidates' forum at the Cy-Fair Republican Women's Club in October, Patrick called for a $1,000 limit on donations to state Senate campaigns and criticized Nixon's fundraising ability.

"One of my opponents had a fundraiser the other night and collected $217,000 and bragged about it," Patrick said then. "I'd be ashamed, because that money didn't come from the people."

"We must have campaign reform in this state, like this maximum $1,000, and it should only come from people in the district," he added.

Patrick on Thursday said he has since determined that a $5,000 limit is more reasonable.

"Back in October, I didn't realize how expensive it was to run a campaign," he said.

No set donations

Bresnen is expecting 40 or 50 people may attend the Austin reception, and said some may not donate money. There is no schedule of suggested contribution amounts, but the invitation calls the event a "fundraising reception" and includes an address to which checks can be mailed.

Co-hosts, whom Bresnen said he rounded up at random, include TEXPAC, the doctors' political arm, and lobbyists Kent Hance, Robert Floyd, C.J. Tredway, Mark Seale and Deborah C. Ingersoll.

Hance's and Floyd's clients include Boyd Gaming Corp., a Las Vegas-based company that owns casinos.

Patrick may be campaigning as an Austin outsider, but "he still needs to see and know the players," Hance said.


It would appear that Mr Gotrocks is now making his down payment.



I don't vote in primaries. You become a de-facto member of that party when you do. So that has made me an observer of a political coup which supplanted one political machine for another on March 7th, 2006 in the Texas State Senate District 7 Primary Election. The new machine was very effective, getting Republican Candidate Dan Patrick a clear victory among a firm slate of equally qualified opponents without so much as a run-off. You can't argue with success but you can examine it closely to see if any missing parts fall out. Here are two, in the way of comments made by Patrick this morning on his radio station. One he attributes to a Republican Party official, the other is Patrick himself:

1. "It's not who runs, but what they run on."

2. "There is a new voice in Austin; yours."

Let's take them on, one at a time, shall we?

RE #1: Wasn't Bill Clinton elected on that premise? The caterwauling that came from the Republicans was that "character matters" and Clinton was certainly lacking in that category. We've chronicled Patrick's 'lapses' here, too, from the incestuous nature of the C&M Marketing and Communications 'hit squad' housed in the same suite as Patrick's radio station (see below), to John Eddy Williams involvement with the Patrick Campaign's marketing firm of record and the number Williams did on Patrick's opponents (also see below). There was also the issues with the mystery party chairs, that were listed as supporting the Patrick campaign, that were not even party chairs at all. Some were even included in his literature that did not endorse his candidacy, and included without their permission.

RE #2: Patrick didn't finish the thought. It should read, "There is a new voice in Austin; yours. [and make sure it's done on AM700 KSEV: that way I can profit from the increased ratings by using my potential public office as a revenue stream for increasing my advertising rates.]"

So, what have we learned from this primary? Here they are, in all their glory:

1. You can supplant one political machine for another if you can sell it on your radio station using feigned populist activism. After all, "It's not who runs, but what they run on."

2. Always follow the money. Especially when you spend almost a million dollars to be elected to a job that pays less that $8K/year.


I received the following campaign memo from the Nixon Campaign, which I believe vindicates my Ethics Complaint against the Patrick Campaign. Here is the letter, in its entirety:


F ebruary 27, 2006

Campaign Memo

To:                   Members of the Texas News Media, GOP Officials

From:               Jim McGrath, Nixon for State Senate Campaign

Subj:                Dan Patrick Campaign Team Tied to Liberal Trial Lawyer,

Discredited Attacks on Rep. Joe Nixon

As most of you are aware, billionaire personal injury trial lawyer John Eddie Williams has spent years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, fighting conservative candidates and causes – but until this year, he's never had a Republican candidate and his media team helping him.

Between 2000 and 2002, Mr. Williams contributed more than $600,000 to Democratic candidates and Democratic Party PACs. During that same period, Mr. Williams also reportedly camouflaged more than $300,000 that he injected into state politics by shuffling money through ambiguously named PACs, attempting to hide the origin of the funds before it landed in the hands of favorite candidates. 

This year, Mr. Williams is at it again.  As he confirmed in last Friday's Houston Chronicle ( http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mack/3681923.html ), Mr. Williams gave $33,000 to the Texans for Good Leaders for the specific purpose of attacking one candidate:  Rep. Joe Nixon.  Why?  Joe is the conservative leader in the Texas House who passed historic lawsuit reforms in 2003 and again 2005, ending the kind of frivolous lawsuits that some unscrupulous personal injury trial lawyers exploited en route to becoming very rich.

So Mr. Williams' attacks make sense.  It's political revenge of the worst kind, but at least it makes sense.

What is deeply disturbing is that Dan Patrick's campaign team is helping Mr. Williams.

That's right:  the Dan Patrick campaign media team, C&M Marketing, which shares the same office space as Dan Patrick's radio station and Dan Patrick's campaign , is also the PR firm of record for Mr. Williams' law firm (see below).

What does this mean?  Despite Mr. Patrick's claims of running a positive campaign, it appears the sleazy and discredited attacks by the Texans for Good Leaders have been orchestrated from Mr. Patrick's campaign office.  It also means you can add Dan Patrick to names like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton who have benefited from Mr. William's political help. 

But it begs the question that every Republican needs to ask themselves:  what does Mr. Williams want for attacking Mr. Patrick's main opponent?  If Dan Patrick was willing to form this kind of unholy alliance during a campaign, how could you possibly trust him in office?

Texas conservatives cannot afford to take that chance.

For more documented information, follow along below as we connect the dots.

For starters, KSEV, C&M Marketing, and the Patrick campaign all share physical office space behind the same front door:


KSEV Radio

11451 Katy Freeway Ste. 215
Houston , TX 77079


11451 Katy Freeway, #215
Houston , Texas 77079


(Check the very bottom of the page)

Dan Patrick Campaign
11451 Katy Freeway, Ste. 215

Houston , TX 77079

Moreover, on their December 31st campaign finance report ( http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/299651.pdf ), the Patrick campaign reports that C&M Marketing gave $24,146.07 in in-kind advertising to the Patrick campaign.  If you've been around politics for any amount of time, you know that the only kinds of people who make in-kind contributions to political candidates are personal friends and close business associates .  The Patrick campaign, meanwhile, reported spending $55,3402.71 with C&M on advertising on their Dec. 31 st report.

On their February 7 th (30 days before election) report ( http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/301727.pdf ), the Patrick campaign reported it received an additional $5,745.00 in in-kind contributions from C&M, while it also reports paying out $14,450 to C&M for advertising.

So what we know from the public record to date is that C&M Marketing has a $100,000 stake in the Patrick campaign.  In fact, after Mr. Patrick himself and then Mr. Patrick's radio station, C&M Marketing is the third largest donor to the Patrick campaign.

Now we learn that Mr. Patrick's captured marketing firm – with whom Mr. Patrick shares a front door – is the media team of record for the Williams Bailey law firm.  (See bottom right of web page below.)

713.461.9440 | info@c-mmarketing.com
© C&M All Rights Reserved

A t least as of this afternoon, the Williams Bailey Law Firm was openly listed at http://www.c-mmarketing.com/productionservices.html as a client of C&M Marketing of Houston.  In fact, if you click on http://www.c-mmarketing.com/work-samples/work-williamsbailey.html you can see the three TV ads C&M produced for the firm. 

Liberal trial lawyer John Eddie Williams publicly confirmed in last Friday's Houston Chronicle that he provided the funding behind the Texans for Good Leaders.  In recent weeks, Mr. Williams has been attacking Rep. Joe Nixon based on discredited information that was dismissed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle over two years ago.  You can see this for yourself at ( http://system.gocampaign.com/joenixon_com/RonnieEarleLetter030.pdf ).

A Texan who can't or won't look you in the eye when he talks to you doesn't deserve your vote, and both Mr. Williams and the Patrick team for a time have tried to conceal the truth about the Texans for Good Leaders and the Patrick-Williams relationship . 


#     #     #

pd pol ad • Texans for Joe Nixon

14655 Northwest Fwy , Suite 103 Houston , TX 77040-4032



Rick Casey, of the Houston Chronicle, mentions the "in-kind" campaign contibutions made by the Patrick Campaign in this article.



This came forwarded to me, and Texas State Representative Corbin Van Arsdale has agreed to let me post it here. It speaks for itself...

-----Original Message-----
From: Corbin130@aol.com [mailto:Corbin130@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Corbin130@aol.com
Subject: the State Senate race in our area

Residents of Cy-Fair, Tomball, Klein, Hockley, and Waller:

In my three years serving in the state legislature, I have always tried to serve the people I represent by voting conservatively in Austin, by sticking to bedrock principles learned from my parents and my God, and by looking out for ways to help others. I and my staff have worked hard to fix problems we've had in our area---ranging from contaminated water wells, to sneaky developers building misplaced affordable housing units, to misguided attempts to convert roads into toll roads, to accelerating road construction projects, to helping people with their children and CPS, to combating unwanted commercial signage---and the list goes on.

So it's with a heavy heart that I write you now, because I'm sincerely concerned and deeply disturbed about a wide range of deceptive and misleading information being communicated to us by someone who wants to represent us in the state senate. I realize some of you are supporting him; he's done great things in the past on conservative causes. He shares the same opinion of me, often saying on his radio shows that I'm "one of the good guys in Austin " that we "need! more of." He thinks highly enough of me that he's repeatedly asked me to endorse him. Now that I'm supporting someone else, he immediately begins speaking negatively of my legislative performance, attacking me, and calling me a liar---as he does everyone who doesn't support him, which I specifically explained in my mailer.

I cannot stand idly by while he deceives the very people I try hard to honestly represent. Whether it be about taxes, or spending, or legislator pay, or his residency, or things I've said, or things! his opponents have said----you have my word as someone who's officially sworn on oath to God to represent his constituents to the best of his ability----that we are witnessing the systematic use of words (sometimes false, sometimes technically-correct) to mislead voters -- all fueled by political ambition -- to a degree that I cannot in good conscience keep silent about.

I don't have a radio station like he does, so I'm limited to email communication and letters to sound the alarm. There isn't enough time in the worl! d for me to adequately inform everyone, but I will try from now until the election to cover what I can.

In this first email, I'm starting with the issue of how he has deceived people regarding his residency. Some people care about whether candidates move just to run, others don't. But that's not really the issue. The issue is whether Dan is being honest with the people he seeks to represent, or is he twisting words to make us think something different. Here's what Dan said:

"[Corbin] told his district's precinct chairs I had a homestead outside of the district. That is just not true.  I have always said I had a home on Lake Conroe as well as Memorial.  Anyone can check out the Montgomery and Harris appraisal sites and see I do not have a homestead in Montgomery County .  I have my exemption where I live, in Memorial.  I voted there and pay taxes there. These outright lies shouldn't surprise anyone.  The "status quo crowd" is getting a bit restless now that you and I have begun to unravel the skin of the onion."

Outright lies? Document 1 signed by Dan shows that his homestead was in Montgomery County until December 29, 2005 , only six weeks ago. Document 2 shows that he bought a small condo in our district only after he announced he was running. Document 3 shows his voter registration in our district became effective, ironically, only one day before the November 8, 2005 constitutional amendments election. He told me he looked at three different senate districts before deciding which one to run in, and said (and I quote his exact words) "this senate district is tailor made for me."

Respectfully submitted,

Corbin Van Arsdale





A series of events have been placed into motion in response to the below postings. Here is the latest:

1. Having not received any feedback whatsoever on my criticism of Dan Patrick's campaign, I decided to initiate an academic exercise in keeping with a philosophical society I belong to, called The Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, and submit a paper to this society on April 6th, entitled, "Political One-Stop-Shopping: The Unique Candidacy of Dan Patrick".

2. This exercise yielded an ethics complaint put forward by me against Dan Patrick's campaign activities to the Texas Ethics Commission.

3. The Texas Ethics Commission assigned a case number to it, SC-260225, and notified Dan Patrick of the existence of the complaint, via certified letter, and a requirement for a response within 25 days of it's receipt.

4. Harvey Kronberg, of Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report, acquired the context of the complaint and asked for a response from Court Koenning of Koenning Consulting . Koenning is a paid consultant to the Patrick campaign, and has this to say about my little complaint:

Harvey ,

Very interesting.  First off a bit of background.  This is a common campaign tactic of one of our opponent's campaign consultant.  In fact, this tactic was employed twice during the City of Houston election this past November.  Should the standard hold true you will soon see campaigning with the message “ Mr. Patrick is being investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission.”  It is shameful that our opponent would create an Ethics Commission complaint only to then use such a complaint in an attack campaign.

That being said, let me address each item of the complaint:

1) Metro News, not Houston Broadcasting or KSEV, sells ads during traffic/news breaks. (see emphasis added in your original email)

2) Metro News, not Houston Broadcasting or KSEV, sells ads during traffic/news breaks. (see emphasis added in your original email)

3) Houston Broadcasting is a Limited Partnership; there are no corporate partners in the company.  In fact, the only members of the partnership are the Patricks.

4) “Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas.”  It is ridiculous to claim we have planted any calls.  There is no evidence to suggest such.  I bet if the complainant (opponent) had any evidence (emails, phone messages, letters, etc.) they would have supplied those.

All of these claims could have been checked out with about 5 minutes worth of investigative work.  That is assuming the complainant (opponent) wanted to know the facts.  It is obvious they did not, all they want is something to use in an attack piece.

These shenanigans are a desperate act by a desperate candidate who has no positive message and no momentum.  Dan is focused on finding solutions to our illegal immigration problem, curbing our over burdening property tax problem and reducing state government's spending.  Our opponents are focused on filing baseless ethics complaints.

5. I was contacted by a reporter from The Quorum Report, and gave a phone interview on the complaint, it's context, and motivation for the action, along with a follow-up on the above response.

6. I'd like to now confront the issues of both the filing and the 'for public consumption' response that Campaign Director Court Koenning made, above.

Let's begin with the context of the complaint itself, because this is the heart of my contention that if you intend to sell populist activism for fun and profit while using a campaign for public office as part of your business plan, then Dan Patrick's campaign is BY DEFINITION unethical:

To the members of the committee:

On December 29th, 2005, Dan Patrick made his candidacy formal by officially filing his paperwork for his campaign for Texas State Senate District 7 to the Harris County Republican Party. As a candidate for public office, there is not a single precedence
for a media figure to run (and possibly be elected) to public office that had an ownership position in the media organization in which he or she was employed. That has now changed. Dan Patrick, part owner of Houston Broadcasting's AM700 KSEV, has formally entered the race for Texas State Senate District 7. KSEV Radio is a radio media outlet in the seventh largest radio market in the nation, and has an Arbitron cumulative rating (as of the last ratings period) of a 1.8 share. This raises very disturbing possibilities for ethical violations based on campaign finance. As stated by the candidate himself on his afternoon radio broadcast of Dec 29th, 2005, he intends to continue to be an active part of its daily operations while being technically "off the air", stating that he "...can be back for interviews..." His continued participation in the day-to-day ownership management
operations of AM700 KSEV represent a business plan that includes his Republican candidacy (and possible election) for public office, in the race for the Texas Senate District 7 seat that is now being vacated. This raises some disturbing ethical issues, referenced
here in this complaint.

1. Revenues generated from advertising sold by AM700 KSEV to businesses and other entities that have business before the Texas State Legislature represents possible ethics violations based on campaign finance. During Dan Patrick's afternoon radio show on
Dec. 29th, 2005, the station's traffic break contained a commercial for Time Warner Cable. I believe that this commercial "tag" represents revenues paid to be aired on KSEV and is a possible ethical violation based of campaign finance.
2. State entities that advertise on AM700 KSEV generate advertising revenues and subsequently enriches a candidate for the Texas State Senate. On Dec. 29th, 2005, a traffic report containing a commercial for the Texas State Lottery was presented during a paid campaign ad for Dan Patrick's Senate Race. The candidate stated that the entire hour of this broadcast, in which the commercial aired, was a political campaign ad. This represents a possible conflict of interest and a possible ethical violation based on campaign finance.

3. "In-Kind" contributions back to the station's other owners for when he talks about his campaign on the air may or may not be actually being made. I understand that he is a minority owner of the station. For his campaign activity on the station to be legal,
all of his other owners would have to be a business entity that is not corporate in nature, i.e., a partnership with no corporate partners, sole proprietorships, etc.  If there is any corporate ownership, i.e. Houston Broadcasting, in KSEV, he may be breaking
the law unless he reimburses the other owners for their lost ad revenues - otherwise they are making a corporate contribution to candidate Patrick's campaign and he is receiving a corporate contribution - both of which may be violations of state law.
4. Callers who call into the station during local radio talk show programs on KSEV, advocating Dan Patrick's candidacy, can be planted there to get around the "Equal Time" clause of campaign finance. It is virtually impossible to monitor such activity, and
represents a possible ethical violation based on campaign finance.

Now, I realize that Mr. Koenning's response was made a bit before he had the formal documents in hand, but he still felt the need to respond to the context of the complaint publicly, so let me deal with these public comments on a point-by-point basis.

Very interesting.  First off a bit of background.  This is a common campaign tactic of one of our opponent's campaign consultant.  In fact, this tactic was employed twice during the City of Houston election this past November.  Should the standard hold true you will soon see campaigning with the message “ Mr. Patrick is being investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission.”  It is shameful that our opponent would create an Ethics Commission complaint only to then use such a complaint in an attack campaign.

Uh, I'm not one of Patrick's opponents. I don't have any vestiture in any campaign, don't work for any campaign and have not endorsed any candidate. I work in I.T. at a local community college, and do not have any political affiliation. I only suffer from being "politic 'd" into awareness.

That being said, let me address each item of the complaint:

1) Metro News, not Houston Broadcasting or KSEV, sells ads during traffic/news breaks. (see emphasis added in your original email)

Correct. It does. I ought to know, I used to work for a similar service in college called Metro Traffic. These are service contract entities that provide local radio stations with local traffic feeds without having the invested capital in personnel and equipment to do all of this in-house. And, so, is there a revenue sharing clause in the contract that benefits the station's revenues? It does, at the very least, improve programming content, which then translates to increased listener-ship. This equals increased ability to charge more for advertising on the station. Think "follow the money", here.

2) Metro News, not Houston Broadcasting or KSEV, sells ads during traffic/news breaks. (see emphasis added in your original email)

Yea, I got it the first time you wrote it. The next one's the biggie.

3) Houston Broadcasting is a Limited Partnership; there are no corporate partners in the company.  In fact, the only members of the partnership are the Patricks.

...and? While Houston Broadcasting might be a limited partnership, Liberman Broadcasting of Houston Licensing Corp. is not. Oh, he forgot to mention: Liberman is majority owner of KSEV while Dan Patrick owns Houston Broadcasting which leases KSEV from them. The difference here is, of course, money. Does the lease agreement include revenue sharing? Is Dan "sharing the pain" with those other 'Patricks'? Are any of these other 'Patricks' incorporated? You left a great deal out, here, Court.

4) “Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas.”  It is ridiculous to claim we have planted any calls.  There is no evidence to suggest such.  I bet if the complainant (opponent) had any evidence (emails, phone messages, letters, etc.) they would have supplied those.

I guess he didn't read the rest I wrote, there:

Callers who call into the station during local radio talk show programs on KSEV, advocating Dan Patrick's candidacy, can be planted there to get around the "Equal Time" clause of campaign finance. It is virtually impossible to monitor such activity, and
represents a possible ethical violation based on campaign finance.

And finally this little tidbit:

All of these claims could have been checked out with about 5 minutes worth of investigative work.  That is assuming the complainant (opponent) wanted to know the facts.  It is obvious they did not, all they want is something to use in an attack piece.

These shenanigans are a desperate act by a desperate candidate who has no positive message and no momentum.  Dan is focused on finding solutions to our illegal immigration problem, curbing our over burdening property tax problem and reducing state government's spending.  Our opponents are focused on filing baseless ethics complaints.

What opponent? Anyway, it took me less than 5 minutes to respond to your response, Court, but it took a bit longer for the station's business plan to land a solid moneymaker like populist activism. I think it's called, "Radio-Active", and seems to be working for your man so far. But, enough of the sniping; lets get right down to the real issues here.

I'm willing to drop my ethics complaint and endorse his campaign if Dan Patrick will put Houston Broadcasting into a blind trust. I've never had a problem with the message; only the messenger. The message is irrelevant if the messenger is without the character needed to make the populist activism credible.

Update: Seems I've made some guy named Harvey mad. Until yesterday, I didn't know who he was. I still don't, so here's his response, in all it's glory:

Mr. Hargett: It was John Reynolds mistake that he forwarded my personal communication with Court Koenning to you.  John has only been working for me for two weeks and did not understand the profound mistake he made. Trust me.  He does now. It was even more of a mistake that you posted a private communication on your blog without permission. These are multiple betrayals that dramatically reduces the value or your claim that you are unaffiliated with any of the campaigns. I am not sure what philosophers your club studies, but I would be hard pressed to believe any of them would endorse the betrayal of confidential materials between two parties for cheap sensation. We are going to deal with this story, but I look forward to never having anything to do with you again. By the way, I found the Patrick's campaign responses to be legitimate and responsive to your allegations. You certainly have my permission to post this communication Harvey Kronberg

Okay, Harvey, now I know, too, about the privacy issue. Needless to say, I didn't when your 'cub' phoned me. And, just because you say "These are multiple betrayals that dramatically reduces the value or your claim that you are unaffiliated with any of the campaigns," does not mean that my affiliation with non-politically motivated organizations is less valid, or untrue. As I've stated: I am not affiliated, registered or otherwise active, past or present, in any political party, campaign or consultancy to said organizations. I told your man that, and I re-state it here.

I am not sure what philosophers your club studies, but I would be hard pressed to believe any of them would endorse the betrayal of confidential materials between two parties for cheap sensation.

You're right, they wouldn't approve. Neither would I. Since my comments to your apparent representative, about the issues dealt with here, were on the record, I posted them with a clear conscience. So, if the communications in question were indeed intended to be private communications, why wasn't I informed of it? You see, there's no sensationalism here, sir. After all, you [meaning your organization, apparently] contacted me, not the other way around, so what I've said to your reporter, ON THE RECORD, is represented here. Since you've blocked all incoming emails to the account you've been using for these one-way communications, I feel that they would not have been distributed without such notations of confidentiality on them. At the very least, a statement on your representative's behalf would have been in order. Perhaps you can explain how such follow-ups about such issues is to be done electronically with these null accounts you seem to be fond of using. Remember, I'm just a little 'ole I.T. guy, unschooled in the ways of political and journalistic machinations. So, if this made you look bad, I do apologize. Truly, I do. If I'd written something to you I wanted to keep confidential, I'd have said so, and off the record. And, I'd be upset too if it was posted. But I didn't. That's the difference here, and as for me, I'm not going anywhere. I'll be right here, as I've always been. Oh, I almost forgot: was the response from the Patrick campaign you received from Court Koenning on or off the record? I couldn't tell by the forwarded email to me....

We are going to deal with this story, but I look forward to never having anything to do with you again. By the way, I found the Patrick's campaign responses to be legitimate and responsive to your allegations. You certainly have my permission to post this communication

I'm glad you will be dealing with the story. And, likewise, then, on the 'never having anything to do with you again' comment. No problem on the Patrick campaign response, either. I've said my piece, above. And, bless your little 'ole heart for allowing me to post your response, here. Next time, do this type of thing yourself, and be a bit clearer in your intent. I know I have. And, if you'd like me to pull any of this from this sight, I will.



It would seem that the letter, above, is building in momentum. I spoke to a campaign manager for one of Dan Patrick's Texas Senate District 7 opponents yesterday, and was asked if the research I'd done (and emailed him about) could be forwarded to their consultant hired to research the "unseemliness" of Mr. Patrick's campaign. I answered in the affirmative. Here is that research, as written in the email to this campaign manager:

A Guide To Ethics Laws For State Officers And Employees


The “Should Nots”

The legislature has adopted the following standards of conduct for state employees:

A state officer or employee should not:

(1) accept or solicit any gift, favor, or service that might reasonably tend to influence the officer or employee in the discharge of official duties or that the officer or employee knows or should know is being offered with the intent to influence the officer's or employee's official conduct;

A: Can Dan Patrick accept radio advertising from any business or organization from which his duties as senator would, by accepting such advertising, create a conflict of interest?

(2) accept other employment or engage in a business or professional activity that the officer or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce the officer or employee to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of the official position;

A: Could such advertisers on Dan Patrick's station expect “inside information” about pending legislation, it's possible success or failure?

(3) accept other employment or compensation that could reasonably be expected to impair the officer's or employee's independence of judgment in the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties;

A: Could acceptance of advertising monies from, say, Reliant Energy, impair Dan Patrick's vote on rate increases, decreases, tax incentives or any regulatory issues that would arise in the legislature?

(4) make personal investments that could reasonably be expected to create a substantial conflict between the officer's or employee's private interest and the public interest; or

(5) intentionally or knowingly solicit, accept, or agree to accept any benefit for having exercised the officer's or employee's official powers or performed the officer's or employee's official duties in favor of another.

A state agency may not use appropriated funds to compensate a state employee who violates those standards. Gov't Code § 2113.014. Also, in some cases failure to follow the standards of conduct will violate one of the criminal statutes discussed in this pamphlet.

Private Interest in Measure or Decision

If a board member has a private or personal interest in a measure, proposal, or decision pending before the board, the board member must disclose that fact to the rest of the board in an open meeting and must refrain from voting or otherwise participating in the matter.

Gov't Code § 572.058. The law specifies that a person does not have a “private or personal interest” in a matter if the person is engaged in a profession, trade, or occupation, and the person's interest in the matter is the same as others similarly engaged.

Texas Ethics Commission Page 2 Revised 04/27/2004


These ethical questions I've raised, above, have far reaching implications to ALL campaigns (local and national) given this new ethical paradigm, and subsequent loophole, that Dan Patrick's campaign represents. I openly question the ethics of a radio station owner who uses a campaign such as this as part of his business plan. His campaign represents the very definition of “conflict of interest” given his ownership in a radio station. The same would apply to ANY broadcast medium, blog site or any other communication medium that derives its revenue from selling advertising to the potential benefactors of pending legislation.

What is more frustrating is that he could solve these problems so very easily by simply divesting his ownership position in Houston Broadcasting, or place the ownership and operations management of Houston Broadcasting into a blind trust. The fact that he most likely won't do either is a clear indication that his motives for running for this senate office are as I have described.

Stay tuned...


This post is to document a local issue here in the northwest Houston area. There is a Texas State Senate Race that has culminated into a "populist activism" issue, related to out-of-control property taxes in this area. What has made this particular election to be so contentious, is what Rush Limbaugh has characterized as not a "crack-up, but a crack-down" of conservative ideology. Enter Dan Patrick, a radio station owner (AM-700 KSEV) and gadfly to all those who see the status quo completely unacceptable.

Please understand, I also am passionate about such things, and would be willing to support them, but for one glaring problem: hypocrisy of the messenger in this instance. You see, Dan Patrick makes his living selling advertising on his radio station. His business plan includes the slogan, "Radio-Active" and he is now putting deeds to these words as a candidate for the newly opened State Senate position held by outgoing State Senator Jon Lindsay. Problem is, as his advertising rates go up from increased listenership because of his campaign, he profits from this campaign, win or lose. Bottom line: I think its wrong to run a campaign for public office as part of your business plan, with no investiture in winning or losing.

A few days ago, from this writing, his morning employee, Edd Hindee (owner of 'A Taste of Texas') made the comment that is any candidate wants to "go negative" on Dan Patrick, that he would "pound away" at them on the air. Well, I'm no candidate, but I did respond to his challenge, referenced below.

It's been interesting to have watched Dan Patrick over the years. As a native Texan, and resident of Harris County since 1978, I've watched him succeed and fail consistently ever since he got to town. But, he seems to have hit a cord that is resonating throughout the area, and that cord is Populist Activism. I've been a long time supporter of such activism, and see it as a needed “check and balance” to established and entrenched political malaise that seems to affect both sides of the isle. Where I have to part company with such activity is when I see it being used for economic gain, with no investiture in the outcome. I believe that Dan Patrick is selling Populist Activism for fun and profit, with no accountability for either winning or losing the debate.

Radio is fueled by ratings that are then used to justify advertising rates on the station. The more people that listen, the higher the advertising rates. Since adopting this “radio-active” business plan, he has been very successful at selling such debate, to the point of being able to have several spin-offs: they being the gadflies of the non-profit organization “Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes” (C.L.O.U.T., for short, and run by his morning employee, Edd Hindee) and the web blog Lone Star Times (previously known as www.chronicallybiased.com). The latter has been divested by Patrick to his editor, David Benzion, for the stated reasons that Patrick doesn't want any conflict of interest, I guess. Suffice to say that since hitting on this business plan of “radio-active”, KSEV's rate card has increased, and profits have soared. I'm not complaining about profit, mind you; I like it too. Frankly I wish I'd have thought of it. But, using such a business plan as part of an election strategy is just wrong. Patrick has stated repeatedly that he intends to “pull the curtains back” on what goes on in Austin (a reference to the Wizard of Oz), and plans to use his radio station for that purpose.

The point here is that the incestuous nature of all of these organizations has a specific purpose: to add to increased listener-ship of KSEV. C.L.O.U.T. has had no legislative success whatsoever, yet maintains tens of thousands of members, a sizeable budget, the ability to legitimate tax deductible receipts, and increase advertising rates for Houston Broadcasting, the parent corporation of AM-700, KSEV. You see, win or lose the debate, Mr. Patrick still gets to keep (and cash) the check, and deduct the expenses. This campaign achieves the same goal; improved listener-ship = improved advertising rates. It's a win-win strategy, if you have the ability to convince enough people it's legitimate. I am not one of those people.

What his campaign will provide is a means to instill accountability for his actions. First, Mr. Patrick can start by releasing all of the tax returns from 2002 - 2004 for Houston Broadcasting, KSEV, C.L.O.U.T. and Lone Star Times. Second, he can admit that he's proving the reason why candidates want to run for an elected office that only pays a little over $7,000 a year: it's good for business. After all, Mr. Patrick's business will benefit from the office with increased listener-ship, which equals an increase in advertising rates. His actions are essentially answering the on-air question he asked, which was why anyone would want the job. Finally, he can prove just how serious he really is about representing his constituency by divesting his ownership position in Houston Broadcasting, to eliminate any potential for a conflict of interest.

Until he does these things, and answers the questions about accountability, I will not be voting for him. I simply do not trust his motives. The bottom line is that this campaign represents a shift in campaign paradigms to campaigns actually becoming part of a business plan. It represents a loop-hole in campaign finance laws and campaign ethics that I believe are the culmination of a progressive deterioration of an already tenuous electoral system. In short, the message cannot be effective if there is a problem with the messenger.

What everyone needs to understand is that, regardless of how you come down on the issues of the respective campaigns, we simply cannot tolerate this type of activity from any candidate, Democrat or Republican. Nor can we allow a local radio station owner set the terms of the debate in an election he's running in, then be able to use his own station to enrich himself from that debate.