In Context Of Voter ID Debate, Bill White’s Republican Ties Very Troubling

In the Texas House of Representatives, it is essentially “D-Day” for voter identification legislation. The House has few days left to take up the bill, and Republicans remain intent on ramming the legislation through the Chamber. It is, as Glenn Smith notes, the civil rights battle of the era.

In this context, where Democrats stand on the issue of voter suppression is of vital importance. This spring, when appearing before a Texans for Obama meetup in Austin, Houston Mayor and U.S. Senate candidate Bill White was asked about voter identification. According to folks who were present, White didn’t say he was for voter identification, but, basically gave a blase answer that he didn’t think it would impede turnout beyond a small amount.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last five years, you are aware that voter identification is nothing more than a concept engineered by Republicans and Karl Rove to deny Latinos, African Americans, the poor, and the elderly the right to vote. Therefore, where a U.S. Senate candidate stands on the issue is of as much importance as where he stands on a wide variety of social issues.

To intimate voter identification will have no major effect on Texas elections is akin to saying we might as well role over and compromise. To say that on such a core issue is a dangerous appeasement technique designed to take the middle ground on a controversial issue. By contrast, while Bill White is promoting a doctrine of appeasement on voter id, Capitol insiders tell us that a number of Democratic legislators who are on the fence and considering pursuing appeasement-compromise strategies themselves actually got calls from his opponent, former Comptroller John Sharp, reminding them that voter ID is a bad idea.

It is a telling contrast. But, it is one that should not surprise us given White’s history.

White has done his best to compromise and appease Republicans throughout his tenure as Mayor. He calls it building a bi-partisan compromise, but look more closely at the record–particularly how hard and to what lengths White went to court the support and favor of indicted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land).

When White took office, he hired Ann Travis, a former top DeLay aide, to be his director of governmental affairs. To sweeten the pot for the DeLay ally, he gave her a $20,000 salary boost over other city employees. White said he would pay for the salary boost with private money from companies that didn’t do business with the city, such as oil and gas companies. The Houston Chronicle called it a “wrong turn” for White. White ended up using money from his mayoral campaign fund to supplement Travis’ salary. Public Citizen had an interesting and telling comment about that:

“Time after time we have seen that with gifts to the city and (supplements) to people’s salaries, that there is some payback expected,” Smith said.

Something to keep in mind, no doubt.

To further the courtship of DeLay, White did something unthinkable for a Democrat and former state Democratic Party Chair: he headlined a fundraiser for DeLay.

On September 20, 2004, Bill White was the guest of honor at a fundraiser for DeLay at the home of David Saperstein, White’s Director of Mobility.

Last week, when White was asked if he had any regrets about that, he replied, “Gosh, I’m trying to recollect.  Uh, I mean, uh.  I did not raise funds for Tom DeLay.”

That, of course, isn’t true. The dinner White was a headliner for was a $2,000 per person affair. Perhaps White never personally collected a check for DeLay, but is a semantics argument he won’t win. He lent his name as guest of honor to a fundraiser for a man who was raising money to beat Democrats from coast to coast, and who was being opposed by a Democrat in the general election. That Democrat, netroots supported Richard Morrison, posted better numbers against DeLay than any other Democrat in history and ran a serious campaign against DeLay.

White knows his answer is misleading; he didn’t show up at the fundraiser as a courtesy. He agreed to lend his name to the DeLay fundraiser knowing full well that DeLay’s goal was to destroy the Democratic party as we know it.

Even more interesting is that White didn’t pull out of the DeLay fundraiser in light of what was happening in the weeks and months surrounding the fundraiser. The day after the fundraiser, Travis County DA Ronnie Earle indicted DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority cronies for money laundering. DeLay was also under investigation by Congress’ Ethics committee. Less than a month after the fundraiser on September 30, the Ethics Committee publicly admonished DeLay.

A few days later, DeLay was admonished again on October 6 for, among other things, using the FAA to help track down Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives who broke quorum in 2003 to fight his mid-decade redistricting power grab.

This answer is misleading at best, and Mr. White knows it.  He didn’t just show up at the fundraiser as a courtesy.  He agreed to serve as guest of honor, lending his name to the man who at that very moment was not only raising money to beat Democrats from coast to coast but who was also under criminal indictment for steering illegal corporate contributions to Republicans right there in Houston.

There is a world of difference between reaching across the aisle to find common ground for the good of the people you represent and becoming a willing accomplice to a profoundly anti-democratic politician whose behavior, even then, was widely considered as criminal.

For his support of DeLay, White was rewarded. His courtship of DeLay paid dividends. But, at what price?

The same question should be asked about White and voter id. At whate price comes the compromise?

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It