Thursday, January 9, 2025
Speaker's Race. Rep. Cody Harris (HD 8) filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission against Texas GOP Chairman Abraham George. Harris accuses George of violating the Legislative Bribery provision of Tex. Gov. Code Sec. 302.032, et. seq. by (1) threatening to expend party funds to benefit Harris' primary opponent, and (2) threatening to reject Harris' (and others') applications for a place on the primary ballot, which would logically cause unfavorable treatment of their legislation. Both of these, Harris says, are done with intent to influence his vote for speaker, which is the key mens rea element required to prove a violation. Note that George can only be charged under Section 302.032 because he is not a member or candidate. Members and candidates are charged under Section 302.033. An offense under this provision is a felony that carries a two-year minimum sentence.
Harris' theory is two-fold: first, that is that George has violated the statute by promising to economically benefit a person – Harris' primary opponent. And second, that George, by leading the RPT in amending Rule 44 to block candidates from the ballot, is now using Rule 44 to influence votes for speaker. Both allegations I think are difficult to prove. For one, they each require a criminal intent. And two, they each requiring proving the formation of a promise or agreement to cause certain outcomes.
In my research, I could not find an instance where someone has been convicted under this statute (feel free to correct me). But in a 2006 Ethics Advisory Opinion, the Ethics Commission analyzed whether similar conduct by a lobbyist was a violation of the provision. The TEC hinted that it was a violation, but noted that ultimately such a question is for a jury to decide. It cautioned that "individuals communicating to influence a member in casting a vote for a speaker of the House of Representatives and a member who is the recipient of such communications, exercise caution in these matters." My guess? The TEC dismisses the complaint in some fashion on the grounds it cannot resolve questions of fact – whether a promise was made or agreement formed.
