Austin, TX — “Denying a challenge by a tea party group, the Texas Supreme Court on Fridayupheld several decades-old campaign finance and election laws, including state limits on political contributions from corporations.” [Statesman, June 30, 2017]

Democratic Victory:

• “In the unanimous opinion, Texas’ highest civil court also upheld state requirements that campaigns report contributions and expenditures, and ruled that private groups can sue over alleged violations.” [Texas Tribune, June 30, 2017]

• Texas Democratic Party Counsel Chad Dunn called the ruling “an important victory,” stating, “secret money in politics is corrosive to our democracy, which the Texas Legislature recognized decades ago…”[Texas Tribune, June 30, 2017]

Background:

• “In 2010, the Texas Democratic Party sued Houston-based King Street Patriots,accusing the Tea Party-backed group that trained poll watchers of “1960’s style” intimidation during voting. Democrats called the group a “sham domestic nonprofit corporation” used to funnel support to Republican candidates, and alleged the group violated state campaign finance laws by illegally accepting and spending political contributions that it failed to disclose.”[Texas Tribune,June 30, 2017] 

• The King Street Patriots countered, trying to “upend Texas election laws in the wake of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling — known as Citizens United…” [Texas Tribune, June 30, 2017]

• The countersuit “challenged the constitutionality of Texas campaign finance laws, including state restrictions on corporate contributions, and the disclosure requirements mandated for PACs.” [Dallas Morning News, June 30, 2017]

• “The case had threatened to outlaw such a ban and affect Texas donations like the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court case did for the federal system.” [Dallas Morning News, June 30, 2017]

Whats Next?

• “Some questions in the case remained unresolved Friday…. The justices ruled that King Street Patriots was not a “political committee” under Texas law, based upon the “limited record” before the court, a determination that could change if Democrats presented more evidence.” [Texas Tribune, June 30, 2017]

###