Alexandria, VA – This morning the top Texas criminal court upheld an Appeals Court decision to acquit former Congressman Tom DeLay of charges of “judgments convicting him of the offenses of money laundering of funds of $100,000 or more and conspiracy to commit money laundering of funds of $100,000 or more.”
The Court concluded “We agree with the court of appeals’s ultimate conclusion that, as a matter of law, what the State has proven in this case does not constitute either of the alleged criminal offenses.”
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) and the Wyoming Liberty Group in 2011 and again in 2014 filed amicus briefs to the Appeals Court and The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, written by attorneys Benjamin Barr and Stephen Klein, which can be read here and here.
CCP President David Keating said, “We congratulate the Court for bringing this politically motivated criminal prosecution to an end and upholding the rule of law. Vague election laws combined with criminal penalties are a recipe for abusive political prosecutions. They are a threat both to the First Amendment and to honest government.”
Benjamin Barr, a Washington DC area lawyer specializing in First Amendment matters, had this reaction to the ruling: “Tom DeLay’s experience is a stark reminder about the dangers of criminalizing politics. For over a decade, Mr. DeLay fought for his innocence against these charges. Thankfully, the Court recognized that the First Amendment stands as a barrier against this sort of abuse.”
It appears our amicus brief may have had an impact on the Appeals Court’s thinking. The amicus brief filed by CCP and Wyo. Lib. Grp. noted:
Two recent cases, EMILY’s List v. Federal Election Comm’n and Carey v. Federal Election Comm’n, have ruled that separate, segregated accounts for hard- and soft-money work to protect against corruption or its appearance without infringing upon First Amendment rights. 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 791 F.Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011).
The Court of Appeals agreed, writing in its opinion (pp. 15-16):
But in the context of the campaign finance regulations, maintaining separate, segregated bank accounts for soft and hard money is recognized and accepted as legitimate. See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. 102.5 (authorizing “organizations financing political activity in connection with Federal and non-Federal elections” to maintain separate bank accounts for hard and soft money); EMILY’s List v. Federal Election Comm’n, 581 F.3d 1, 12–13, 17–18 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discussing distinction and authorization of hard and soft money accounts in context of hybrid nonprofit); Carey v. Federal Election Comm’n, 791 F.Supp. 2d 121, 125, 131–32 (D.D.C. 2011) (discussing distinction and authorization of “separate” hard and soft money accounts in context of federal political action committee and concluding that “maintaining two separate accounts is a perfectly legitimate and narrowly tailored means to ensure no cross-over between soft and hard money”).
We also note that almost nine years ago, within days of CCP’s founding, CCP Chairman and founder Brad Smith published this op-ed on the case, largely anticipating today’s ruling, in the Wall Street Journal.
