Downtown Georgetown
Biased Coverage (?)
RECEIVED Wed., May 4, 2005
Dear Editor,
I bumped into Michael King at a press conference called by the Austin Toll Party and one of our endorsed candidates for council, Wes Benedict. Wes filed suit alleging that the Real Estate Council of Austin is laundering money through the police union to support their favored candidates: Leffingwell, Knaupe, and Dunkerley. Why would RECA hide behind the badge? Because word is getting out that they're prime movers of the toll plan!
King raised the same silly charge he raised last week about our supposedly violating the local campaign finance laws – the $100 limits I helped pass [“Point Austin,” News, April 29]. Some people are upset that we are using our list – a petition list gathered by volunteers across the city last year. We do not believe the list has the commercial value that some are attributing to it; suffice it to say, however, that if that's true, the so-called "violation" we're talking about amounts to about $88!
But, the Chronicle is hot on the case. Meanwhile, leaders of the Real Estate Council have been sending money through the police union PAC in lumps of up to $2,000. The Statesman said this is not a violation of the $100 limit!
Why do you think RECA and the police union bosses think our lists are so valuable? Answer: They represent ordinary people across this city who continue to go out and talk to their neighbors. That is something that money – even RECA's money – cannot buy.
We hope to continue to further a voter revolt in this city, with or without biased coverage from the Chronicle.
I bumped into Michael King at a press conference called by the Austin Toll Party and one of our endorsed candidates for council, Wes Benedict. Wes filed suit alleging that the Real Estate Council of Austin is laundering money through the police union to support their favored candidates: Leffingwell, Knaupe, and Dunkerley. Why would RECA hide behind the badge? Because word is getting out that they're prime movers of the toll plan!
King raised the same silly charge he raised last week about our supposedly violating the local campaign finance laws – the $100 limits I helped pass [“Point Austin,” News, April 29]. Some people are upset that we are using our list – a petition list gathered by volunteers across the city last year. We do not believe the list has the commercial value that some are attributing to it; suffice it to say, however, that if that's true, the so-called "violation" we're talking about amounts to about $88!
But, the Chronicle is hot on the case. Meanwhile, leaders of the Real Estate Council have been sending money through the police union PAC in lumps of up to $2,000. The Statesman said this is not a violation of the $100 limit!
Why do you think RECA and the police union bosses think our lists are so valuable? Answer: They represent ordinary people across this city who continue to go out and talk to their neighbors. That is something that money – even RECA's money – cannot buy.
We hope to continue to further a voter revolt in this city, with or without biased coverage from the Chronicle.
Linda "for a little more honesty" Curtis
[News Editor Michael King responds: Actually, Linda Curtis didn't "bump into me," she interrupted me when I was trying to cover her organization's press conference, where apparently only softball questions are in order. That's OK, but her studied pose of innocent bystander is getting very, very old. Curtis employs the common political standard for campaign finance violations: "When our opponents do it, it's an outrage; when we do it, it's a 'silly' nothing." I agree with her that the RECA/APA practice represents a greater present danger to the election system than the Toll Party's transgressions (although she apparently wants us to report it before it happens – see today's News section, "Full Disclosure: Here Comes the Late Money"). But that certainly doesn't mean she doesn't have to abide by the same campaign finance laws she applies to the competition. Curtis is a paid political consultant, and at least some of her "volunteers" were paid $1 a signature for a list that exceeds 20,000 names. She now wants to wish away the list's actual value – although one of the campaigns receiving her contribution has since rejected it. And she is inevitably the first to accuse those who disagree with her of being not just wrong, but corrupt (or, in our case, "dishonest"). Such inflated rhetoric may bring out the troops, but it also contributes to the debasement of the political debate.]
