11/29/00 3:00 p.m.
Biting the Hand that Feeds You
State charities program funding Bush foe.

By James A. Cooley, reporter for The Lone Star Report

arlier this week, a group called the Texas Civil Rights Project sued in federal court to strip President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President-elect Dick Cheney of Texas' 32 electoral votes. The suit alleges that Cheney, like Bush, is a Texas resident, thus violating the residency requirements specified in the U.S. Constitution's Twelfth Amendment.

What you haven't heard yet is that this group is the beneficiary of the State Employees Charitable Campaign (SECC), a charity payroll deduction program aimed at government workers. In other words, state employees serving under Gov. Bush were solicited to fund a left-wing group now in court trying to keep him from becoming President Bush. Worse, the governor and other Republican officials were warned two years earlier the SECC was apparently being abused to fund leftist politics and litigation — and have done nothing about it.

On Dec. 18, 1998, the Lone Star Report published the results of an investigation of mine into Texas' State Employees Charitable Campaign (SECC). This well-intentioned program, created by our legislature in 1993, was designed to allow state employees to use voluntary payroll deduction to contribute to various private health and human service agencies. The legislative intent may have been to assist traditional charities such as the March of Dimes and Salvation Army. However, the end results were a plethora of primarily left-wing activist groups — ranging from the Texas Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (TARAL) to the Fund for Nuclear Responsibility — profiting from the contribution program.

My original LSR article also reported that, despite a clear prohibition against the use of employee contributions to "conduct litigation," many of the groups funded not only litigated extensively — they advertised this legal activism as reasons to contribute in SECC literature.

The revelations caused a considerable stir among various elected officials and prompted the newly elected Republican comptroller to vow a thorough investigation. Republican legislators also asked for a program overhaul during the 1999 legislative session.

Last April 14, we took a follow-up look at the program. Our conclusion: absolutely nothing had changed in the 16 months since our initial story. For example, despite statute language dictating that the SECC program only be used to fund agencies that provide "health and human services," the Farm Animal Reform Movement and the Fund for Animals were still listed in the SECC catalog used to solicit employee contributions. As for the supposedly forbidden litigation, here are a few brief descriptions of the missions performed by various "charities." The quotes were taken directly from the SECC catalog.

Immigrant and Refuge Rights Project — "We protect and defend the civil and constitutional rights of Texas' immigrants and refugees through litigation, advocacy and community education."

Texas Civil Rights Project — "Fight racial, social, and economic injustice! TCRP promotes and defends Texans' civil right using the courts, education, and advocacy."

Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund — "Formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Protects people, wildlife and natural resources by promoting free legal representation to citizen groups to enforce our environmental laws."

Fund for Animals — "Safeguards, rehabilitates, and provides sanctuary for America's wildlife and domestic animals. Provides low cost spay/neuter. Through education, litigation and legislation opposes animal cruelty." Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — "SLDN is the sole national legal aid and watchdog organization that assists the men and women everyday harmed by the military's policy on homosexuals."

The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), in particular, has an extensive history of using the courts to promote its causes. The group had recently sued both the Black Eyed Pea and Johnny Rockets restaurants, alleging discrimination against black and Hispanic patrons. It sued the State Bar to prod them into providing more pro-bono legal aid. It sued the Cinemark Theater chain, alleging that its stadium-style seating discriminated against wheelchair users. It sued both the El Paso and Bexar County jails.

A press release from the TCRP web site noted that it had already filed 15 new federal lawsuits over the Americans with Disabilities Act by the end of February. The group bragged it had 25 cases on its "active legal docket" in April.

And, as mentioned at the onset, the Texas Civil Rights Project is currently litigating to try to change the outcome of a presidential election.

Nor is the governor the only high-profile target of litigation by SECC participants. Other officials and the state of Texas itself have been sued by these "charities."

The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) sued the state to drop its requirement that students pass an exit exam to be awarded high-school diplomas. MALDEF claimed the test discriminated against minorities. It lost the case early this year.

Two other SECC funded groups, the Gray Panthers and Public Citizen, sued Secretary of State Elton Bomer in early April to strike down Texas' method of electing judges.

So, given the obvious problems, why don't state officials crack down on the SECC?

An internal review performed by the comptroller concluded that, under the existing statute, little could be done. While acknowledging groups and activities were being funded that appeared to stray well beyond what the legislature originally intended, the participants were meeting the strict letter of the law. As such, there was no legal basis for banning them.

For instance, each SECC group is required to file an affidavit stating that state employee contributions were not used to fund litigation. It would take a full-blown financial audit of a particular group to determine if money was being diverted. Then, assuming the SECC contributions were indeed kept separate, the money could still be indirectly facilitating litigation. The statute didn't allow for this real-world possibility.

Another quirk of the law is that neither the comptroller nor the attorney general has the authority to initiate such an audit when evidence of abuse surfaces.

The comptroller's upcoming legislative agenda is reportedly going to include a call for the SECC statute to be reviewed. If groups or activities now qualify for the SECC program that are outside of the law's original intent, our legislature has another chance in 2001 to tighten the statute.

One can only hope that being the target of litigation seeking to deny him the presidency will finally prompt Bush and his fellow Republicans to address the abuses being committed under this program. Be warned, however, that this is not a problem confined to Texas. Similar state charity programs operate in most states, major cities, and many counties. A perusal of the so-called 'charities' being funded may startle you.