Cyrus Dugger
Texas Watch: Come Clean, Justice Hecht
From Texas Watch:
COME CLEAN, JUSTICE HECHT
Hecht Should Not Wait to Reveal Who Is Paying His Legal Bills
AUSTIN – Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht should reveal the names of the individuals, corporations, lobbyists, and political action committees who have donated more than $300,000 to cover his personal legal expenses, according to Texas Watch, a consumer organization that monitors the Court.[1]
According to news reports, Justice Hecht is not planning to reveal the names of those who are covering his legal expenses until July when he files his next campaign finance report with the Texas Ethics Commission.[2]
“Individuals with cases pending before the Texas Supreme Court have every right to know who is paying Justice Hecht’s personal bills and if any conflict of interest exists,” said Alex Winslow, Texas Watch’s Executive Director.
A number of powerful moneyed interests have matters pending before the Court, and questions remain about whether or not they have contributed to Justice Hecht’s legal defense. Winslow pointed out that major corporate interests including Coca-Cola,[3] Perry Homes,[4] and Farmers Insurance[5] all have landmark matters pending before the Court, as do telecommunications conglomerates, insurance companies, and financial interests.[6]
The Court has also issued a number of opinions during the time that Justice Hecht was actively seeking contributions to cover his legal expenses.[7] Winslow asked: “Did any of the parties involved in cases that were decided during that time contribute to Justice Hecht’s personal legal defense? Doesn’t everyone involved in those cases – and the public at large – deserve to know?”
Winslow also raised concerns that Justice Hecht may not have complied with contribution limits imposed on judges and judicial candidates by state law. According to news reports, Hecht solicited donations of at least $20,000.[8] The Judicial Campaign Fairness Act limits individual judicial contributions to $5,000.[9]
“To eliminate any hint of impropriety, Justice Hecht should release his list of contributors now. This matter is too important and there are too many unanswered questions for this to wait until July,” said Winslow. “If Justice Hecht is playing by the rules and is free of any conflicts of interest, then he should have no problem releasing this information immediately.” (link)
* Footnotes after the jump
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] For more information on the Texas Supreme Court’s pro-defendant ideology, see http://www.texaswatch.org/TW/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=courtwatchreleases. [2] Max Baker, Justice collects gifts to pay fees, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 20, 2007. See http://www.star-telegram.com/226/story/42326.html. [3] The Coca-Cola Company, et al v. Harmar Bottling Company, et al. [4] Perry Homes, et al. v. Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull. [5] Farmers Group Inc., et al. v. Jan Lubin, et al. [6] See http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Opinions/Submissions.asp. [7] See http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/events/recent.asp. [8] See footnote 2. [9] §253.155, Texas Election Code. See http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.015.00.000253.00.htm#253.155.00and http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm#CAMP_CONTR.
Posted at 1:32 PM, Mar 22, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
