Texas judge rules against treasurer of PAC set up by DeLay

26 May 2005 // AUSTIN — The treasurer of a political committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay violated Texas election code by not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and expenditures, a civil judge ruled today.

State District Judge Joe Hart, in a letter to attorneys outlining his ruling, said the money should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.

The ruling means Bill Ceverha, treasurer of the Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee, will have to pay just under $200,000 to be divided among five losing Democratic candidates in 2002 legislative races. Those candidates brought the lawsuit against Ceverha.

Ceverha's lawyers argued in court earlier this year that the group operated legally despite the confusion of state campaign funding laws.

TRMPAC defense lawyer Terry Scarborough said the lawsuit was more about Democrats' anger over losing than about the actions of DeLay or of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. The plaintiffs had sought to tie both men to the activities of the committee, run by DeLay associates.

The civil case is separate from a separate criminal investigation into 2002 election spending being conducted by a Travis County grand jury.

DeLay has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Three of DeLay's top fund-raisers and eight corporations were indicted in the criminal investigation in September. Ceverha has not been charged in the criminal case.

The Democrats who sued TRMPAC claimed Ceverha violated the state election law designed to keep elections free from "the taint of corporate cash."

The Democrats alleged that some $600,000 in corporate money was illegally used to influence Texas House races in 2002, the year Republicans won control of the House for the first time in 130 years. Those victories propelled Craddick, the longest-serving House member, to the speaker's post.

Later, Craddick and DeLay pushed a redistricting bill through the Legislature that ultimately gave the GOP a commanding advantage in the state's congressional delegation.

Corporate money was spent on such expenses as political research, polling, mailing, fund-raising and conferences, the plaintiffs alleged.

The defendants contended all corporate money was legally spent on administrative purposes.

Hart, in his letter, said the expenditures were made "in connection with a campaign for an elective office" and fit within the statutory definition of "campaign expenditure."