Complaint against “Valoree Swanson” Campaign 21


A Valoree Swanson Campaign mailer, “State Rep. Debbie Riddle…BAD FOR TEXAS” [1,2], was received constituting potentially unethical activity by the Campaign (Treasurer Norma Jeter).

Issues contained within include:
(1) HB 416 by Riddle is a bill intended to require the employees of facilities offering abortions to be trained to recognize victims of sex trafficking. HB 1435 would prohibit abortion coverage in health insurance plans purchased via Affordable Care Act exchanges. The two appear to be unrelated.
(2) HB 1435 History shows no activity on May 24, 2015
(3) HB1444 from the 83rd Regular Session has to do with revamping and modernizing the use and applicability of advance medical directives and “Do Not Resuscitate” orders. This bill addressed the issue of a Terry Schiavo situation, as well as the case of the family in San Antonio where a pregnant mother was kept alive against the wishes of the family. There were 5 Authors and 13 Co-Authors of the bill. The characterization of the bill as “involuntary euthanasia legislation” could be considered grossly misleading.
(4) HB 1435 History
(5) “Valoree Swanson” Campaign filings

[1]

Valoree Swanson Campaign mailer, address side

Valoree Swanson Campaign mailer, address side


[2]
Valoree Swanson Campaign mailer, non-address side

Valoree Swanson Campaign mailer, non-address side


21 thoughts on “Complaint against “Valoree Swanson” Campaign

  • Elizabeth Jensen

    I suggest we send a certified letter asking for clarification of the points above. Since early voting begins in a few days, we’ll have to insist on a quick turn-around from the campaign to explain the mailer. Does anyone have any other thoughts?

  • admin Post author

    According to the mailer/website, the critical vote in the minutes was:
    Representative Cook moved to place the following measures:

    on the Major State Calendar for Tuesday, May 26, 2015: SB 575.

    The motion failed by the following record vote:

    Ayes: Representatives Hunter; Cook; Geren; Huberty; King, Ken; Larson; Price (7).

    Nays: Representatives Lucio III; Alonzo; Davis, Sarah; Harless; Johnson; Riddle; Rodriguez, Eddie (7).

    Present, Not Voting: None (0).

    Absent: Representative Giddings (1).

  • T. Caplinger Post author

    Not seeing where ‘single-handedly’ is justified. Is it one of those fluff phrases that people can legally use because everyone knows what they mean? I think I remember Papa John’s getting into a lawsuit over just such a thing a few years back.

    It’s definitely misleading on that front, but this mailer is obviously designed to appeal to more conservative voters. I can’t quite call it a foul on that alone.

    Is there any information about what the criteria for euthanasia against the wishes of the family actually are?

  • E. Jensen Post author

    So to break this down, it appears that there are 3 issues here:
    (1) the euthanasia interpretation
    (2) the claim that she sided with 4 democrats to run out the clock on the no-insurance-for-abortion bill
    (3) an overall inference that she was the lone republican to defeat the no-insurance-for-abortion bill (is the inference present?)

    Am I missing anything else?

  • E. Jensen Post author

    Great! So to repeat the previous message, there are basically 3 issues present meaning each needs its own vote:
    So to break this down, it appears that there are 3 issues here:

    (1) the euthanasia interpretation

    (2) the claim that she sided with 4 democrats to run out the clock on the no-insurance-for-abortion bill

    (3) an overall inference that she was the lone republican to defeat the no-insurance-for-abortion bill (is the inference present?)

  • David Mullinax

    (1) the euthanasia interpretation
    I don’t see how this one was misleading. No foul.

    (2) the claim that she sided with 4 democrats to run out the clock on the no-insurance-for-abortion bill
    Even though they left that information out about the other Republicans that voted for it, I say not misleading as far as their constituents are concerned. Therefore, no foul.

    (3) an overall inference that she was the lone republican to defeat the no-insurance-for-abortion bill (is the inference present?)
    I don’t see anywhere that the add says that she was the “only” Republican to vote against it. The add carefully reads “Republican pro-life legislatures.” I’m on the fence with this one, but I’m voting “no foul.”

  • admin Post author

    The “Fouls” are greater than one standard deviation. The Referees find in favor of putting the Valoree Swanson campaign (Treasurer Norma Jeter) on the Wall-of-Shame.

Leave a Reply