House members shouldn't kid themselves. Speaker Tom Craddick has badly tarnished the reputation of the House. Not only has he flouted the House's own rules, but he has abused the state's corporate prohibition and speaker statute and blocked needed tightening of the corporate and union prohibition.

Craddick's alleged promises and threats as to appropriations and legislation to keep his speaker's mantle (posted here) are not just the usual House hardball. If true, these promises and threats are likely criminal on his behalf and those legislators that succumb to them.

Don't believe me? Then read the legislative bribery provisions of the speaker's statute (Tex Gov. Code Sections 302.031-302.033). It is a felony to promise or threaten "with the intent to influence a member of or candidate for the house of representatives in casting a vote for speaker of the house... preferential treatment on any legislation or appropriation." It is also a felony for a legislator "to solicit, accept, or agree to accept" such preferential treatment. And I can assure you that these bribery provisions are constitutional — whatever the problems with other provisions of the statute — for courts regularly have rejected challenges to bribery statutes.

Many people also forget that the indicted TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority PAC) was as much Tom Craddick's PAC as Tom DeLay's, which after all was set up to elect him speaker:

• TRMPAC used corporate-funded direct mail pieces first in the 2002 Republican primary to aid candidates who were Craddick loyalists;

• Craddick personally accepted a $100,000 corporate check for TRMPAC, claiming that he didn't look in the envelope;

• Craddick, telephone records show, repeatedly called the field director for TRMPAC in the 6 weeks before the general election, although he claimed no involvement;

• Craddick collected corporate money for his successor Stars Over Texas PAC, despite an on-going grand jury investigation of TRMPAC for taking corporate money.

And despite strong bi-partisan support, Craddick killed in 2005 comprehensive legislation by Reps. Craig Eiland of Galveston and Todd Smith of Euless (HB 1348) to tighten the corporate and union prohibition so sham issue ads and other abuses wouldn't happen in the future — whether in Republican primaries or general elections. Despite unanimous editorial support and 93 House bill sponsors, Craddick had the bill killed in committee. Then he claimed that he had nothing to do with killing the bill. He killed the bill, I believe, because his lawyers told him (incorrectly in my legal opinion) that it might hurt his legal position before the grand jury investigating TRMPAC. In short, it appears he again put his interests over those of the state and his party.

In 2007, Rep. Todd Smith again proposed a comprehensive corporate prohibition bill that I helped draft. HB 1085 followed standard modern corporate prohibition provisions of federal and other states' laws. I met early in the session with business representatives and lobbyists (who will go nameless so they and their clients aren't retaliated against) who liked and supported the bill. We even talked about an "odd couple" editorial tour with big business and ethics reformers going around together to support the bill. Yet, when folks went a few days later to talk to the Speaker, they were told NYET, killing any chance of reform. So Craddick again killed reform that would maintain Texas' 104-year-old corporate and union prohibition, that is supported by the public (Republicans and Democrats), the legislature, the lobby and business, and that would end nasty, sleazy anonymous sham issue ads.

I came to conclude that he killed the bill this session, even though he no longer had even any arguable legal jeopardy, so he and his allies could use corporate-funded anonymous sham issue ads to attack recalcitrant legislators, whether Republican or Democrat. Otherwise, why kill reform with strong bipartisan support?

If the House wants to restore its reputation, Craddick must go.

Fred Lewis is an Austin attorney and an advocate for campaign finance and ethics reform.

Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com.