Rep. Keel's prepared speech leads us to believe he was truly outraged that the Dems killed the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. (Keel's remarks after the jump)

But, according to Save Texas Reps this is more complicated than we orginally thought.

What's a young wide-eyed political blogger to think? This is what happens when we stop drinking and try to actually pay attention.

Text of Remarks by Rep. Keel re: HB 1348 and the Move by Certain Members to Invoke Rule 6, Sec. 2 and Rule 7, Sec. 45

Is this motion a genuine desire by the movant to advance ethics legislation? Or could it be the use of pending ethics legislation as a political tool to take shots at a member of the House?

I'll let you decide.

Do the math.

Why did the movants wait to make the Rule 7, Sec. 45 motion today, on April 28th? As you all know, the effect of the motion if passed, is that it only requires the committee chair where the bill is pending to file a report with the Calendars committee within 7 days. That brings us to May 5th. The last day to consider House Bills on second reading is May 12th. Do you really believe that the Calendars committee will have any problem taking longer than seven days to set a bill?

If, on the other hand, we act pursuant to Rule 6, Sec. 2, and completely bypass our committee process, this House will have to have to do so by a 4/5ths vote.

Do you really believe that the movants made this motion in a duly diligent fashion designed to give the bill the best prospects of passing? Has Mr. Dunnam been working on this bill, working the committee, working you? He's never talked to me, and I'm a co-sponsor. Is this motion designed to give the bill the best likelihood of passage? No.

Here's why Rep. Dunnam made a Parliamentary inquiry on question, the answer to which he already knew: Because, it resulted in press coverage, once again, angled against the Speaker, for example, the Dallas morning news coverage today says, "Rep. Dunnam gave notice that he might ask the full House to call the bill to the floor. (Of course, as all of you know, Rule 7, Sec. 45 does not send the bill to the floor.) However, the press was able to gratuitously include in the story again, and I quote, "â?¦The Travis County District Attorney has said that Mr. Craddick is part of the grand jury inquiry regarding corporate money in the 2002 races." Good job, Rep. Dunnam. Once again, your efforts reflect nicely on the House, how ever unfair the reported statement may be. I know a little of the Travis County DA inquiry, and the factual situation is that the Travis County District Attorney has said that he's looking at everybody and every political entity, to the exclusion of none. But Mr. Dunnam, you did succeed in getting a partisan shot at the Speaker.

I believed this bill would not be a tool for partisan political posturing----exactly what has occurred and exactly the opposite of why I cosponsored the measure. I admit that the legislative process makes this and other measures that are worthy, in my opinion, an uphill battle to get passed. As Speaker Laney used to tell me, this legislative process is set up to prevent bills from being passed.

But if you want to really be sure that this bill is dead ---- if you want to drive a stake right through its heart and guarantee that it is dead now, then vote for Rep. Dunnam's motion. Because, every one of you know, that where the committee process is thwarted in a bad faith manner such as this, there's no way that bill is going to be at calendars in time to be meaningfully considered, and there's never been a calendars chair, republican or democrat, that would have advanced it under the circumstances we have here with this motion.

So, I'll vote no on the Merritt / Dunnam's motion. I urge you to do the same. And to my democrat friends, I'll tell you sincerely, I'd be voting this way even if it were someone from my party utilizing the rules in a PR stunt against a democrat speaker, or one of you individually. I think you know that. And I think you'd vote against it under those circumstances, too.