But you will whore for unions.

Actually, I personally will whore for: (and this is only a partial list) 3 margaritas, a well-placed compliment, cash, a promotion, a vacation to Europe. This is only a partial list and does not indicated any actual whoring experience (past, present or future) on my part.

Also, we'd like to point out that we were not elected for office nor are running for office. Also we'd never whore for a union...those people are usually somewhat dirty and poor.

Can I get that in a baby onesie?

Sincere question: How is Leininger any worse than the unions, the lobbyists, the industry groups (the alcoholic beverage industry comes to mind). I'd honestly like to know. Is it just the amount of money? At least with Leininger you KNOW who's behind the money and why.

I would say that most of those other big money donors are trying to advance their business needs. To grow, to be competitive, to get an advantage in business. Leininger is doing this strictly to push an agenda of far-right anti-choice, anti-homosexual, anti-public education candidates to push Texas into a state of backwards bigotry.

There's the difference.

The alternate theory there is that the man is convinced that public education is broken and that kids wil be better served by school choice. He is also willing to put up his own money to not only help candidates but to privately fund scholarships for poor kids. His reward for this philanthropy is to have his name dragged through the mud by people who continue to defend the indefensible.

Of course the system is broke, nobody disputes that fact. However, Leininger doesn't want to fix the system, he wants to scrap it and sell it for parts.

I applaud him for taking his own money and financing scholarships. He should have taken the 3 million he's dropped this cycle and used it for more scholarships. Nobody is dragging his name through the mud for giving his own money to poor kids.

He is being highlighted because he is dragging numerous state reps through the mud. He is hell bent on financing a school voucher system, but not on paying for it. Taking money from a system that is already strapped for cash will hurt many more children than it will help.

That's one of the many reason's I don't like the guy. Finally, newswatching, how is he different? Disgusting attack ads full of obscene material and hate. Completely running 5 campaigns from San Antonio. If these guys are elected, they'll vote the way of one man, not their constituents.

We don't defend unions, lobbyists and similar groups, so don't pigeonhole us. There are many things wrong with money in politics, and this guy embodies all of them. His agenda is not in any way going to help Texas.

Rawhide, I think you summed it up. It's his agenda you don't like, and that's your right, but it's also politics.

PD, I get what you're saying but you can also look at it another way: Leininger is funding campaigns for people who agree with his ideas about what will work in the schools (whether we agree with them or not), and the others, well, they're trying to advance legislation to help their own personal economic interests.

There's another difference.

In the end, it's up to the voters, not one wealthy man.

Newswatching and snrub – It’s not simply a question of free political speech, guys. Here’s a man who’s so arrogantly convinced that he’s right that he will spend every penny he can to spread vicious lies about an incumbent who is extremely popular in his district and represents that district – including that district’s beliefs AGAINST vouchers – better than anyone else could. What he’s doing is taking the citizen legislator out of the race, ignoring the fact that politics are supposed to be LOCAL as well as statewide, and pumping all his money into the campaigns of people who’s politics could NOT be further from those in the district.

Plus he’s funding dirty campaigns. Charlie Geren would be more than happy to open up discussion of a pilot program for vouchers – he’s said that on the record – just not in his district. (That’s not bad – Grusendorf didn’t want it in his district either. Hm. Wonder why.) So if it were just a man wanting to support an idea he truly believes in, why would he be going after Charlie?

I mean, lemme ask you. If vouchers were so popular and such a great idea in these districts, for example, then why in HELL can’t some of these guys raise more than 10 percent of their campaign funds within their own goddamned district? That’s what fundraising is supposed to be about – working hard to earn your seat, staying close to the people you represent, giving them enough reason to trust you that they give you their hard-earned money. If the district WANTED a voucher supporter, they would be giving the guy money hand over fist.

Leininger has every right to exercise his free speech, and people have every right to hate him for the influence he has. They also have the right to know when an outsider launches a decidedly vicious and personal attack on the candidate they elected themselves and still support.

You’re right about one thing, though. The voters get to decide in the end, and my prediction is that they’ll bitchslap the good doctor right back to S.A.

p.s. and the difference between leininger and the unions, trial lawyers assoc., beer guys, etc.?? Not much, except one STRIKING thing. The unions represent thousands, maybe millions, of members and their families who agree with the association and their philosophies and choose to give money collectively to support those ideas. Leininger represents ONE man. His PACs represent maybe five guys, tops. (Take a look at the donor lists – very short).

So do you have a problem with every big donor that contributes outside of his/her district? I'll answer that for you- no, you don't or you would be pointing out the other folks in this state who are doing it. You have a selective problem that someone you disagree with has money (that many regular people don't have) to put into elections.

Also, you may want to do some research on how unions raise their money. People pay dues for the privilege to work not because they necessarily agree with union positons. I'll assume the inclusion of the trial lawyers in that group is either a mistake or a joke.

Hey, newswatching asked first - i didn't bring it up.
And i challenge you to find proof that i personally don't agree with leininger's politics.
or proof, for that matter, that i said i liked unions.
pay some fucking attention.