Home Schoolers Sue Texas

Home Schoolers Sue TexasTHSC Association filed a lawsuit against the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) in federal court in Lubbock on July 25. As a 501(c)(4), non-profit advocacy organization, THSC has focused since its founding on the mission of advocating for home schooling and parental rights.

After the landmark Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 ruled that non-profits like THSC have a constitutional right to engage in “political” speech or advocacy, we began to engage in supporting candidates who we believe share our philosophy and in opposing those who have a record of refusing to do so. However, some Texas officials are seeking to undermine this fundamental, constitutional right to free speech.

In 2013 the Texas Legislature passed SB 346, which was an effort by legislators to suppress groups like ours from engaging in the campaign process in opposition of incumbent elected officials. In fact, SB 346 applied to all non-profits except labor unions, which clearly signified that it was targeting conservative groups like THSC. Thankfully, Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill, referring to the “chilling effect” it would have on free speech.

The TEC, at the urging of the same legislators, has now leveled charges against another 501(c)(4) group of illegally participating in political speech by failing to report its donors. However, current law requires no such thing of a 501(c)(4). The agency has adopted rules which, practically speaking, overturn the Citizens United decision. In fact, the TEC issued subpoenas against that organization, demanding a list of not only major donors but of all its donors, and threatened it with severe legal penalties.

Believing this action to be not only unconstitutional, but a harbinger of things to come for THSC and any non-profit that disagrees with the “establishment,” we filed suit against the state of Texas—and the TEC specifically—in order to hold this rogue agency accountable in a court of law. These agency rules, which impinge on the right of Texans to free speech and are an overreach of power, must be changed.

The Wall Street Journal, in an article on the issue, rightly noted that this is a “Texas speech shootout.” Another recent article noted the successes of THSC Association and other non-profits in the recent Republican Primary; it’s no coincidence that another organization on that list is the first target of the TEC. If the TEC is not stopped, many others who deign to raise their voices against incumbents will also be targeted. We say, “Not in Texas! Not on our watch!”

You may read the WSJ article below.

Texas Speech Shootout
Home schoolers sue the regulators who want to shut them up.

One of the few remaining subjects of bipartisan comity in U.S. politics is the abuse of campaign-finance laws to protect incumbents from criticism. Well, now Texas Republicans will have to defend in federal court one such bid to shut down political speech and intimidate donors—and explain why the First Amendment supposedly stops at the steps of state legislatures.

On Friday the Texas Home School Coalition Association sued the state over an attempt to ensnare virtually all civics organizations under government control and regulate their activities. The gambit emerged from a panic in Austin over the rise of outside scrutiny and was meant to prevent the barbarians from participating in politics.

A seat in the Texas legislature was once a lifetime sinecure, but after the Supreme Court’s 2010 free-speech decision in Citizens United, what liberals and some Republicans call “dark money” started to pour into the fray. Lawmakers started to lose primaries as their positions and records were exposed to voters, so in 2013 they struck back with legislation that imposed onerous reporting and disclosure requirements on groups engaged in issue advocacy as if they were a regular political committee stumping for a candidate.

Governor Rick Perry rightly vetoed the bill, citing its “chilling effect” on speech that would undermine “our democratic political process.” So the Ethics Commission, the state’s campaign-finance regulator, decided to restrict speech on its own with no legal basis.

At the request of legislators, the Ethics Commission is reinterpreting the existing state election code to target issue-oriented groups that also take part in elections in any way, even if such campaign advocacy is a sideline to their primary mission. Under the proposed new rules, these groups must register with the state, hire campaign accountants and attorneys, and file and disclose detailed reports on contributors, spending and their beneficiaries. Violations are a criminal offense.

The Texas Home School Coalition Association argues that this attempt to burden speech is unconstitutional. The nonprofit mainly supports non-state education through parental seminars, legal aid and the like. But the association devotes about 9% of its budget in election years to producing a voter guide, promoting endorsements of candidates who support its values, and advertising its policy positions on matters of public concern at the ballot box.

Even the Supreme Court’s original campaign-finance sins, 1976’s Buckley v. Valeo and a follow-on 1986 case, explicitly protected the First Amendment rights of “organizations whose major purpose is not campaign advocacy, but who occasionally make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates.” These precedents say the government can only restrict core political speech to avoid corruption, but how can advocating for home schooling create a corrupt quid pro quo?

The real goal of the Ethics Commission and its legislator accessories is to reduce the influence of critics and expose donors to political intimidation. Here’s an opportunity to vindicate citizen participation and accountability in government, which is what politicians fear the most.



  1. Anthony says

    “In fact, SB 346 applied to all non-profits except labor unions, which clearly signified that it was targeting conservative groups like THSC. ”

    You may want to fix this. “All non-profits except labor unions” is very different from “conservative groups.” Liberal groups are, after all, not just limited to labor unions. and this law would apply to them equally: there is nothing within the article showing that they’re trying to go after conservative groups specifically.

    • Tim Lambert says

      The Republican leadership who pushed SB 346 stated clearly that they had conservative groups in mind when they pushed this legislation. Since Democrats would not support a bill that limited the influence of labor unions, the Republican leadership exempted labor unions to win Democrat support which they needed because of conservative Republican opposition. So while SB 346 and the new TEC rules would apply to all non-profits conservative and otherwise, the target of these measures is clearly conservative groups who are having success challenging incumbent Republicans in the primary.

  2. Disbar Steve Bresnen says

    Steve Bresnen @SteveBresnen · 23h
    Discussing what I’ll do to counter the Lubbock suit to protect dark money from the voters’ right to know. 75% of R voters oppose dark money https://twitter.com/SteveBresnen

    The efforts by Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA) lobbyist Steve Bresnen to attack Michael Quinn Sullivan (pictured) and his organization, Empower Texans, illustrate how political apparatuses that are designed to protect citizens are often turned against the people.

    • Tim Lambert says

      When the public understands that the actions of the TEC is not to “expose dark money” but to intimidate the free speech of ordinary citizens the polls will be different. When you get to phrase the question, you determine the outcome of the poll.