This sounds like the case Paxton brought against Beto for raising funds for the “escaped” Texas Democrats. A state judge issued a TRO because Beto’s fundraising somehow violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) because Texas donors were…consumers? And Beto raising the money and telling donors what it was used for defrauded consumers in Texas under the DTPA?* (DTPA is a consumer protection law, once one of the most powerful in the country; but defenestrated 4 decades ago. It requires consumers be defrauded by, yes, “deceptive trade practices.”
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me, either. The court expanded the TRO to block Beto’s group from spending it outside of Texas, which is moot as of today (and the TRO expires soon if there isn’t a hearing on it). I honestly don’t understand how that ruling doesn’t defy 1st amendment jurisprudence, and how the he’ll political fundraising is subject to consumer protection when there is no fraud in how the money’s being raised, or how it’s spent (too many factors issues for a TRO, IOW). That’s the problem with TRO’s (they’re issued ex parte), but if the judge turns it into a temporary injunction (rather than toss it fir mootness), Beto needs to go to the Appellate Court and hand that judge his ass in a platter. The grounds for this ruling are just non-existent.
Sort of like the idea Biden was trying to buy votes with public policy. My God! Politicians courting votes by using government to help voters? Wonder if the MO AG has ever prosecuted cases to win the approval of voters? This kind of corruption could run deep!**
*
DTPA is a consumer protection law, once one of the most powerful in the country; but defenestrated 4 decades ago. It requires consumers be defrauded by, yes, “deceptive trade practices.” This part dates back to the original;
Sec. 17.44. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. (a) This subchapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions, and breaches of warranty and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.
Sec. 17.45. DEFINITIONS. As used in this subchapter:
(1) "Goods" means tangible chattels or real property purchased or leased for use.
(2) "Services" means work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.
(3) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized.
(4) "Consumer" means an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services, except that the term does not include a business consumer that has assets of $25 million or more, or that is owned or controlled by a corporation or entity with assets of $25 million or more.
Even liberally construed, it’s hard to see how a political donor is a consumer under the statute unless there is fraud in the transaction. And alleging fraud against Beto for raising money to support something allowed by the Texas Constitution (breaking quorum) is something too complex for a TRO hearing. It requires too many findings that are not conducive to an ex parte hearing. Too many fact findings, too many legal findings. Which means it’s not even a legal question likely to result in success at trial. Way too many legal hurdles to clear (like the First Amendment) before you get to the fact questions.
Really not good grounds for a TRO. At all. Really, really good case to dismiss sua sponte on mootness. Because, honestly, the expansion (at least) of the TRO no longer applies. Especially if Beto is not spending that money to support out of state Democrats.
Or did he say he was raising that money to help Democrats? I knew when I gave money to Act Blue for Beto, it didn’t all go to Beto’s campaign. The fraud claim is speculative, at best. The application of consumer law to donors absent a strong showing of fraud (which could be made in a trial or even evidentiary hearing; but ex parte before the opposing party has even filed an answer? That’s how TRO’s work.) is not grounds for a TRO. They shouldn’t be used like this. Especially when the new restrictions are issued three days before the TRO expires on its own terms, and as the special session ends, rendering the breach of quorum moot (yes, it’s my new favorite word), because, like the end of a session of Congress, the new session presents a clean slate.
Yeah, I get wound up about these procedural matters. Call it a weakness.
** I’m not going to start another post when this is so relevant here: And how is your suit at the Texas Supreme Court going? The one to remove Gene Wu from his seat in the Lege? “Potentially illegal”? That phrase is carrying a lot of baggage; it especially since you’ll never find one DA in Texas to bring the case, against even one person (are you seriously expecting 50 criminal cases?).
And “lawsuits to overturn that”? Nit before the midterms; in California or Texas. You know that. Just like you know the Texas Supremes already consider your suit against Wu fish wrap.
