Connect with us

Donald Trump

Lyin’ Ted of Texas Writes with Support of Twenty Senators for Wealthy Tax Cuts

Rallying around to stir more hyperbole, in a letter sent to Steve Foreclosure King Mnuchin on Monday, the Lyin’ Senator from Texas urged the Treasury Secretary to use his authority to index capital gains to inflation, a move that would almost exclusively benefit the mega-rich.

Published

4 years ago

on

After the Trump administration floated a proposal to index capital gains taxes for inflation, it was hard to spin it as anything less than a gift to the super rich. Little wonder:

Two-thirds of the savings from such a move would go to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers. The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative.

Former Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn declared the idea dead on arrival, and the administration has given little real indication it’s pursuing the idea further. That’s likely for the best, but we perhaps shouldn’t let it go so quickly. Trump’s proposal highlights one of the deeper problems in the tax code. Congress should fix it.

Rallying around to stir more hyperbole, in a letter sent to Steve “Foreclosure King” Mnuchin on Monday, the Lyin’ Senator from Texas urged the Treasury Secretary to use his “authority” to index capital gains to inflation, a move that would almost exclusively benefit the mega-rich.

Claiming, falsely, that the United States economy “has experienced historic levels of growth as a result of Congress and the current administration’s policies such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Cruz insists that it is now crucial for the Treasury Department to adjust capital gains for inflation “so that everyday Americans can continue to enjoy better lives and livelihoods.” And by “everyday Americans,” he of course means (but doesn’t say) the spectacularly wealthy.

Missing from Cruz’s call for Mnuchin to use “executive authority” to end this “unfair” treatment of taxpayers, which was signed by 20 of his Republican colleagues, is the fact that, according to the Penn Wharton Budget model, a whopping 86% of the benefit of indexing capital gains to inflation would go to the 1 percent (and reduce annual tax revenue by an estimated $102 billion over a decade).

Perhaps seeking to address this criticism, Cruz claimed that changing how capital gains are taxed “would…unlock capital for investment, increase wages, create new jobs, and grow the economy, benefiting Americans across all income levels.”

In other words, he’s arguing that the executive branch should give the super-rich another tax cut and it’ll benefit everyone because of trickle-down economics which—checks notes—has never actually worked.

Including in the case of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Lyin’ Senator Ted Cruz from Texas urged the Treasury Secretary to use his authority to index capital gains to inflation, a move to benefit the mega-rich.

Still, the Treasury Department is apparently looking into using its regulatory power to change the way taxes on capital gains are assessed. The idea is to confine the taxes to real, inflation-adjusted gains, not nominal gains, as now. There’s a particle of sense in this notion, but it’s buried miles deep in bad faith and bad economics.

The change would amount to a tax cut that the country cannot afford. Its benefits — even by the standard of recent Republican thinking on tax reform — would be heavily skewed toward the very wealthy. The change would open vast new opportunities for tax avoidance. And this far-reaching alteration to the tax code would be done without involving Congress.

Unaffordable, unfair, inefficient and quite possibly unlawful — for just one idea, that’s impressive.

According to the Tax Policy Center, using the most recent data, about one-third of capital gains could be attributed to inflation in 2012. Full indexing would have cut taxes on those gains by about $30 billion. Allowing for various offsets, the net revenue loss if the plan were implemented would be $10 billion to $20 billion a year — enough to make a serious fiscal problem worse.

The federal government is already borrowing close to a trillion dollars a year, partly thanks to the recent tax-reform law, and that’s with the economy at or close to full employment. Government debt held by the public stands at almost 80 percent of gross domestic product and is on track to rise to 150 percent of GDP over the next 30 years. To pile another tax cut on top of this would be madness.

The earlier reform failed as well on fiscal fairness and efficient tax collection — but nothing like this new idea does. Cutting capital-gains taxes without making other changes is about the most regressive thing that could be done to the tax code. And indexing capital gains for inflation without indexing capital expenses (such as interest payments and depreciation) would create an array of new tax shelters.

What about the particle of good sense? In a comprehensive plan, you could deal with the revenue shortfall by raising rates and closing loopholes. And you could advance fairness by making the code more progressive in other ways. Then, comprehensive (not partial) indexation would make the tax code more neutral. At present, the taxes that people and firms expect to pay depend on future inflation, which creates uncertainty and other distortions. Other things equal, it would be better to have a code that was inflation-proof.

Other things aren’t equal, however. As it stands, the plan is a terrible idea that should be dropped immediately. If not, there’s hope it will succumb in short order to the legal challenges it will surely provoke.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Appellate Circuit

Texas Solicitor General Appointments in Recent times Include Sen. Ted Cruz and Fifth Cir. Judge Jim Ho

Notable alumni of the Office of the Solicitor General – 6 are now either District or Federal Judges and one on the Texas Supreme Court.

Published

1 year ago

on

March 27, 2022

By

Musical Chairs: Jim Ho Replaces Ted Cruz as Texas Solicitor General (SG)

APR 10, 2008 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 26, 2022

Congratulations to our old friend James Ho. The good news first surfaced on Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog:

A quiet trickle of a rumor last week was that James C. Ho, currently of counsel with Gibson Dunn and a former law clerk to Justice Thomas at SCOTUS, has been tapped to serve as the next Solicitor General of Texas.

If this is true, Texas will be in very capable hands as Jim Ho is certainly one of the best appellate lawyers in the state (and the country for that matter), and has demonstrated great and valuable political savvy on the national stage as well.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that, now, three of the four solicitors general have clerked for SCOTUS (Greg Coleman – Justice Thomas; Ted Cruz – the late Chief Rehnquist; and Jim Ho – Justice Thomas).

A SCOTUS clerkship now appears to be a prerequisite to the post, which makes eminent sense because one of the OSG’s main functions is to represent the State before SCOTUS-a job we have noted current General Cruz has done extremely well.

That preliminary report appeared on Tuesday; the news is now confirmed.

Here are press releases from the Texas Attorney General,  [page removed from internet] Greg Abbott, and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, both praising Ho for his past achievements, and wishing him well in his latest endeavor.

Over at the Supreme Court of Texas blog, Texas appellate lawyer Don Cruse (another old friend) has some interesting observations:

What’s somewhat unusual about Ho’s legal career path is that he did his Supreme Court clerkship midstream, after he had already spent five years as a lawyer working in the political branches.

According to the data on his LinkedIn profile, Ho finished his clerkship for Justice Thomas in July 2006….

The recency of that clerkship may, however, raise one small speed bump — the United States Supreme Court’s rule barring former clerks from participating in cases before that Court for two years from the end of their clerkship.

Because Ho’s clerkship at the Court did not end until July 2006, he is barred (if I understand the rule) from any participation in the United States Supreme Court docket until late this summer.

I’m confident that the Texas SG’s office has other lawyers capable of handling those duties until then.

Indeed — as Don Cruse well knows, having worked in that office himself before starting his own practice.

As for outgoing Texas SG Ted Cruz, it’s not clear where he’ll land.

Given his stellar talents as an advocate, reflected in his huge recent win in the Medellin case, any firm would be lucky to have him.

But we hear that private practice may just be a way station for him, on the way to what one source describes as “bigger and better — and more political — things…”

Once again, congratulations to Jim Ho on a fantastic new gig!

P.S. If you’d like to learn more facts about Jim, of a personal rather than professional nature —

e.g., that he’s married to another fabulous former SCOTUS clerk, Allyson Newton Ho

— check out our profile of him, back at Underneath Their Robes.

The next Solicitor General of Texas [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]
New Texas SG [Supreme Court of Texas Blog]
Attorney General Abbott Appoints New Solicitor General [Texas Attorney General]
NAPABA Celebrates Appointment of James Ho as Solicitor General of Texas [NAPABA]
James C. Ho. bio [Gibson Dunn & Crutcher]
Justice Thomas’s OT 2005 Clerks [Underneath Their Robes]

Credit: Above the Law

List of solicitors general

The following is a table of solicitors general of Texas.[2]

Parties

  Republican (7)   Democratic (0)   No party (0)

No. Name Took office Left office Attorney General
1 Greg Coleman 1999 2001 John Cornyn
2 Julie Parsley 2001 2002
3 Ted Cruz January 9, 2003 May 12, 2008 Greg Abbott
4 James C. Ho May 2008 December 9, 2010
5 Jonathan F. Mitchell December 10, 2010 January 5, 2015
6 Scott A. Keller January 2015 September 10, 2018 Ken Paxton
7 Kyle D. Hawkins September 10, 2018 February 1, 2021
8 Judd Stone February 1, 2021 Incumbent
Credit: Wikipedia

Notable alumni of the Office of the Solicitor General – 6 are now either District or Federal Judges and one on the Texas Supreme Court.

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

1612 K Street N.W., Suite 1400
Washington, D.C. 20006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 9, 2008

Contact: John C. Yang
(202) 719-4483

NAPABA CELEBRATES APPOINTMENT OF JAMES C. HO
AS SOLICITOR GENERAL OF TEXAS

Washington, DC – The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is pleased that the Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott has announced his intent to appoint James C. Ho as the next Solicitor General of Texas, effective after the expected departure of the current Solicitor General Ted Cruz.

Mr. Ho will become the highest ranking Asian Pacific American statewide official in Texas, and one of only a very small handful of Asian Pacific Americans to have held statewide office in Texas.

The Office of the Solicitor General for Texas is responsible for supervising and approving all appellate litigation in the State of Texas.

The Texas Solicitor General regularly appears before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Texas state courts of appeal.

Mr. Ho is presently Of Counsel with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

He previously has served in all three branches of the federal government: as Chief Counsel to Senator John Cornyn of Texas; as a law clerk on the Supreme Court for the Honorable Clarence Thomas, and on the Fifth Circuit for the Honorable Jerry E. Smith; and in the Department of Justice both as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and as an Attorney- Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mr. Ho was recognized as one of NAPABA’s “Best Lawyers Under 40” in 2006, and currently serves as a Co-Chair for NAPABA’s Judiciary Committee.

He also has been recognized as a “Texas Super Lawyer” in Law & Politics, a “Rising Star in Texas” by Texas Monthly, and in 2005 as one of the 35 “Best Congressional Aides Under 35” in the publication The Hill.

“NAPABA applauds Texas Attorney General Abbott for his leadership in appointing Jim Ho,”

said Les Jin, Executive Director of NAPABA.

“The Asian Pacific American population is growing rapidly in Texas, and the inclusion of Asian Americans in positions of leadership within the Texas state government is the logical next step.”

John C. Yang, Co-Chair of NAPABA’s Judiciary Committee, added,

“Mr. Ho is a very talented attorney who will represent the State of Texas, and its rich diversity of residents, extremely well. We look forward to working with him on issues that affect the Asian Pacific American population in that state.”

Underneath Their Robes

May 13, 2005

Justice Thomas’s OT 2005 Clerks

“Knock knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“Article III Groupie.”
“Article III Groupie who?”
“Article III Groupie, who wants to prepare fawning celebrity profiles of your incoming law clerks!”
“Oh, in that case — come on in, Groupie! Sorry to be so cagey — I thought you might be that high-tech lynch mob…”

 

 

 

Article Three Groupie is just delighted to find herself inside the chambers of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is truly one of her most favorite justices. CT is a jurist who makes for great copy. Just think about his remarkable personal history, including his rise from humble beginnings in Pin Point, Georgia, as well as his dramatic confirmation hearings, which transfixed the entire country. (A3G can’t wait to read his autobiography when it comes out!)

Notwithstanding the ill-informed opinions of Senator Harry Reid, CT has developed an impressive track record as a Supreme Court justice. Numerous commentators have written about Justice Thomas’s distinctive and compelling approach to constitutional interpretation, which reflects a deep understanding of history and an intellectually challenging take on stare decisis. In addition, Justice Thomas has also issued opinions of great clarity and analytical rigor in various hypertechnical areas of statutory law. Even those who disagree with Justice Thomas’s views have been forced to concede that he has become an intellectual force to be reckoned with on the Court.*

Whoa, that last paragraph was dangerously substantive! And why would you want to hear what A3G, a member of the Great Unwashed, has to say about matters of substance? Let’s return to the frivolous; enough drooling over the jurisprudence of Justice Thomas.

Today we’re here to talk about his law clerks for next Term, who are just as fantastic as their boss. Please join A3G in her cyber-salute to CT’s clerks for the October Term 2005!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Chantel Febus (GW ’02/Lamberth (D.D.C.) ’03-’04/E. Jones ’04-’05

 

Tidbits:

(a) Chantel Febus is “by all accounts a pretty conservative and very smart woman — perhaps a Janice Rogers Brown in training” (delicious!);

(b) she earned her law degree at GW Law School (which as of late has been doing quite well in the Supreme Court clerkship race);

(c) during her time as an undergraduate at St. John Fisher College, she interned for Justice Thomas;

(d) she paid a visit to San Diego last month; and
(e) she is a huge fan of Lenny Kravitz.

 

 

 

 

 

2. James C. Ho (Chicago ’99/J. Smith)

Tidbits:

(a) he is currently serving as chief counsel to Senator John Cornyn on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he has earned praise for his bipartisanship, as well as recognition for being among “the best 35 staffers under age 35”;

(b) James Ho is “unbelievably well-connected,” which is not surprising given the impressive positions he has held at top outposts of legal conservatism (which A3G won’t bore you with; you can read about his many achievements here and here);

(c) his résumé includes a stint at the Finishing School for the Elect, where he authored a memo on the Geneva Conventions that was cited in footnote 8 of the controversial Bybee/Yoo memo on interrogation and torture (pdf);

(d) Jim Ho was described by liberal blogger Max Blumenthal as “that good-looking guy sitting behind Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) during [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales’s [confirmation] hearing” (see here);

(e) he is “known to be shy but loyal and surprisingly funny”;

(f) he puts his sense of humor to good use as a senior editor of The Green Bag, and he also finds the time to serve on the board of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association Educational Fund;

(g) he is married to a fellow member of the Elect, Allyson Newton Ho (SOC, OT 2002); and

(h) he’s “a sucker for ice cream and Morton’s dinners, and if you want to distract him, just ask him if he wants to play Texas hold ’em.”

(Perhaps Jim Ho, incoming Breyer clerk Jonathan Kravis, and incoming O’Connor clerk Ben Horwich — poker aficionados all — can set up a law clerk poker tournament at One First Street?)

 

 

 

 

 

3. John M. Hughes (Chicago ’04/Luttigator)

Tidbits:

(a) as a “first-rate college debater” for Wake Forest, John Hughes was “a relentless competitor with a golden tongue,” demonstrating “striking personal vigor and charisma” (as seen in the photo at right);

(b) his incredibly successful debate career earned him the accolade of “MVD” (Most Valuable Debater) for 1995-96;

(c) after “unexpectedly disappearing to the midwest somewhere,” John Hughes “reemerged several years later to dominate (expectedly) the University of Chicago Law School“;

(d) he and his wife Amy, a health care consultant for Mitretek Healthcare, met during their time together at Wake Forest; and

(e) John and Amy have an absolutely adorable baby boy, Jack Hughes, who was born on July 7, 2004 (see here, and picture at left).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Ashley Jones Johnson (Vanderbilt ’04/Luttigatrix)

Tidbits:

(a) Ashley Johnson received her undergraduate and law degrees at Vanderbilt;

(b) as a Vanderbilt undergrad, she did an impressive double major in history and math;

(c) she was planning to pursue graduate studies in math (wow) — but then she, like her Luttig/Thomas co-clerk John Hughes, got bitten by the debate bug;

(d) as she explained in this interview, she joined the debate team in her junior year, which then lured her over to the law, since “[a] lot of people on the debate team were going to law school” (and she was “tired of math”);

(e) sorry, guys, she’s married — to Adam Johnson, a health care consultant for Stockamp & Associates;

(f) they’re both huge fans of Vanderbilt basketball (see photo at right of them at a game); and

(g) Ashley’s family is from Birmingham, Alabama, and she’ll be visiting them after her Luttigatrix stint ends in June and before her CT gig starts up in July.

********************

Most excellent! A3G is very envious of these four amazing and accomplished individuals, who will get to spend a year working closely with Justice Thomas — and hearing his famous Darth Vader impression (“You have failed me for the last time, John…”). She offers them her congratulations and sincere wishes for a great OT with CT.

They are sure to have a good time with the friendly and fun-loving Justice Thomas. As noted in this bio by the Supreme Court Historical Society, Justice Thomas is “[g]regarious, with a hearty laugh,” and known to enjoy “lifting weights, watching basketball, and smoking cigars.” (In fact, until an injury sidelined him some years ago, Justice Thomas would even play basketball with law clerks at the Supreme Court basketball court.) CT is well-known around One First Street as one of the most friendly and accessible justices.

In closing, Article Three Groupie would like to tie up one loose end. She previously reported (see item #2) that Larry D. Thompson, Jr., son of former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, had been hired by Justice Thomas for OT 2004, but had deferred his clerkship. A3G assumed that Luttigator Larry would be one of CT’s clerks for OT 2005 (which is why she included him on this preliminary listing of clerks).

But then multiple sources confirmed that the incoming Thomas clerks are Chantel Febus, James Ho, John Hughes, and Ashley J. Johnson. She heard one rumor that Thompson had deferred until OT 2006, and she heard another rumor that LT won’t be clerking for CT at all. Can anyone she some light on this? If so, please email A3G.

If the latter rumor is true, it could have implications for Judge J. Michael Luttig’s nearly perfect record as a Supreme Court feeder judge (which explains A3G’s excessive, schadenfreude-driven interest in it). Article 3 Groupie must emphasize, however, that right now it’s merely a rumor — nothing has been confirmed. After all, A3G would not want to be sued by Mr. Thompson for impugning his status as a Supreme Court clerk. Accusing a member of the Elect of being one of the Great Unwashed is defamatory per se!

Hasta luego!

* If A3G had her druthers, CT would participate more actively at oral arguments. While his humility and restraint are admirable — unlike some justices, he isn’t in love with the sound of his own voice — he could afford to speak more from the bench without crossing the line into obnoxiousness.

Former Solicitor General of Texas Kyle Hawkins Scarpers back to Gibson Dunn after Ken Paxton Whistleblower Scandal

April 5, 2021

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Kyle D. Hawkins has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Houston office. Hawkins recently served as the Solicitor General of Texas and will focus on appellate and constitutional law, class actions and commercial litigation.

“We are pleased to welcome Kyle back to the firm and to our Houston office,”

said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.

“We have one of the top appellate practices in the U.S., and with his reputation as a highly skilled advocate at the state and national levels, Kyle will be a terrific addition to the practice. His significant government experience and insight into Texas state agencies will greatly benefit our clients.”

“Kyle is an experienced appellate advocate, who is widely respected for his integrity and oral advocacy,”

said Allyson Ho, Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group.

“As the State of Texas’s most high-profile litigator, Kyle handled the state’s most important cases. His profile and experience will enrich our Texas appellate team, and he is a natural fit to serve as the Houston office’s first litigation partner as we expand our presence throughout the state.”

“I’m thrilled to return to Gibson Dunn,”

said Hawkins.

“I look forward to working closely with the firm’s litigation and appellate teams to grow the firm’s offering in Texas and across the U.S.”

About Kyle D. Hawkins

Hawkins will practice in the areas of appellate and constitutional law, class actions and commercial litigation. Prior to his return to the firm, he served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2018 to 2021 and as Assistant Solicitor General of Texas from 2017 to 2018. As Solicitor General, he was responsible for supervising and approving all appellate litigation for the State of Texas. He has presented 30 oral arguments, including four before the U.S. Supreme Court, six before the Texas Supreme Court, 17 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (including five before en banc panels), and three before the Texas Courts of Appeals in Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth. He also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, teaching a course on U.S. Supreme Court practice.

Prior, Hawkins practiced in Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C. office from 2011 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2017.

He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. from 2013 to 2014

and for

Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2010 to 2011.

Hawkins graduated summa cum laude in 2009 from the University of Minnesota Law School, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Minnesota Law Review.

He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 2002.

Jonathan F. Mitchell enters Private Practice (Own Solo Practice)

Jonathan F. Mitchell is principal at Mitchell Law PLLC. He received his law degree with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was an articles editor of The University of Chicago Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif.

After graduating from law school, Mr. Mitchell clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States. He then served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice from 2003 through 2006. After leaving the Department of Justice, Mr. Mitchell was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 2006 through 2008, and then an Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University from 2008 through 2010.

In 2010, Mr. Mitchell was appointed Solicitor General of Texas, a position he held until January 2015. After leaving the Texas Solicitor General’s office, Mr. Mitchell served as the Searle Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law, a Visiting Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, and a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Mitchell has published numerous works of scholarship in top-10 law journals, and he has written articles on textualism, national-security law, criminal law and procedure, judicial review and judicial federalism, and the legality of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication.

Mr. Mitchell has argued four times before the Supreme Court of the United States, and more than a dozen times in the federal courts of appeals. He has also argued before Supreme Court of Texas and in numerous trial courts. He has authored more than 100 briefs, and his brief for the respondents in Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012), and his brief for the petitioners in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), each received a Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General.

Supreme Court Arguments

Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (October 14, 2015)

  • Represented class-action plaintiff who opposed the defendant’s attempt to moot the case by offering monetary relief solely to the class representative

 

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1146 (February 24, 2014)

  • Represented States challenging the Obama Administration’s greenhouse-gas regulations

 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1182 (December 10, 2013)

  • Represented a coalition of States challenging the Obama Administration’s cross-state air-pollution rule

 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895 (November 2, 2011)

  • Represented the State of Texas in a habeas corpus case involving the interpretation of AEDPA’s statute of limitations

 

Publications

Professional Activities

  • Member, Practitioners’ Reading Group for the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, evaluating U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, 2016
  • Board of Advisors, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Judd Stone, Texas Solicitor General (current)

Judd Stone II, the Texas solicitor general, makes his Supreme Court debut.

Nov 5, 2021

Judd Stone II, a former clerk to the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was named solicitor general of Texas earlier this year. On Monday, he will take on his most high-profile challenge to date: arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the state in two challenges to its new anti-abortion law.

Mr. Stone, who took his post in February, joined the state solicitor general’s office in 2020.

He was appointed by Ken Paxton, the state attorney general.

His predecessor, Kyle Hawkins, called Mr. Stone’s appellate advocacy skills “unmatched.” He oversees an office of attorneys who supervise and approve all appellate litigation for the state.

Before joining the office of the solicitor general, Mr. Stone was chief counsel for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, himself a former Texas solicitor general.

Mr. Stone practiced law in Washington, D.C., at the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group for Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, and the Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, and Frederick law firm. He was also an Olin-Searle-Smith fellow at Harvard Law School.

Before his career in private practice, Mr. Stone clerked for Mr. Scalia,

for Judge Edith Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,

and

for Justice Daniel Winfree on the Alaska Supreme Court.

He graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and from Northwestern University Law School.

Mr. Hawkins, the previous solicitor general, announced his resignation in January. Notably, he had declined to join Mr. Paxton’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Continue Reading

Donald Trump

Lyin’ Ted Update: Texas Senator and Attorney Who Claimed Amnesia About the Law fined $35K

Bank loans to candidates and loans derived from advances on a candidate’s brokerage accounts, credit cards, home equity line of credit, or other lines of credit obtained for use in connection with his or her campaign must be reported by the committee, according to the guide.

Published

4 years ago

on

August 8, 2019

By

Federal elections officials have fined Ted Cruz’s Senate campaign $35,000 for failing to report more than $1 million in bank loans he used to finance his successful long-shot race in Texas in 2012.

The penalty was part of a settlement reached by the Federal Election Commission and Mr. Cruz’s Senate campaign in February and disclosed in a letter this week from the commission to the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group that had filed a complaint over the unreported loans.

The fine comes more than three years after the loans were revealed by The New York Times in January 2016 and became a political issue for Mr. Cruz during the Republican presidential primary.

The Times article showed how Mr. Cruz claimed to have liquidated his family’s wealth and put it into his 2012 campaign, when in fact he had borrowed money from Goldman Sachs and Citibank without disclosing it on campaign filings.

Mr. Cruz initially described his actions as a clerical oversight, saying he had disclosed the loans on a different set of reports, filed with the Senate, that detailed his personal income, assets and debts. But those reports did not explain what the loans were used for, and he failed to disclose them, as required, on filings with the election commission, which would have showed the $1,064,000 from the two banks was used for campaign purposes.

On Friday, the Cruz campaign issued a statement adhering to its earlier explanation of how the loans were handled.

“As has repeatedly been reported, the loans were public at the time and fully disclosed on Senate ethics disclosures, but they weren’t reported correctly on the FEC forms,” the campaign said in a statement. “This agreed settlement resolves that filing mistake once and for all.”

The Fine Will Most Likely be Paid for by Goldman Sachs (c/o his wife)

During the Republican primary in 2016, Donald J. Trump, a candidate at the time, used the issue to taunt Mr. Cruz, saying Goldman Sachs had “total control” over him and calling the failure to report the loans “a very big thing.”

President Trump now has his own campaign finance problems, having been accused of arranging to pay off an adult film star, who claimed she had an affair with him, shortly before the November 2016 election. Federal prosecutors have described the transactions as a violation of campaign finance laws.

In Mr. Cruz’s case, the Campaign Legal Center filed its complaint in January 2016 in response to the article in The Times. A year later, the election commission, in a rare unanimous vote, accepted the conclusions of its staff that Mr. Cruz’s campaign had not complied with the law.

Tara Malloy, a senior director at the legal center, said that Mr. Cruz’s failure to properly report his loans meant that in “the homestretch of a high-profile election, voters were misled about Cruz’s personal and campaign finances.”

“Candidates should take seriously their legal requirement to disclose where their campaign money comes from,” she said.

NYT: Lyin' Ted Fined
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 SenCruz.com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.