You are here
Texas GOP Funds Pro-Abortion Activist - $20,000 to Sarah Davis - Demand they STOP Violating Platform
While national attention focuses on Republicans fighting for unborn babies in Austin, TX, one Texas Republican State Representative, Sarah Davis, is fighting against Republicans and trying to kill the pro-life bill. The worst part is that she is funded by the Texas GOP! Demand the Texas GOP to STOP funding her.
URGENT! Contact the Republican Party of Texas and the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) and DEMAND that they STOP violating the Party Platform by giving our money to candidates like pro-late term abortion advocate State Representative Sarah Davis.
CLICK HERE for the email list of the 62 SREC members (2 members per State Senate District) and also contact the Texas GOP Chairman and vice-chairman and staff at firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com, and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unfortunately, it is not expected that all GOP candidates and GOP elected officials will follow the values of the Texas Republican Party platform. It IS EXPECTED that the Party follows the state party platform.
Here are the disturbing facts:
Below is an Email from Mark McCaig to Chairman Steve Munisteri and the SREC Asking them to Stand up for the Party Platform and stop funding pro-abortion Candidates (as a side note, some in the Texas GOP have defended giving money to Pro Abortion Sarah Davis by saying that Mark McCaig is works for a big Democrat so we should not believe what he says. Well, I don't really care who McCaig Works for, I only care if what McCaig is saying is true. I looked into what McCaig said and what he says is true. Although McCaigs employer is a bad dude, bringing up who McCaig works for is a distraction from the real issue which is that it is a FACT that the Party gave money to Pro Abortion Sarah Davis and it is a FACT that it is against the Party Platform for the Party to give money to Pro Abortion candidates)
To Steve Munisteri
Dear SREC members,
I would like to thank all of you for the RPT's support of the pro-life legislation currently being considered in the state legislature. As you are all aware, this legislation will go a long way to protect innocent human life and women's health in our state.
During the last special session, this legislation had the support of every Republican member except for one State Representative, Sarah Davis of Houston. The Houston Chronicle has an article about Rep. Davis' opposition to this legislation that I would encourage each of you to read.
The RPT sent out an e-mail this morning rightfully thanking the GOP legislators who are fighting for the pro-life plank of our platform. Unfortunately, I must remind the SREC that the RPT has failed to abide by the following plank of our platform:
Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life - We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.
This plank of our platform expressed the clear desire of our grassroots that the RPT only fund those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. The RPT has limited funds with which it can support candidates and it is unable to financially support every Republican candidate in the state. In fact, only a small percentage of Republican candidates across Texas receive financial support from RPT.
During the last election, the Republican Party of Texas contributed (either directly or through in-kind contributions) approximately $20,000 to Sarah Davis' campaign. When I discovered that the RPT was violating this plank of the platform, I sent Chairman Munisteri and the SREC an e-mail outlining my concerns. After the concerns expressed in my e-mail were not addressed, I then arranged for delegates to our last state convention to be informed about the RPT's financial support of Rep. Davis (who also opposed the sonogram bill in the 2011 legislative session and received a 100% score on Planned Parenthood's candidate survey in her most recent campaign) and gave the contacted delegates an opportunity to be connected to the RPT's office to express their opinion on the matter if they so desired. This resulted in an overwhelming response. Instead of addressing the Party's failure to abide by its own platform, the RPT directed callers to a recorded message that attacked me and my employment. I was also told that some within the Party encouraged Chairman Munisteri to seek criminal prosecution against me for making it possible for these GOP activists to make their views known to the Party (of course, the First Amendment clearly protects this kind of political speech).
While I certainly agree that, despite her flaws, Rep. Davis was a huge improvement over her Democratic opponent, the money she received from the RPT represented only a small fraction of her entire campaign budget. The funds used to support Rep. Davis' campaign would have been better used elsewhere and I believe it sent a negative message to the grassroots that this plank of the platform was disregarded.
I wish I could say that Rep. Davis' opposition to this pro-life legislation was a surprise, but it is not. I think it is important that each of you as SREC members know that her campaign was subsidized on your watch as SREC members at the expense of other pro-life candidates. I hope I am not the only one that finds it troubling that a candidate who received this level of financial support from the RPT is now criticizing this key conservative legislation in the media as a political stunt and publicly questioning the motives of the Republican sponsors of this bill.
While I recognize that is probably not feasible to seek a refund from Rep. Davis, I would hope that the SREC takes all steps possible to ensure that the money contributed to the RPT by hardworking grassroots conservatives is not misused in a similar manner in the future.