It looks like voters are finally taking a good look at Attorney General candidate Ken Paxton and aren’t liking what they see. As I said earlier:
Paxton presents himself as some sort of Boy Scout Sunday School teacher. And thus far, the press has let him get away with that persona. I hope more journalists get interested in Paxton’s business dealings and bills he filed as a state representative. Perhaps then the voters will see Paxton for what he is instead of the fairy tale they think they know.
In case you missed it, the Allen Police Association rescinded their endorsement of Paxton:
The Allen Police Association on Tuesday withdrew its endorsement for attorney general candidate Ken Paxton, citing last week’s reprimand and $1,000 fine for a state securities law violation and Paxton’s failure to publicly address the issue.
“We were troubled when we learned last week that the Texas State Securities Board determined that Ken Paxton had violated state securities law and, in response, issued a formal reprimand for his professional misconduct,” an announcement signed by association President Matthew Johnson said. “As law enforcement officers, we can no longer support Ken Paxton.”
“This is a criminal offense which could possibly be tried by the presiding district attorney or even possibly the Office of the US Attorney General,” McKinney Police Association stated in a release signed by president Jose Quiles and the political action committee chairman Farrel Ritchie.
“Given that the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer in the state of Texas, the McKinney Police Association feels it is necessary to protect the integrity of the AG office and can no longer support Ken Paxton for attorney general,” they said in a statement.
I’m somewhat surprised that the media has ignored the Texas Watchdog’s 2009 report on Paxton’s conflict of interest concerning Watchguard.
But it’s the company contract with the state of Texas that seem to ensnare Cook and Paxton in an unlawful conflict of interest. The provision that would apply here is Article III, section 18, which prohibits “members of the Legislature from being interested, either directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.”
As you can see by reading that article, ethics problems are nothing new for Ken Paxton. It’s interesting that people “in the know” talk about how Dan Patrick will bring down the R ticket in November if he is the nominee for Lt. Gov. even though polls do not show that happening. The same people ignore the damage that having an ethically challenged, unqualified nominee for Attorney General will do to the ticket. The Democrats in Texas have taken notice, as demonstrated in this tweet by Philip Martin, Deputy Director for @ProgressTX:
It would be a shame if down ballot candidates on the Republican ticket in urban areas lost their races because of a bad candidate at the top of the statewide ticket. Tea party groups need to take a second look at Ken Paxton because the more you know, the more you run away. Just like those two groups of police officers.
Get more stuff like this
Subscribe to our mailing list and keep up with Harris County and Texas politics.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.