Many of you have asked why I chose not to file and run for the city council seat to be vacated by Raul Alvarez. My good friend and campaign treasurer, Alfred Stanley and I reflected on this issue for many days prior to my decision. You’ll find our reasons by scrolling down and reading the op-ed piece that the Austin American Statesman ran on March 11, 2006.

COMMENTARY

Uribe and Stanley: We couldn't play the city's game, so we're out
Hector Uribe and Alfred Stanley, LOCAL CONTRIBUTORS
Tuesday, March 14, 2006

In 1997, Austin voters were persuaded to amend our city charter by a group that promised "a little less corruption" by banning contributions of more than $100 per donor and limiting the time frame in which donations can be raised. Reform, however, often produces unintended consequences. The charter changes have shifted candidates' focus from seeking support from individuals to seeking support from political committees, popularly known as PACs.

PACs are governed by state law. They can raise money year round without limit, and they can spend without limit, provided they spend "independently" of the candidates they support. PACs almost always have a fairly narrow set of interests and seek to steer policy in ways that suit those interests.

When a candidate begins the race with a 100 percent assurance that a powerful PAC is on his side, it's the equivalent to starting a 100-meter race a third of the way down the track. That's why a Hector Uribe campaign for City Council is not going to materialize. No PAC support means no campaign.

Rising in power along with Austin's narrow-interest PACs have been "quasi-PACs," unofficial networks of individuals who act in concert to steer financial resources to candidates or to actual PACs. A favored technique of the quasi-PACs is bundling — the practice of placing several $100 checks inside an envelope, the contents of which often add up to $1,000 or more. Bundling is supposed to be reported; we believe it seldom is. Recently, one of the city's contractors was found guilty of laundering corporate money through such bundles. If this is "a little less corruption," we'd hate to see what "a lot less corruption" would have looked like.

When word of PAC support gets around, the bundlers show up and the candidate can hire staff, establish a Web site and print campaign material, confident that the PAC will supplement his efforts.

Candidates without the support of a PAC are pretty much limited to their own network of friends and business associates, each of whom is limited to a $100 donation. It's the equivalent of nailing the candidates' track shoes to the starting blocks.

Austin's two most powerful PACs are clearly the police and firefighters unions. Every member of our City Council was elected with support of one or most often both unions. The police, backed by real estate interests, elected a recently retired police officer to the council in 2000. The firefighters, allied with environmentalists, hope to elect one of their own this year. Both PACs are dedicated to increased spending for public safety, including salaries and pension benefits.

These are not unworthy goals, but there are no PACs for libraries. There are no PACs for senior centers. There are no PACs for balance in allocating the city's resources.

If the purpose of the Austin campaign charter amendment was to prevent the rich and powerful from making deals in the proverbial smoke-filled room, then perhaps we should consider whether we have simply substituted the PACS for the large contributors.

We concede that we have not been able to gain support from the PACs. That was never the point. However, without it, the campaign is not viable. We are informing supporters that there will be no Uribe candidacy in 2006 and that we will return their contributions in full.

Uribe, an attorney and former state senator, announced his candidacy for the Austin City Council in the fall. Stanley is his treasurer.