TexasCHLforum.com

Does anybody know anything more about this? I didn't think it was appropriate to ask Driver about it at the meeting tonight. I heard it on the radio on the way to the meeting. Is this a potential show-stopper that could derail campus carry?

See http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/ ... 843222.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Term limits would prevent this sort of thing but it would take a statesman, not a politician to vote for term limits.

Honesty would stop this sort of thing.....nothing else. You can legislate, regulate, or term limit morals and ethics.

texas1234 wrote:Honesty would stop this sort of thing.....nothing else. You can legislate, regulate, or term limit morals and ethics.

That too, but it sometimes seems that the longer they are in office, the more they think that they are immune to er, uh....the .

I'm more concerned about taxpayers paying for "luxury hotels" when so many Texas taxpayers are unemployed or underemployed and struggling to provide the basics for themselves and their families.

boba wrote:I'm more concerned about taxpayers paying for "luxury hotels" when so many Texas taxpayers are unemployed or underemployed and struggling to provide the basics for themselves and their families.

When traveling on the taxpayer dime, politicians and government employees should be reimbursed no more than it would cost to stay at Motel 6 and eat at McDonalds.

I don't understand why his campaign and the state are both paying for the same thing. Campaign money=get me elected. State money=I'm elected and working on state business. Am I reading it correctly that the state reimburses him for campaigning and other personal ventures?

hirundo82 wrote:

boba wrote:I'm more concerned about taxpayers paying for "luxury hotels" when so many Texas taxpayers are unemployed or underemployed and struggling to provide the basics for themselves and their families.

When traveling on the taxpayer dime, politicians and government employees should be reimbursed no more than it would cost to stay at Motel 6 and eat at McDonalds.

That's a real popular attitude but not very practical. Politicians (should) represent us. In order to put their (our) best foot forward and represent their districts well, they should be able to stay in decent accommodations close to whatever activity they are engaged in. Furthermore, the use of the term "luxury" hotels is a meaningless use of words that expresses the opinion of the reporter but doesn't provide the reader with useful information. One man's luxury hotel is another man's Motel 6. What hotels did he stay in? And what room? If he stayed in a Terrace Suite at the Mansion, that's completely different than a single room at the Sheraton, but both are considered luxury hotels (depending upon who you ask.)

The idea that a politician meeting with an executive for a company he or she is trying to woo to move their headquarters to his or her district should conduct that meeting at McDonalds is silly.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I don't understand why his campaign and the state are both paying for the same thing. Campaign money=get me elected. State money=I'm elected and working on state business. Am I reading it correctly that the state reimburses him for campaigning and other personal ventures?

If I understand it correctly, he used campaign funds to pay for travel related to his work as a legislator. Then he filed for reimbursement for the travel from the state and received it. But he did not repay his campaign account, he kept the money.

Or maybe my reading comprehension skills have deteriorated.

I dunno much about it, but every time I see his name I think of a Petition I proofread on a car wreck once.
Defendant's last name was Driver.
All through it was ...


"Defendant driver Driver was driving South on ..."

and

"Defendant Driver"

and

"Defendant driver"

and

"Defendant driver, Driver"

and

"Defendant driver Driver's negligence was a proximate cause ..."