Lawyer: Speaker's daughter free to be paid by father's campaign

Christi Craddick is far from a dependent child prohibited from being paid from her father's political account, lawyer says.

Christi Craddick is far from a dependent child, and the fact that she's being paid from her father's political account isn't improper, a lawyer for Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick said Wednesday.

The daughter of the House leader is a thirtysomething lawyer and a former lobbyist who's at the heart of the Midland Republican's successful political operation. Her father pays her $12,000 a month from his political contributions to take care of the campaign's legal work, fundraising, payroll and bill paying as well as to maintain his political calendar.

Responding to a complaint filed Tuesday against the speaker, Austin lawyer Ed Shack said of Craddick's daughter: "She's not a dependent child; she's an independent woman. She's allowed to do work for his campaign."

Shack said the complaint, filed with the Texas Ethics Commission by Democratic activist and blogger John Cobarruvias, is a frivolous attempt to embarrass Craddick in a heated campaign for the speaker's job in the upcoming legislative session.

Cobarruvias, a software engineer in Houston, has become a self-appointed ethics watchdog, filing complaints against public officials who he thinks have violated campaign finance laws.

In this instance, the law at issue prohibits public officials or candidates from paying themselves, their spouses or their dependent children with campaign donations. The law, passed in the 1990s, was in response to two senators who used campaign donations to prop up their businesses.

Shack said the law was intended for a lawmaker's immediate family still at home, not adult children out on their own.

There have been other instances of officials paying their adult children to run their campaigns. 2006 gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn paid her son, Brad McClellan, to be her campaign manager.

In his complaint, Cobarruvias argued that Christi Craddick is a dependent because her father provides substantial, if not all, of her financial support.

But Shack said the Texas Ethics Commission uses an IRS standard as a guideline as to whether lawmakers should list a dependent on their personal financial statements. It says, "A child is considered a dependent if you provided more than 50 percent of the child's support during a calendar year."

"It says, 'a child,' " Shack said. "End of story."

Cobarruvias said Wednesday that Craddick is violating the spirit of the law: "His family is profiting from this, and it's a way for lobbyists to support him."

A 1997 law expanded the definition of dependent under the state insurance program. Before the change, a dependent had included a state employee's spouse and unmarried children under 25.

The change added "any such child who is unmarried, regardless of age." It allows unmarried children of state employees or retirees — such as Christi Craddick — to continue their state health coverage indefinitely, but they have to pay their premiums. There is no taxpayer subsidy.

Of the 500,000 insured members, the Employee Retirement System of Texas said 117 people are covered under the expanded definition of dependent.

Shack said the insurance definition is irrelevant because it's a different law that has nothing to do with campaign finance.

lcopelin@statesman.com; 445-3617