Donor Intimidation: Yet ANOTHER Contrast

"You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:16-20

Erick Erickson discusses another contrast between Ken and Dan Branch that we had overlooked:

So that means Dan Branch voted for the same policy that President Obama, Congressional Democrats, and the IRS want. This would stifle the speech of conservative groups during elections. Recently we’ve seen first hand what happens when groups have to disclose their donors: the left takes those disclosures and then targets the donors with boycotts, public reprisals, and any other means to silence these groups. Yet Dan Branch voted for precisely that.

In contrast, Ken Paxton was one of the few Texas legislators to stand against this. Paxton stood up for principle and opposed this terrible bill, just like Governor Perry and Senator Ted Cruz subsequently did.

Texans — and all Americans — need a Texas Attorney General who will stand up and fight President Obama and the Democrats in Washington DC. How in the world can Texans trust Dan Branch to do that when he has already proven that he is willing to sell out conservative groups just like President Obama and the IRS want?

To be honest, Cahnman's Musings is embarrassed we missed this one.  Donor intimidation, whether it's from Barack Obama's IRS or Joe Straus' Texas Ethics Commission is a threat to the liberty of Texans.  As a loyal foot-soldier for team Straus, Dan Branch supports bureaucratic strangling of conservative speech.  Ken Paxton,by contrast, voted against the law last year.  How can you trust an Attorney General to oppose Obama's IRS when he promotes identical policies in Texas?!?