Former Sen. David Sibley, R-Waco, wants his old job back. The senator-turned-lobbyist has been hinting for a couple of weeks and now says he'll be a candidate for his former seat now that Kip Averitt is resigning.Averitt filed for reelection and then — after it was too late to get off of the ballot — decide he doesn't want to serve another term. He won the Republican primary anyway, beating Darren Yancy of Burleson with about 60 percent of the vote. Last week, Averitt resigned — effective today — setting up a special election to replace him for the remainder of his current term. If he withdraws his name from the nomination for another term, which he hasn't done yet, he'll be replaced on the ballot by the chairman of the GOP in the ten counties in the district. Those folks won't be bound by the outcome of a special election, but it might carry some weight. Sibley's announcement came out first thing this morning. Here it is, in full:

DAVID SIBLEY ANNOUNCES RUN FOR TEXAS SENATE DISTRICT 22

“Passion for the district” inspires Republican leader to seek seat he once held

Republican leader, former Baylor basketball star and longtime Waco resident David Sibley announced Wednesday he is running in the May special election to represent the State Senate district he formerly served from 1991 to 2002. The Texas Senate District 22 seat officially became open upon the resignation of Sen. Kip Averitt, and Gov. Rick Perry is expected to call a special election.

“This is a critical time for all families in State Senate District 22 and for Texas,” Sibley said. “Not only will legislators be grappling with a possible $15 billion state budget deficit and a list of other challenging issues, but they will be undertaking the contentious task of redistricting.

“I believe I have a proven conservative track record at getting results, the understanding of the legislative process and the familiarity with issues of importance to Senate District 22 that will benefit all 10 counties in the district during this tough upcoming session. More importantly, my passion for the residents of the District is as strong today as it was when I last had the honor of serving them.

“I’m excited about the opportunity to return to public service for the citizens of Senate District 22, and I look forward to visiting with them in the coming weeks about their concerns and about my vision for results oriented and conservative government in Austin.”

Sibley is planning to travel to each of SD 22’s 10 counties in the coming weeks to announce his candidacy and visit with local residents. Of the 10 counties, Sibley represented all but one during his past public service career in the Texas Senate.

Sibley, a graduate of Baylor University, Baylor College of Dentistry (with honors) and Baylor Law School, practiced oral and maxillofacial surgery in Waco for seven years before starting his career in public service. He served as Mayor of Waco and as a criminal prosecutor in the McLennan County District Attorney’s office before his election to the Texas Senate in 1991.

A key conservative ally of former President and Governor George W Bush, Sibley served as chairman of the State Senate’s Business & Commerce Committee for four legislative sessions. He earned numerous state and national honors for his legislative initiatives, and carried landmark legislation to protect patient rights through health insurance reforms, create jobs, restore balance to the civil justice system, create competition in the telecommunications and electric utility industries in Texas.

Sibley also met specific needs of his District 22 constituents by creating new courts, hospital districts and groundwater districts; empowering local governments to control growth; ensuring the funding of projects at universities within SD 22; and passing other local bills to benefit his constituents.

Sibley left the Senate in January 2002 to open a law and government relations practice. He officially closed the government relations practice of his law firm on March 12, 2010, in preparation for the state senate special election.

A sixth-generation Texan, Sibley and his wife have been married 40 years and live in Waco. Both are very active in their church and have been long time Sunday school and Bible class teachers. They have three grown children, all Baylor University graduates, and three grandchildren. David was captain of the Baylor Basketball team in 1969-1970 and earned “Honorable Mention” distinction on the All-Southwest Conference basketball team.

Voters in South Dallas and Central Texas will have special elections on May 8 to pick new legislators. Gov. Rick Perry called those to replace Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, in HD-100, and Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, in SD-22. Hodge resigned after pleading guilty to federal charges of lying on her tax returns. Averitt decided he didn't want to finish his current term. The winners of the elections to replace them will serve until January, when their terms end. Democrat Eric Johnson won the Democratic primary for Hodge's seat and will take office in January, whether he runs in May or not; nobody else was on the ballot. Averitt's race has drawn interest from former Sen. David Sibley, R-Waco, and from Darren Yancy, R-Burleson, who finished behind Averitt in this month's GOP primary. Averitt hasn't taken his name off the ballot for November, but is expected to do so (possibly after the May election results are in). Once he withdraws his name from the race for a full term, the GOP chairs in the district's ten counties would replace him with the candidate of their choice. Candidates in either of the two specials have to file for office by the close of business on April 7.

The U.S. Supreme Court freed corporations and unions from a century-old ban on political spending Thursday, ruling that restrictions on their electioneering expenditures violate their First Amendment Rights.

In broad terms, the 5-4 decision means corporations and unions can run all the ads they want, so long as they don't coordinate their efforts and messages and plans with the campaigns they're promoting, or with other third-party groups that have similar political interests. A corporation that wants Jane Doe for Governor, for instance, could spend without limit on TV ads to urge voters to elect her, so long as they aren't working in concert with the Doe campaign. The ruling applies to for-profit and non-profit corporations and to unions, opening a door that has been closed, for the most part, since the early 1900s. In its ruling, the court said that door ought to be open, and the penalties for passing through it abolished.

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

The ruling doesn't apply to contributions. Corporations and unions are barred from giving directly to political candidates and that ban remains untouched by the ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

The ruling will change campaign finance in Texas, where corporations and unions face similar restrictions to those in federal law. The March 2 primary elections might be affected — they're now less than six weeks away — but political financial practice here and across the U.S. could undergo serious changes before the general election in November. The ruling opens a new and potentially huge spigot of political money.

The 183-page ruling on expenditures prompted reactions from "cataclysmic" to "fantastic" from election law experts who were eagerly awaiting the ruling. One faction thinks the ruling will flood the political markets with corporate cash, and that that's not a good idea.

"One thing about the political system — it doesn't need more corporate or big business influence," said Fred Lewis of Austin, who lobbies on ethics and campaign finance issues. "The corporate prohibition has been upheld until today — it got upheld by conservative courts. It got upheld by liberal courts. It got upheld."

And there are the First Amendment purists who agreed with the court's view that the existing prohibitions on corporate spending in politics were unconstitutional. The majority was explicit on that point: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Elsewhere, they wrote that transparency will protect voters from the onslaught of campaigning the ruling might unleash. "The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

The court undid a couple of its previous rulings to get to its decision, and also unraveled restrictions — in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws — against running corporation- or union-sponsored issue ads in the last days before an election. That earned the majority the wrath of Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissent in the case. "Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens wrote.

The case started with a partisan documentary called "Hillary: The Movie" that was sharply critical of the former First Lady and then-presidential candidate. Citizens United, the corporation that wanted to distribute the movie on cable, for free, through video on demand services, sued the Federal Election Commission, asking the courts if that was permissible. Lower courts said no, ruling that the documentary was designed to sway voters and that the distribution would constitute corporate spending expressly advocating her defeat. The Supreme Court agreed with that assessment of the content, but said corporations can't be barred from political speech.

Rep. Al Edwards, who lost his reelection bid by 10 votes out of more than 10,000 cast, wants a recount.He lost to Borris Miles of Houston in the Democratic primary. It was a rematch: Miles beat Edwards, who then beat Miles, and now this.