Original sentence: As the bond referendum approached rail critics argued that their fears of bias were confirmed by the paper, which they contend became a partisan participant in the campaign.Further, in keeping with the indications of the memorandum, the Chronicle editorial page became a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption.Most notably, the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint with the Harris County, Texas District Attorney accusing Texans for True Mobility, the main organization opposing the bond, of fundraising improprieties.The Chronicle's complaint was later dismissed and found without merit
Edited sentence: Later that year, the group revealed that two PACs controlled by DeLay had contributed $30,000 the day before the 2003 referendum, when TTM was having trouble funding its advertising campaign.Most notably, the Houston Chronicle filed a complaint with the Harris County, Texas District Attorney charging that Texans for True Mobility, the main organization opposing the referendum, broke state campaign laws by refusing to reveal its contributors' identities.The DA found that no state campaign laws were violated.While the memo controversy has since died down significantly, its critics at the time noted that the Chronicle's Editorial Board continued being a vocal advocate of the expansion of Houston's light rail and charged that the paper became a partisan participant in the debate over light rail expansion