Houston Chronicle: Vaccine maker gave to fundraiser

The maker of an anti-cancer vaccine that Gov. Rick Perry mandated for Texas schoolgirls contributed $50,000 to a GOP fundraiser chaired by the governor, but a spokesman for the organization said Tuesday that the donation had nothing to do with Perry's controversial order.

Vaccine maker gave to fundraiser

GOP group says Perry didn't solicit $50,000 donation

By GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
February 28, 2007

AUSTIN — The maker of an anti-cancer vaccine that Gov. Rick Perry mandated for Texas schoolgirls contributed $50,000 to a GOP fundraiser chaired by the governor, but a spokesman for the organization said Tuesday that the donation had nothing to do with Perry's controversial order.

Merck & Co. has contributed $50,000 a year for at least the past six years, said Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

"It's just a part of what they do annually," he said.

The governor has come under fire after issuing an executive order earlier this month requiring schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, which protects women against most cases of cervical cancer.

The only anti-HPV vaccine on the market is called Gardasil, produced by Merck.

Last week the Houston Chronicle, Associated Press and other news organizations reported that Perry's chief of staff met with Perry aides last fall to discuss the HPV vaccine on the same day that Merck gave $5,000 to Perry's campaign.

"If a cynic wants to see a controversy, they can make controversy out of almost anything, even thin air," Perry spokesman Robert Black said of questions about Merck contributions involving the governor. "This is AP's latest, much-to-do-about-nothing story.

"The governor did not ask Merck for any money. He did not solicit Merck for any money for the Republican Governors Association," Black said.

Merck's annual $50,000 contribution to the Republican Governors Association makes it "a little hard to say that it was related to Mr. Perry," said Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans For Public Justice, a nonprofit organization that tracks money and politics.

"Merck is certainly giving heavily politically because it has a political agenda. All that's clear," Wheat said.

Perry served as dinner chairman, one of three elected positions in the Republican Governors Association.

Dallas Morning News: Perry in D.C.: chats, checks

Texas Gov. Rick Perry helped raise $10.4 million Monday night for the Republican Governors Association – a tenfold payback for two big checks the group sent in the final days of last fall's re-election fight. "We like setting records in Texas," Mr. Perry boasted to hundreds of guests at the gala, explaining that he'd had a little help smashing the group's record by $2 million. Read the article at the Dallas Morning News

Perry in D.C.: chats, checks

Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry helped raise $10.4 million Monday night for the Republican Governors Association – a tenfold payback for two big checks the group sent in the final days of last fall's re-election fight.

"We like setting records in Texas," Mr. Perry boasted to hundreds of guests at the gala, explaining that he'd had a little help smashing the group's record by $2 million. "It's called the Democrat Congress. Their strategy is to tax and to spend and to regulate and to litigate. And I happen to think that's the wrong vision for America."

Two hours earlier, Mr. Perry had wrapped up a meeting with a half-dozen members of the Texas congressional delegation, three from each party. He told reporters he'd found much common ground with members of both parties on issues of energy, federal funding for health care programs, and immigration and border security. Even the Democrats agreed.

But this is Washington, where partisans shift from collaboration to confrontation in a heartbeat.

President Bush, the keynoter for the fundraising dinner, lauded his successor's efforts.

"This is a record-setting evening, and it took an extraordinary leader from a great state to convince you to contribute," Mr. Bush told hundreds of guests at the National Building Museum. "I've set a big agenda here in Washington, D.C. ... But my political agenda is this: more Republican governors, take back control of the House and the Senate, and make sure we keep the White House in 2008."

Mr. Perry said he'd do his part, by raising money to elect more GOP governors.

"I'm not spending a lot of energy on it. I'm just very efficient," he told Texas reporters before the dinner, adding that donors have been very receptive. "I call, and they think it's a good association."

The three-day weekend in Washington gave Mr. Perry a small respite from controversies raging back home. He outraged fellow Texas conservatives, for instance, by trying to require vaccinations against the virus that causes cervical cancer for all Texas school girls. Vaccine-maker Merck & Co., whose Austin lobbyist is a former Perry chief of staff, donated $50,000 to Monday's dinner.

Mr. Perry was a top governors association beneficiary last year, receiving $1 million weeks before winning another term with 39 percent of the vote.

The timing of the donations raised eyebrows, because they coincided closely with donations to the GOP governors group from Mr. Perry's biggest patron, Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, no relation.

Texas law allows unlimited contributions, and Bob Perry gave the governor $275,000 last year.

On Oct. 6, he sent the group $1 million; 20 days later the group sent the governor $500,000. He sent another $550,000 on Oct. 31; one day later the Republican Governors Association sent the governor $500,000. In all, Bob Perry gave the association $2.05 million, federal records show, making him the group's top donor. All parties call the timing coincidental.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said he thinks the money was to raise Rick Perry's national profile. "It all fits into the bigger picture of pay-to-play politics in Texas," he said.

After the election, GOP governors tapped Mr. Perry to chair their annual dinner – a top honor for a colleague who hadn't been especially active in the group.

The dinner program listed Bob Perry as a $100,000 sponsor.

Earlier Monday, the governor joined governors from both parties at the White House for a meeting with the president. And he attended a White House dinner for the governors the night before.

The 45-minute meeting with House members from Texas touched on funding for health coverage, and Mr. Perry reiterated his opposition to the 700-mile border fence approved last fall when Republicans controlled Congress.

"It was very productive," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas.

Houston Chronicle: Perry spearheads fundraising dinner

Texas Gov. Rick Perry will get a break from some testy times in his home state when fellow GOP governors laud him next week for his fundraising prowess. Contributions for the Republican Governors Association reception with President Bush on Monday will break a fundraising record, said Nick Ayers, executive director of the association. Perry led the effort of the governors to pitch the reception to contributors.

Perry spearheads fundraising dinner

By SUZANNE GAMBOA
© 2007 The Associated Press
Feb. 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry will get a break from some testy times in his home state when fellow GOP governors laud him next week for his fundraising prowess.

Contributions for the Republican Governors Association reception with President Bush on Monday will break a fundraising record, said Nick Ayers, executive director of the association. Perry led the effort of the governors to pitch the reception to contributors.

"Perry's leadership has been phenomenal," Ayers said. "His willingness to be so involved has inspired other governors to being helpful as well."

Last year's dinner raised $8.2 million for the organization, and this year's is expected to raise at least another million. The actual tally was to be announced Monday.

The accolades should serve as a respite from the criticism Perry's had to fend off in Texas recently. He's been on the defensive over his mandate that Texas school girls be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

The mandate has angered conservatives who oppose its intrusion into families and see it as a contradiction to the state's abstinence-only sex education policies. Questions also have been raised about Perry's ties to Merck & Co., the maker of the vaccine. Perry's former chief of staff now lobbies for the company.

Perry's office has denied any wrongdoing and says the governor's only interest is battling cancer in Texas.

Perry is scheduled to be in Washington over the weekend and through Monday for the governors' winter meeting. Most of the meetings are not open to the public. His office said he'll also attend meetings scheduled by the National Governors Association, although Perry is not a member of the bipartisan group.

Of the donors to the Republican group, the top giver last year was Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, no relation to the governor. He gave $2.05 million, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks fundraising and spending.

Bob Perry was the largest political donor in Texas in 2006 and gave $380,000 to Perry's campaign, according to Texans for Public Justice, a political watchdog group.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Legislator-lawyer seeks delay in death case

Attorneys involved in a lawsuit involving the death of a natural gas field worker in Wise County two years ago are wrangling over the status of state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, who has joined the defense team of EnCana Oil & Gas USA and asked for a “legislative leave,” a move that would postpone court dates in the case until 30 days after the Legislature adjourns.

Legislator-lawyer seeks delay in death case

By DAN PILLER, STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
2/23/07

Attorneys involved in a lawsuit involving the death of a natural gas field worker in Wise County two years ago are wrangling over the status of state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, who has joined the defense team of EnCana Oil & Gas USA and asked for a “legislative leave,” a move that would postpone court dates in the case until 30 days after the Legislature adjourns.

King earlier this month became part of the legal team defending EnCana, based in Alberta, Canada, in a suit filed by the widow and daughters of Tab Dotson, a contract worker killed April 19, 2005, when the forklift he was driving accidentally knocked open a closed gas well in rural Wise County. The ensuing explosion and fire killed Dotson instantly. Another worker was injured.

Dotson’s family alleges that EnCana and its subcontractor, Cudd Pressure Controls, gave Dotson inaccurate information about the well as he prepared a site for a new well. Logs and witness statements say the workers’ employer was told that the well was dead and had no pressure, according to the lawsuit.

Preparations for the case have been proceeding for months. But a long-standing state law allows legislator-lawyers to seek continuances in pending court cases until a current session ends, which is not likely until June. The Dotson family’s attorneys have asked for a hearing on the validity of King’s claim; the matter is set for Monday in Wise County District Court.

“King’s attempt to delay this trial and deny the rights of the family of Tab Dotson are immoral, unethical and not permitted by Texas law,” said Fort Worth lawyer Seth Anderson, representing the Dotson family. Anderson said attempts to reach a settlement with EnCana earlier this month had failed and efforts toward mediation had ended. The case was set for a hearing March 20.

King, in a reply filed along with EnCana lawyer Jason Tillie of Fort Worth, said, “Mr. King intends to participate actively in the preparation and/or presentation of the case and did not take this employment for the purpose of obtaining a continuance.”

In an interview earlier this week, King expressed annoyance with Anderson for objecting to his presence in the case. Anderson filed an affidavit alleging that he and King had discussed the matter months earlier, which in Anderson’s view rendered King ineligible to serve as EnCana’s counsel.

“I’ve done a lot of oil and gas work. I’m perfectly qualified to be the attorney,” said King, who is chairman of the House Regulated Industries Committee. “I’m good to go for the trial. I just asked that it be held off until after the session ends.”

According to Texans for Public Justice, 32 lawyer-legislators have used the 76-year-old legislative leave law to obtain 431 court delays in a two-year period studied by the group.

The group’s survey shows that among lawyer-lawmakers, King recorded 53 lawmaker continuances between 2003 and 2006, second only to the 241 continuances by Rep. Roberto Alonzo, a Democrat from Dallas.

King defended his continuance record, saying, “I’m just a sole practitioner. I had a guy hired last year to help in the office when I’m in session, but he quit on me. I have to keep my practice going, and this is the only way to do it.”

Until 2003, such continuances did not have to be disclosed, but complaints about possible abuse of the practice led the Legislature to pass a bill requiring disclosure.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: TXU seeks a lock on the market

In a deregulated market, the government isn't supposed to pick winners and losers. But TXU's request to build 11 coal-fired power plants puts Texas in the position of kingmaker. So far, the debate has been mainly about the plants' effects on air pollution and global warming, which will be the focus of state hearings. But let's not overlook the impact on competition and innovation. TXU is already the state's largest power producer. Add $10 billion worth of low-cost coal plants in one fell swoop, and the Dallas utility may lock up much of the market before anyone gets the chance to experiment.

TXU seeks a lock on the market

By Mitchell Schnurman, Star-Telegram Staff Writer
2/21/07

In a deregulated market, the government isn't supposed to pick winners and losers. But TXU's request to build 11 coal-fired power plants puts Texas in the position of kingmaker.

So far, the debate has been mainly about the plants' effects on air pollution and global warming, which will be the focus of state hearings.

But let's not overlook the impact on competition and innovation. TXU is already the state's largest power producer. Add $10 billion worth of low-cost coal plants in one fell swoop, and the Dallas utility may lock up much of the market before anyone gets the chance to experiment.

"We could have excess power capacity for at least 10 years, and that would pretty much exclude all the new technologies from entering Texas," said David Litman, a Dallas entrepreneur who founded hotels.com.

Litman leads a large group, Texas Business for Clean Air, that opposes the TXU plan and is lobbying the Legislature to delay TXU's request. Dozens of prominent business leaders are on board, including developer Trammell S. Crow and the chairman of The Container Store, Garrett Boone.

Usually, those are the kind of guys who support TXU and any business expansion, particularly something as crucial as electricity. But they say the plants would be bad for business because more air pollution threatens federal funds, discourages corporate relocations and makes it tougher to recruit talent to the area.

Not surprisingly, TXU says rejecting the plants would be bad for business. It would lead to higher prices and an uncertain energy supply, keeping more companies away.

So which is worse, expensive electricity or dirty air?

In Texas, unfortunately, we already have both. Toyota and Boeing scratched North Texas off their lists of possible manufacturing sites because of air quality. And electricity prices have been among the country's highest since deregulation began early in the decade.

Something isn't working, and consumers have been complaining loudly. That's why lawmakers in Austin are considering ways to improve deregulation. One suggestion: figure out a way to encourage innovation in clean technologies in addition to watching prices all the time.

Advances in technology hold the most promise for a long-term solution -- a power plant that generates affordable energy without harming the environment.

Those breakthroughs are important to more than Texas. The biggest threat to global warming comes from developing countries that are building coal plants rapidly as more of their people get electricity for the first time.

Why can't Texas try to become a hotbed for new power plant technology and then try to export that to China and India? The state is already a leader in wind power.

With a growing population and expanding economy, it should be able to attract all kinds of players with new ideas as long as there's room to operate.

TXU getting its way would suck the oxygen out of the market because TXU's price basis would be so low, Litman says. Others couldn't match its costs because they wouldn't build as many plants or have the same kind of existing environmental permits.

Many critics also say that TXU is rushing the timetable so the plants can be approved before Congress imposes carbon restrictions. That would make facilities more expensive, adding a burden for potential rivals.

Simply proposing 11 new plants might dissuade some competitors from exploring the market, says Clarence Johnson of the Office of Public Utility Counsel, which represents residential and small commercial customers in utility cases.

"It's an issue of market power," Johnson said. "Even if there might be a market for others, there may be too much risk to try to compete."

TXU's proposal is too audacious for most companies to attempt, as evidenced by the surging opposition from business leaders, mayors and environmentalists. But TXU has serious clout in Austin, where it consistently ranks No. 2 in spending on lobbyists, according to Texas Ethics Commission records compiled by Texans for Public Justice, an Austin research group.

TXU currently has 59 people, including employees, registered to lobby the Legislature. Two of the hottest issues this session -- deregulation and coal plants -- involve TXU directly.

One lawmaker has proposed a cap on a company's generating capacity in any single region rather than for the state as a whole. The Legislature imposed a statewide cap earlier, hoping that would prevent market dominance and the risk of manipulation.

If a new limit were approved on a regional basis, TXU would have to divest plants in North Texas, where it's the dominant provider.

There's also a proposed amendment that would exclude coal gasification plants from the cap as a way to encourage investment in cleaner but unproven technologies. That's moving in the right direction.

If Texas sanctions some old-style coal plants for the short term, it should push hard for investments in the future, too.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Working the Lobby

When Rick Perry assembled his senior staff after being sworn in as governor for the first time, he promised Texans that he would have the most stringent policy in history when it came to slowing down the so-called revolving door that enables top officials to trade the skills honed in government service for lucrative careers in lobbying. "It just goes to show you that Texas is still the Wild, Wild West when it comes to the revolving door that sends people from government service, to the lobby, back to government service and back to the lobby," said Andrew Wheat, a spokesman for Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group. Working the lobby

Some former top aides to Rick Perry who have moved to the private sector have a nearly $10 million stake in state business

By JOHN MORITZ, STAR-TELEGRAM AUSTIN BUREAU
February 20, 2007

AUSTIN -- When Rick Perry assembled his senior staff after being sworn in as governor for the first time, he promised Texans that he would have the most stringent policy in history when it came to slowing down the so-called revolving door that enables top officials to trade the skills honed in government service for lucrative careers in lobbying.

But six years later, more than a dozen of Perry's former senior aides as both governor and lieutenant governor are now lobbying lawmakers and top statewide officials on some of the highest-profile issues awaiting the governor's and the Legislature's attention.

And added together, the lobbying contracts of those former aides are worth up to nearly $10 million, according to a Star-Telegram analysis of data maintained by the Texas Ethics Commission.

"It just goes to show you that Texas is still the Wild, Wild West when it comes to the revolving door that sends people from government service, to the lobby, back to government service and back to the lobby," said Andrew Wheat, a spokesman for Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.

Forces across the political spectrum have targeted the ties between former Perry staffers and the Austin lobby because of initiatives that the Republican governor has been pushing since taking office for his second full term last month.

Hot issues

Conservative organizations, such as the Texas Eagle Forum, have suggested that Perry issued a controversial vaccine order because his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is a lobbyist for the vaccine's manufacturer, Merck & Co. The order requires girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated for the sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.

Groups including the more liberal Texans for Public Justice have raised questions about the appearance of former Perry staffer Ray Sullivan lobbying on behalf of the financial services giant UBS, which might be among the bidders if the governor's proposal to sell the Texas lottery comes to pass. The firm has also hired 23-year-old Griffin Perry, the governor's son.

Neither Sullivan nor the younger Perry has any dealings with the firm's lottery activities.

Perry's office has said that the governor had nothing to do with his son's employment status. In an interview with Capitol reporters last week, Perry said that any attention given to his son's job was "minutiae" in light of the more pressing issues facing the state.

The governor also said he is unconcerned with criticism about his former staffers taking lobbying jobs because all have followed guidelines he set in 2000. The guidelines forbid them to try to influence the governor's office for one full legislative session after they leave the payroll.

"It doesn't bother me a bit," Perry said. "There are people who have left government since, I suppose ... they created government 200 years ago, that went off to the private sector and made money."

And most of the former senior Perry aides are making substantial money, according to the reports on file with the ethics commission.

Toomey, who served in the House with Perry in the 1980s and was Perry's chief of staff in 2003 and 2004, lists 10 lobby clients whose contracts this year are worth up to $1.55 million.

Lobbyists must report the value of the contracts in ranges, such as $25,000 to $49,999 or $50,000 to $99,999.

Dan Shelley, who was Perry's chief liaison to the Legislature in 2005, has 10 clients with contracts totaling up to $1.2 million.

Sullivan, who was press secretary during Perry's two years as lieutenant governor, lists five lobby clients whose contracts are worth up to $400,000.

Revolving door

Critics say the revolving door from government service to the lobby raises questions in the public's mind over where the officials' loyalties lie.

"Members of the public are already distrustful of their government," Wheat said. "So they are apt to wonder, 'Whose interests are being served, the public's interests or these private interests?'"

Sullivan rejected the notion that a lobbyist cannot serve both or that it is somehow unseemly to take a private-sector job after working for a public official.

"Regardless of profession, everyone builds their career based on what they know," he said. "Prosecutors, after they leave office, sometimes become defense lawyers. Professional athletes become sportscasters. Reporters and editorial writers become press secretaries. The only difference is, we are required by law to disclose our clients and our salary ranges.

"I went into politics and government service because I had strongly held beliefs," he added. "I carry those beliefs with me as an advocate for my clients."

In 2000, Perry said his policy of barring senior staff members from lobbying his office for at least one legislative session was stricter than any of his predecessors' policies.

He also requires them to disclose outside income and real estate holdings.

"I think the people of the state of Texas deserve to know that the individuals that are working for them in the governor's office adhere to what I consider to be not only strict but higher standards," he said at the time.

Wheat said that while the rhetoric sounded tough, the record shows that the revolving door spins uninterrupted.

"It just shows that the ethics laws really have no teeth in this state," he said.

Nonsense, Perry replied.

"Now if you can show me one place where someone has made an unethical, illegal transaction, please do," he said. "I would suggest to you, in 22 years of public service, I've probably been looked at as closely as anybody. And not once has there been an illegal activity. .. If you've got any clear evidence of wrongdoing, go to [Travis County District Attorney] Ronnie Earle with it."


IN THE KNOW

Perry's former aides
Here are some of the best-paid lobbyists who are former senior aides to Rick Perry. The dollar amount is the high-end worth of their lobbying contracts:

-Robert Howden, former communications director: $675,000
-Victoria Ford, former legislative liaison: $580,000
-Ray Sullivan, former press secretary: $400,000
-Mark Borskey, former legislative liaison: $400,000
SOURCE: Texas Ethics Commission

AIDE TO LOBBYIST
A look at three former Perry aides and the value of their lobbying contracts.

-MIKE TOOMEY
Former chief of staff
Contracts worth up to: $1.55 million

-DAN SHELLEY
Former legislative liaison
Contracts worth up to: $1.2 million

-PATRICIA SHIPTON
Former legislative liaison
Contracts worth up to: $860,000

Dallas Morning News: Dallas judge fined for not filing campaign finance reports

Judge Bruce Priddy says he didn't raise a dime before last year's election because he wanted to avoid ethics problems. But now he owes $10,500 to the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to file campaign finance reports. "We think it's more important for the judiciary than perhaps any other form of government," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group that tracks donations. "Texas' unique judicial election system, which allows judges to take campaign money from the parties in their courtroom, creates huge conflicts of interest." Read the article at the Dallas Morning News

Dallas judge fined for not filing campaign finance reports

Judge didn't think he needed to disclose if he raised no money; 9 other candidates also failed to file

By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
Sunday, February 18, 2007

Judge Bruce Priddy says he didn't raise a dime before last year's election because he wanted to avoid ethics problems. But now he owes $10,500 to the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to file campaign finance reports.

Judge Priddy, who presides over a Dallas County civil court, is one of 10 North Texas political candidates listed as delinquent filers by the ethics commission, which enforces state laws regarding campaign contributions. They were fined between $500 and $11,500, mostly for filing their reports late.

The required disclosure is intended to show the public who donates money to public officials and how the candidates spend their money.

"We think it's more important for the judiciary than perhaps any other form of government," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group that tracks donations. "Texas' unique judicial election system, which allows judges to take campaign money from the parties in their courtroom, creates huge conflicts of interest."

Judge Priddy agrees and said that's why he didn't raise money. But he misread the requirements related to candidates who take in less than $500 and is now trying to fix the problem, he said.

"It's ironic that I'm now branded as a campaign finance violator," he said. "My trouble with the whole system is the fact that judicial campaigns are run mainly by asking attorneys who practice before you for money. It is something that has always been a big conflict for me."

Like Judge Priddy, many candidates raised less in their campaigns than the amount they are now being fined.

Other local candidates with hefty fines on the list include:

• Heath Harris, chief gang-crime prosecutor for the Dallas County district attorney's office, who lost a Democratic primary for criminal district judge. He was fined $11,500 for filing most of his reports after the November general election. A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office said he declined to comment.

• Fred Burns, a grand jury prosecutor, who lost the Republican primary in the same judicial race. He was fined $10,000 for being late on his July report but was removed from the list last week after paying penalties. He also declined to comment.

• Jack Borden, a retired salesman, who ran as a Democrat against state Rep. Dan Branch in the district representing parts of Dallas and the Park Cities. He was fined $11,000 for filing all his reports in October. He said he has been trying to get the issue resolved since then.

Even Democratic Party Chairwoman Darlene Ewing is on the commission's list. She was fined $500 for being late on her July report.

Ms. Ewing said she thought she had filed it electronically on time but later found out it didn't go through because of a computer error. She added that she has been trying to get the penalty waived since August.

"They don't really look at the circumstances," she said. "It was a software problem, No. 1. I thought I filed it, No. 2. And I reported zero contributions, zero expenditures and zero cash on hand."

Natalia Ashley, general counsel for the ethics commission, said that the state ethics law requires candidates to file and that fines are automatically assessed when reports are late.

"We don't come up with the amount of the fine," she said. But "the commission typically reduces and waives fines based on the circumstances."

The statute allows candidates to opt out of regular filing if they don't intend to raise or spend more than $500. But candidates still must file a report every six months.

"I was under the impression that I could skip all of them," said Judge Priddy, the only local election winner on the list. "I'm going to talk to the Texas Ethics Commission and get it definitively resolved and try to figure out if it was my mistake."

He said he first received a letter in October regarding his July report and recalls being told by the commission not to worry because he was exempt. He said he received another letter last week.

But in an effort to remain above board, he doesn't want to use county time or resources to call the commission.

Judge Priddy did raise money during his 2002 run for county court judge but decided not to in 2006. He hasn't decided whether he will do so in 2010.

"I'm torn ethically with the raising of the money and the self-preservation that one has to do to win re-election," he said.

Mr. McDonald of Texans for Public Justice said despite Judge Priddy's intentions to avoid conflicts of interest, he is feeding into skepticism about the system by not filing his reports.

"The public is already cynical about judges," he said. "If he didn't raise money, all he needs to do is file a report and tell us."

SAEN: End approaching for governor's edict on cervical cancer vaccine

By now, it should be obvious that Gov. Rick Perry's legally questionable order on the cervical cancer vaccine is on a fast track to nowhere. It simply will remain a catalyst for discussion of a critical health issue, which may be mainly what the governor had in mind anyway.Read the article at the San Antonio Express-News

Clay Robison: End approaching for governor's edict on cervical cancer vaccine

San Antonio Express-News
02/18/2007

AUSTIN — By now, it should be obvious that Gov. Rick Perry's legally questionable order on the cervical cancer vaccine is on a fast track to nowhere.

It simply will remain a catalyst for discussion of a critical health issue, which may be mainly what the governor had in mind anyway.

If Chairwoman Dianne White Delisi has her way, the House Public Health Committee will take the first major step today toward overturning the edict. The full House and the Senate likely will follow suit.

Delisi's opposition to the governor's mandate is philosophical. She believes the new vaccine against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, has potential but needs to be studied more before schoolgirls are required to be inoculated.

It, nevertheless, is ironic that Delisi, R-Temple, will play a key role in deep-sixing the initiative. Her daughter-in-law, Deirdre Delisi, is Perry's chief of staff. Also, the legislator is a former chairwoman — and still is listed as a state director, although she says she is no longer active — of Women in Government, a health care advocacy group partially funded by Merck, the HPV vaccine's manufacturer.

Delisi also received a $1,000 contribution from Merck's political action committee during the 2005-06 election cycle, according to Texans for Public Justice, which tracks political donations.

There even have been whispers, which Delisi adamantly denies, that she played a behind-the-scenes role in drafting the controversial order for the governor.

Delisi said she was blindsided by Perry, as were other lawmakers.

"It was a great surprise to me," she said.

Delisi is confident that her committee and the full House will approve separate bills to overturn Perry's mandate and, in its place, order the Texas Department of State Health Services to develop a new education program on HPV.

She wouldn't make any predictions about the Senate, but 26 of the 31 senators have signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw his order.

Delisi also opposes proposals to impose a similar vaccine requirement by law. Instead, she said, education needs time to work while the vaccine proves itself.

Delisi said she scheduled legislation to rescind the governor's HPV order early because it was timely and she wants to leave the Public Health Committee time to tackle other issues, including Medicaid, later in the session.

But Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, the sponsor of the bill, indicated there also is another reason. He said he wanted to leave time for the Legislature to have a chance to override a Perry veto, if the governor tries to strike down the legislation.

I doubt Perry would do that and further antagonize lawmakers weighing the fate of other proposals that are important to him, but the possibility presents an interesting scenario.

The Legislature doesn't usually get the chance to override most gubernatorial vetoes because most vetoes are issued after sessions have adjourned. Most bills go to the governor's desk in the final days of a session, which means the governor can wait until after lawmakers have gone home to kill bills he finds objectionable.

The goal, as outlined by Bonnen, is to get his bill to the governor in time for Perry to have to sign or veto it while the Legislature is still in town. Perry would have a 10-day deadline.

A veto override requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, and only one veto has been overridden in recent memory. That was in 1979, when a Legislature still dominated by Democrats defied Republican Gov. Bill Clements' veto of a local hunting bill.

There are still a few other ways in which Perry's HPV order could be thwarted:

Attorney General Greg Abbott could rule the order exceeds the governor's authority. Abbott has been asked for an opinion.

The Legislature could put a "rider," or special provision, in the appropriations bill, prohibiting funds from being spent to carry out the order.

Perry could rescind it.

"Not going to happen," said Robert Black, Perry's spokesman, of the third possibility.

Lobby Watch:Toomey's SMerck®: Experts At A Loss To Explain How Governor Got HPV Bug

The Capitol has been abuzz since Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order on February 2 directing prepubescent Texas girls to get vaccinated for sexually-transmitted viruses that can cause cervical cancer. Governor Perry’s uncharacteristic executive order has fostered endless speculation about what occurred behind the scenes.
Read the Lobby Watch

AAS: Perry aide urged administrators to back higher education plan

A government watchdog group is criticizing an adviser to Gov. Rick Perry for e-mailing dozens of university regents, chancellors and presidents to urge them to endorse his higher education reform plan. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said he believes the e-mail inappropriately sets out "marching orders" for administrators. They need to have the freedom to tell lawmakers what's best for their own campuses, he added.

Perry aide urged administrators to back higher education plan

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press Writer
2/14/07

AUSTIN — A government watchdog group is criticizing an adviser to Gov. Rick Perry for e-mailing dozens of university regents, chancellors and presidents to urge them to endorse his higher education reform plan.

The e-mail sent Sunday by Wayne R. Roberts, Perry's senior adviser for higher education, asks the administrators to "please formally endorse the Gov.'s proposals" on incentive funding, financial aid and the elimination of so-called special items from the budget.

"We need your support in testimony at all of the committees and in behind-the-scenes conversations with members," the-e-mail obtained by The Associated Press said.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said he believes the e-mail inappropriately sets out "marching orders" for administrators. They need to have the freedom to tell lawmakers what's best for their own campuses, he added.

"It reads like an order to get on the bandwagon and sends a message that educators should only tell legislators what the governor wants them to hear," said McDonald, whose group tracks the effect of money and corporate power in politics.

Perry spokesman Robert Black would not respond to McDonald's interpretation, but said the vast majority of university chancellors and regents support the governor's plan.

McDonald was especially irked by a line about the elimination of "special items" — or earmarks on top of a university's base budget — that pay for projects such as an institute for environmental research at the University of Houston-Clear Lake. Some administrators have balked at the proposed cuts, saying special items make up sizable chunks of their operating budgets.

"The Gov. is not a fan of special items," Roberts said in the e-mail. "Discussing them at length and requesting new ones in lieu of addressing the statewide needs proposed by the Gov. has caused some concern."

One high-level university official, who asked that he not be identified because he fears repercussions for criticizing the plan, told the AP he considers the e-mail a message to stop pushing for special items for his campus. Still, the official said he would not change his position because about a fifth of his budget comes from special items.

Another top university official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Perry's office called members of his system's board of regents and told them to get system administrators to endorse the plan.

But Charles Matthews, chancellor of the Texas State University System, said he hasn't been pushed by the governor's office to promote the reform plan.

As for the e-mail, he said he didn't view it as "anything other than informational."

Black said Perry wants to take a statewide approach to funding higher education with the primary goal of graduating more students.

"If a university has a particular earmark or special project that they need funding for, they should bring that to the Legislature and argue its merits," Black said. "That's the process we have. Just to say 'Well it's always been funded therefore it should always be funded,' is ridiculous."

Texas law prohibits state agencies from using appropriated money to attempt to influence the fate of a legislative measure. It was not immediately clear if administrators who spoke out in support of the plan risked running up against the law.

The Texas Ethics Commission referred questions about the statute to the state attorney general's office, which in turn referred questions back to the ethics commission.

Dallas Morning News: Perry's son hired by firm consulting on lottery

UBS, one of two large financial firms consulting with the governor's office over the possible sale of the Texas lottery, hired Gov. Rick Perry's son to work in its Dallas office about two weeks ago. The governor's office said that there is no relationship between the two events and that Griffin Perry, 23, is a bright young economist who is pursuing a career on his own merits. Read the article at the Dallas Morning News

Perry's son hired by firm consulting on lottery

Exclusive: Correlation denied, but company stands to gain from sale

Tuesday, February 13, 2007
By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – UBS, one of two large financial firms consulting with the governor's office over the possible sale of the Texas lottery, hired Gov. Rick Perry's son to work in its Dallas office about two weeks ago.

The governor's office said that there is no relationship between the two events and that Griffin Perry, 23, is a bright young economist who is pursuing a career on his own merits.

"He stands on his own two feet. And he got this job on his own," press secretary Robert Black said Monday.

The younger Mr. Perry graduated from Vanderbilt University with an economics degree in May. He spent the summer and fall working on his father's re-election campaign.

Karina Byrne, a UBS spokeswoman, said that Griffin Perry was hired for a specific program in which about a dozen entry-level employees rotate through various parts of the company. The company has 11 such programs nationwide.

"We have a vigorous interview and application process. He would have been subjected to the same criteria that would have applied to any other young person applying for the associate program," Ms. Byrne said.

She said the fact that his father is governor would not have weighed into the calculation.

But the hiring comes amid concern that several of the governor's bold policy ideas stand to benefit his associates.

Critics of his decision to order vaccines for schoolgirls to help prevent cervical cancer noted that his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is registered to lobby for Merck, the only company that makes the vaccine.

Craig McDonald, director of the group Texans for Public Justice, which pushes for campaign finance changes, said that the Griffin Perry hiring and its timing should raise some concern.

"Hiring the governor's son seems to be a way to enamor yourself with the man at the top," Mr. McDonald said.

He said he recognized that it's not always easy to pick your way through opportunities when you're related to the governor.

"But he doesn't have to work for the firm that has a lot of potential business in front of his father," Mr. McDonald said.

Last week, Mr. Perry laid out his idea for selling the Texas lottery in his State of the State speech, saying that marketing a lottery concession to private interests could raise $14 billion. He proposed placing the proceeds in three separate trusts, with investment earnings funding public education, health insurance for low-income Texans and one of the largest cancer research projects in the nation.

The brokering of a $14 billion lottery concession could mean tens of millions to the chosen firm.

"Are some firms, if you take this to the next step, going to make some money off of this? Yes," Mr. Black said.

But he pointed out that every time the state lays a roadway, purchases a building or sells bonds to do it, a private firm makes money.

"We didn't just talk to UBS. We talked to others, and we'll continue to talk to others," Mr. Black said.

No fees or contracts have been paid as of yet, he said.

The staff of the governor's office called both Morgan Stanley and UBS for expert advice on the potential sale price of the lottery, Mr. Black said.

UBS is consulting with Illinois and New Jersey, which are also considering selling their lotteries.

Also involved in the UBS consulting team is former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, a longtime friend of the governor. He has met with one of the governor's top aides to discuss the idea but not with Mr. Perry, Mr. Black said last week.

Mr. Gramm, a UBS vice president of investment banking, works out of the company's New York office. Griffin Perry will be working in the separate area of personal wealth management, Mr. Black said.

Houston Chronicle: Perry's lobbyist contacts cloud lottery-sale plan

Gov. Rick Perry's ties to lobbyists have drawn scrutiny in the days since he proposed selling the Texas Lottery to a private company. Former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend of Perry's, is handling discussions for the proposed lottery sale, a spokesman for Gramm's company acknowledged.

Perry's lobbyist contacts cloud lottery-sale plan

Feb. 9, 2007
By LISA SANDBERG and GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's ties to lobbyists have drawn scrutiny in the days since he proposed selling the Texas Lottery to a private company.

Former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend of Perry's, is handling discussions for the proposed lottery sale, a spokesman for Gramm's company acknowledged.

Gramm is vice chairman of UBS Investment Bank, which has been advising the governor on the proposed privatization of the state lottery. Gramm was a federally registered lobbyist for UBS last year.

Ray Sullivan, a lobbyist registered with the investment firm in Texas, worked as a spokesman for Perry several years ago. Sullivan is now in business with Michael Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff.

Toomey said he does not represent clients with lottery-related interests, and he added that Sullivan does not work on lottery-related issues for UBS.

A spokesman for the governor dismissed suggestions that Perry's personal friends might profit from a future sale.

"There have not been any agreements signed. Just conversations," spokesman Ted Royer said.

The denials have done little to temper the skepticism.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, an Austin group that tracks money in politics, urged Texans not to allow "a high powered team (to) convince the government that this is in the public interest when it may be in the interest of (the team's) clients."

He called the state lottery "a public asset that we have to be very careful with."

Perry, a conservative Republican, used his State of the State address Tuesday to propose selling the state lottery as a way to fund cancer research and health insurance for as many as 600,000 low-income Texans.

Initially, he said he thought the state could get $14 billion from the sale, but he later raised that estimate to $20 billion. At $14 billion, he said the state could raise $300 million more each year through interest generated by a sale than by keeping the monopoly. That's assuming a 9 percent return on the state's investment.

The proposal has been given a cool reception, even among fellow Republicans.

Rep. Warren Chisum, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said he didn't know "anyone who's supporting it."

Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, who heads the Senate State Affairs Committee, where the proposal would likely land, raised questions about the numbers.

Michael Granof, a professor of accounting at the University of Texas at Austin, said it would be risky for the state to bank on a 9 percent yearly return.

Los Angeles Times: Fundraising, with no names attached

Instead of going through the slow, expensive process of obtaining contributions one at a time, the technique — known in fundraising parlance as "bundling" — relies on well-connected individuals such as lobbyists and other insiders to canvass blocs of potential donors from businesses, unions and other groups. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is not alone in embracing the technique, which over the years has proved both lucrative and efficient. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and other Democratic hopefuls are using it too. So are Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and most of his Republican rivals, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Read the article at the Los Angeles Times

Fundraising, with no names attached

People called 'bundlers' round up donors on behalf of presidential hopefuls. They also potentially collect clout under the public's radar.

By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
February 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) laid out the financial goals for her budding presidential campaign in a private meeting at her Washington home earlier this week, a key element in her fundraising plan was a time-honored technique that relies on supporters who promise to round up big dollars — in this case, as much as $1 million each.

Instead of going through the slow, expensive process of obtaining contributions one at a time, the technique — known in fundraising parlance as "bundling" — relies on well-connected individuals such as lobbyists and other insiders to canvass blocs of potential donors from businesses, unions and other groups. These canvassers then present the candidate with bundles of checks that add up to significant amounts.

Clinton is not alone in embracing the technique, which over the years has proved both lucrative and efficient. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and other Democratic hopefuls are using it too. So are Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and most of his Republican rivals, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

But there's a potential problem as the candidates seek to raise tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns: Should they make public the names of their heavy-hitting money collectors — and thereby reveal to whom they might be beholden if they win the White House?

Or should they try to avoid questions that could cause more problems — especially considering that revelations of corruption and legislative favors for contributors became an issue in last year's congressional elections?

The candidates' responses have been mixed — with each looking for an answer that reduces vulnerability without sacrificing money.

Obama, for example, about whom the public knows relatively little, is running as an idealistic candidate and has made a flat promise to disclose the names of bundlers and other top contributors. Clinton, the fundraising leader among Democrats, said she would comply with the law — which appears to be silent on the subject of disclosing bundlers' names.

And McCain, who like Obama is cultivating an image as a reformer, said he would name his top fundraisers who agreed to meet certain dollar goals, but would not track whether they actually hit the targets. Officials in the Giuliani and Romney campaigns said they had not yet considered the disclosure issue.

Two Democratic candidates, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., said they were still considering the question.

"Our campaign is 8 days old; we don't really have a policy on this, nor do we have people who would be in that category at this time," said Biden campaign spokesman Larry Rasky.

Rasky added that Biden generally supported disclosure and had voted for a proposal in the Senate that would require lobbyists to reveal bundling activities.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said he would not track bundled contributions and thus could not disclose them. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to disclose any bundling activities, according to a spokeswoman.

For most candidates for federal office, whatever they decide about disclosure, bundling has become a fact of life.

In 2004, the Bush campaign called fundraisers who brought in $100,000 or more "Pioneers." The bundling technique developed by Bush and his political lieutenant, Karl Rove, allowed his campaign to raise $36 million in six months in 1999, when the legal limit for individual contributions was $1,000. Bush disclosed the identity of all Pioneers and other bundlers.

The Bush-Rove technique, which effectively encourages competition among those who want to help a campaign financially, has since become the gold standard of modern presidential campaigning, one that allows candidates to quickly raise millions.

Craig McDonald, who led research into bundler activities for an organization called Texans for Public Justice, argues that it also sabotages a basic principle of campaign finance reform.

Under present law, he said, "a person is only supposed to get a maximum of about $2,300 in clout" with any candidate. "Bundling totally undermines that. We now have individuals receiving clout for providing hundreds of thousands beyond the legal limit."

Benjamin Ginsberg, former counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaigns, has long argued that the bundling approach is inevitable because recently passed campaign finance laws have curbed political parties' ability to raise and spend money.

"The decline of state parties and the rise of bundlers is a natural byproduct of McCain-Feingold," said Ginsberg, a Republican election-law expert now backing Romney, speaking of the law that prescribes rules for fundraising.

The chase for dollars has begun in earnest, a year before the first primaries or caucuses. In part, that is because the numerous candidates hope to impress potential supporters and ward off competition by generating large amounts of money by the time they file their first Federal Election Commission disclosure reports at the end of March.

McCain, who co-wrote the campaign finance law with Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), said he planned to name top fundraising volunteers who agreed to reach certain goals — as yet unspecified — as national or state chairmen or co-chairs.

By not tracking those fundraisers' activities to see whether they actually met the goals, McCain would not feel obligated to favor big donors if he became president, suggested a McCain aide. The aide asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss such details.

In addition, the aide said, McCain will provide the public a chance to track fundraising lieutenants who opt to participate in a new Web-based fundraising effort that will effectively credit individuals who get their friends and associates to provide donations.

The campaign's finance structure "is intentionally set up so that it doesn't create a public competition giving more access to those that raise more money," he said.

But some critics suggested that McCain's approach of tracking bundling pledges but not results would not significantly address the problem.

When Romney launched his fundraising efforts last month, he set a series of categories for those who rounded up significant early dollars.

Those who brought in donations of $250,000 or more in the first 30 days were labeled "first ballot chairmen." A volunteer bringing in $100,000 was called a vice chair. And membership could be earned by anyone credited with bringing in $50,000.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said the campaign would designate categories for fundraising captains. The names and size of the categories had not yet been determined. "We are still gearing up," Madden said.

TPJ Editorial: Lobbyists Aren't the Campaigns' Only Bundlers

Executive Director Craig McDonald comments on pending legislation that would require better disclosure of the sources of bundled checks that federal candidates receive from lobbyists. He makes the case for full disclosure of all special-interest campaign bundles--including those collected by individuals who are not registered lobbyists.
Read the editorial from Roll Call newspaper

Austin American-Statesman: Voucher advocate wants state to take over private program

James Leininger, who has spent millions of dollars on Texas political campaigns, said Tuesday that the 2,000 students in the private school voucher programs he personally bankrolls will be "out on the street" if the Legislature does not approve a publicly funded voucher plan this year. Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman

Voucher advocate wants state to take over private program

San Antonio businessman warns his $50 million, 10-year effort is due to end next year.

By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, February 07, 2007

James Leininger, who has spent millions of dollars on Texas political campaigns, said Tuesday that the 2,000 students in the private school voucher programs he personally bankrolls will be "out on the street" if the Legislature does not approve a publicly funded voucher plan this year.

The San Antonio physician and businessman said his 10-year, $50 million commitment to fund a program for students in San Antonio's Edgewood school district is set to expire next year.

He wants the Legislature to step in and provide public money for those students — and other low-income students around the state — to attend private schools or transfer to other public schools.

"If the Legislature doesn't act, those kids are going to be out on the street," he said.

Leininger has been a quiet political force in recent years, shying away from public comment while giving pro-voucher candidates millions.

He spent about $5 million in the 2006 election cycle, according to Texans for Public Justice, which tracks campaign spending and advocates limits on campaign donations.

He is now shifting tactics by talking more openly about voucher programs, which he has said should be reserved for low-income students, and his own political activity.

In a lengthy interview Tuesday with the American-Statesman editorial board, he said one reason he's showing his face more is because his private program is almost out of money.

In response, Kathy Miller of the anti-voucher Texas Freedom Network said: "Private schools may be willing to put those kids out on the street, but the great thing about our neighborhood public schools is that they would never do that."

There appears to be little momentum at the Capitol this year for a publicly funded voucher program. The House could not pass a pilot voucher plan last year, and, by Leininger's count, he's lost five allies in the 150-member body since then.

House Speaker Tom Craddick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst support limited voucher programs, but neither sounded ready to make a hard sell for the issue when asked about it this week.

"I think we need to do a better job of being able to explain what it is that we're trying to accomplish to help at-risk kids and not undo public education," Dewhurst said.

Though the Senate avoided a public voucher debate last year, House members on both sides of the issue caught flak for their votes.

"A lot of House members feel like, at this point, it needs to come from the Senate to see if there's support for it before they get involved," Craddick said.

Gov. Rick Perry, a longtime voucher proponent, did not mention them in his 55-minute State of the State speech Tuesday.

Leininger credited public school employees with defeating repeated voucher proposals.

"A lot of these (legislators) know there will be a price to pay if they embrace it," he said.

But the issue is by no means dead. Thousands of Texans, many of them families from private schools, are expected to rally for vouchers outside the Capitol today.

Leininger brought to the editorial board meeting Aimee Cantu, whose 10-year-old son uses a Leininger voucher.

Cantu said she wanted to shield her son from the violence and drugs that she remembers from public schools.

"I didn't want him pigeonholed in the same schools that I went to, the same schools that failed me, failed my sisters, failed my parents," she said.

Leininger said he wants the Legislature to approve a voucher program in nine big-city districts, including Austin's. The voucher would be worth up to 90 percent of the per-student operating cost in the local district, with the district keeping the remaining 10 percent.

Schools that choose to take the voucher would have to follow federal and state nondiscrimination rules but would not have to change their admissions standards, Leininger said.

Some voucher opponents fear that private schools will accept only high-achieving students, but Leininger said his programs have proven otherwise.

"It's the kids who are having the worst time that choose," he said. "The ones that are doing great and they're in the National Honor Society aren't leaving."

Up to 20,000 students could get vouchers in the first year under Leininger's program, which has no legislative sponsor so far.

Leininger made a particularly big splash in last year's Republican primary, when he funded five challengers to anti-voucher GOP incumbents almost exclusively. Two of the challengers won. He indicated that he will continue to write checks to pro-voucher candidates.

But Miller, of the Freedom Network, didn't sound scared.

"The Legislature has rejected vouchers for more than a decade because Texans don't want vouchers," she said. "Nothing has changed about that."

Austin American-Statesman: Gas companies are big spenders on anti-coal ads

Masquerading as activists battling coal plants, Big Gas is squaring off against Big Coal in a polished campaign run by a Hollywood ad agency. Natural gas companies, calling themselves the Texas Clean Sky Coalition, have been fighting coal plant proposals with full-page advertisements in the state's major daily newspapers. Utilities have proposed at least 17 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, and environmentalists worried about the emissions have protested, usually with grass-roots tactics.

Gas companies are big spenders on anti-coal ads

Gas supplier tries to keep its role in new ad campaign quiet.

By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Masquerading as activists battling coal plants, Big Gas is squaring off against Big Coal in a polished campaign run by a Hollywood ad agency.

Natural gas companies, calling themselves the Texas Clean Sky Coalition, have been fighting coal plant proposals with full-page advertisements in the state's major daily newspapers.

Utilities have proposed at least 17 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, and environmentalists worried about the emissions have protested, usually with grass-roots tactics.

The new ad campaign features stony-eyed men and women with smudged faces juxtaposed with facts about coal plant emissions. A Web site, www.cleanskycoalition .com, includes these rhetorical questions: "Would you bathe your child in coal? Sprinkle arsenic, mercury and lead on your husband's cereal? Treat your friends to a big dose of radiation?"

The campaign has cost "north of a million dollars," according to Fred Davis III, the head of Hollywood agency Strategic Perception, which put the campaign together. The photos were shot in a Southern California studio, he said.

The sum is vastly more than other groups that have opposed the plants have spent. Environmental Defense said it expects to spend at least $400,000 for advertising.

"We were trying to make it a simple message and get people riled up about it," Davis said. "It's very nervy."

Lead and arsenic are found only in trace amounts in coal and are not major concerns, mercury emissions and the damage they cause are difficult to track, and naturally occurring radiation is more likely to be found in petroleum deposits, according to Dave Allen, a professor of chemical engineering and an air quality specialist at the University of Texas.

Jackson Williams, the executive director of the Texas Clean Sky Coalition, refused to reveal the source of money for his group.

"We've got car washes, real estate developers, restaurateurs, energy companies, retailers and individuals that have signed on to this effort," he said. "They're united on one thing: Nothing is worse than coal."

The Web site's domain name was registered to a company called Domains by Proxy, whose motto is "Your identity is nobody's business but ours."

On Monday, a spokesman for Chesapeake Energy Corp. acknowledged that it was at least partly responsible for funding the Texas Clean Sky Coalition. He said other natural gas companies were involved, too.

"We are primarily natural gas producers, and we think it's the cleanest-burning hydrocarbon," spokesman Tom Price Jr. said. "It's simply that we think reduced emissions is a good thing." He would not name the other companies and would not say how much Chesapeake had spent.

The coal plant proposals jeopardize some natural gas plans, said Greg Platt, an executive at Cobisa, a small Houston company that develops natural gas plants.

"From our perspective, it's difficult to justify a gas plant if all of these coal plants get built," Platt said. "It's difficult for (financiers) to take the leap to open spigots on the money if they see these coal plants hanging out there."

With natural gas prices high, the operator of the state's electrical grid will run cheaper fuels such as nuclear and coal power before gas, Platt said.

The Clean Sky Coalition Web site includes newspaper stories about coal-fired power plants, informs readers about a rally against the coal plants on Sunday at the Capitol and points readers in the direction of Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club.

Neither group said it receives money from the Clean Sky Coalition or even knew what it is.

"Whether the money is coming from environmentalists, businessmen or competitors, we're glad they're fighting," said Tom "Smitty" Smith of the watchdog group Public Citizen. "Without help from everyone in the state, we won't be able to stop the coal plants."

The advertisements do not require disclosure because they don't talk about a specific piece of legislation, according to Craig MacDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "Ethically, we believe that advertisers like this should be straightforward and put a disclaimer about who paid for the ad."

TXU Corp., which has proposed 11 coal-fired plants, has a "monsters" campaign that will run through April in Dallas, Austin, Houston and Waco, emphasizing the good power can do (including light keeping monsters away from children), said Lisa Singleton, a spokeswoman.

She would not say how much the company, which has one of the largest lobbying rosters in the state, is spending.

"We're ready to be on the offensive and keep moving ahead with the path we laid out," she said.

Austin American-Statesman: Liquor stores shaken, stirred, by distributors' plan

The patron nursing a highball on a stool at the local tavern might wonder why Texas' wholesale liquor distributors are spending big money to push package stores out of selling spirits to bars and restaurants. Distributors, who gave a total of $1.38 million to state officials late last year, want to change the law that requires bars and restaurants to buy their liquor from package stores instead of distributors.Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman

Liquor stores shaken,stirred, by distributors' plan

Distributors want direct sales, but savings aren't a sure thing

By Mark Lisheron
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, February 05, 2007

The patron nursing a highball on a stool at the local tavern might wonder why Texas' wholesale liquor distributors are spending big money to push package stores out of selling spirits to bars and restaurants.

Distributors, who gave a total of $1.38 million to state officials late last year, want to change the law that requires bars and restaurants to buy their liquor from package stores instead of distributors. Cutting out the middleman, they argue, tends to lower the price of drinks. The package stores, stung by the businesses that supply them, say handing the liquor business over to a few wholesale distributors will reduce competition and, ultimately, raise the price of a drink.
Greg Wonsmos Package store advocate says distributor plan would eliminate competition.



Both sides are probably right. But because businesses are not required to disclose their markups, it's anybody's guess what it might mean for the cost of a cocktail in Texas if the Legislature gives distributors what they want.

One thing is certain: It will be a knock-down, drag-out fight.

The package stores will fight hard for their livelihood, and the liquor wholesalers are likely to keep coming back to the Legislature until they succeed.

"Our view is that this is a silly law that creates additional costs in the system," said Alan Gray, spokesman for the liquor distributors' lobbying efforts.

Countered Greg Wonsmos, president of the Texas Package Stores Association: "Under the wholesaler plan, all competition is eliminated by law. That would be an outrage."

The fight comes at a time when traditional methods of getting products of all kinds to market are being challenged in the nation's statehouses and in the courts. The challenge has come from the Internet, which brings customers and manufacturers together directly, and large retailers such as Wal-Mart and Costco, which are a combination of wholesale distributor and package store. The bottom line for these new retailers is selling at the lowest price.

These new business forces are, in some instances, sidestepping politics altogether, taking on decades-old laws and monopolistic practices in court.

"Most of the laws passed by states to regulate businesses are simply attempts to limit competition in the marketplace," said Lino Graglia, an antitrust and constitutional law expert at the University of Texas School of Law. "Courts are recognizing that there is more value in free markets."

Package law unusual

Under Texas law, liquor manufacturers sell to liquor distributors, who in turn sell to about 2,300 retail package stores, which sell to consumers. About 600 of those stores have special permits to sell to the more than 9,000 bars and restaurants holding mixed-beverage permits.

Texas is one of three states — Kansas and South Carolina are the others — that have this additional link in the chain of commerce for liquor. In all states, most beer and wine is sold by their manufacturers to distributors who, in turn, sell them to retail stores, including restaurants and bars.

The Legislature passed the package store law in 1971 as a companion to a law allowing restaurants and bars to sell liquor by the drink. Worried that this new market would cost them business, package stores successfully lobbied to require that businesses selling drinks buy their liquor from them. Since then, the state's restaurants and bars, which sold about $3.6 billion in mixed drinks and paid more than $500 million in mixed beverage taxes in 2006, have absorbed or passed along any markups from both the wholesale distributor and the package store to their customers.

"I can't think of any reason why this law makes sense," Graglia said. "All you have done is add an unnecessary market impediment."

Gray said wholesalers have long agreed with that assessment but have been reluctant to antagonize businesses that, in many cases, have been their longtime customers.

Gray insists that no single event caused the wholesale distributors to change their minds but says a change was overdue.

"We know that not only can we take costs out of the system but at a much higher level of service to our customers," Gray said.

Making a statement

The proposed change appears to have taken on a new urgency in November, when the wholesalers began making campaign contributions to most of Texas' 150 state lawmakers, as well as $100,000 to Gov. Rick Perry. A total of $1.38 million in donations by BG Distribution Partners, a political action committee representing the two largest distributors in the state, was reported in January. The money was given after the elections but before the Legislature convened Jan. 9.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks the influence of money in politics, said the money is among the largest sums spent by a single PAC in a decade. BG Distribution Partners represents Glazer's in Dallas and Republic Beverage Co. in San Antonio.

"It was a dramatic gesture that was designed to get noticed," he said. "We live in a pay-to-play state, and this told each legislator who got a donation that they are ready to play."

Executives with Glazer's and Republic revealed their plan at a meeting with package store representatives in November, said Wonsmos, who is CEO of Centennial Fine Wines and Spirits in Dallas. The wholesalers, he said, showed little concern for the impact it would have on the specially licensed liquor stores.

The Package Stores Association estimates that 500 of the 600 package stores licensed to sell to restaurants and bars would go out of business and thousands of their employees would be out of jobs. The other roughly 1,800 package stores that are licensed to sell to the general public would not be affected.

Most of the big package liquor stores in Austin, such as Twin Liquors, Spec's and Austin Wine Merchants, sell to bars and restaurants. Phone calls to managers and owners at those businesses were not returned.

But Wonsmos said the proposed legislation "means dire consequences for Texas businesses. A wholesaler monopoly would eliminate choice in who bars and restaurants do business with; it would increase costs for thousands of businesses and cost thousands of local employees their jobs."

Competition within wholesale distribution itself has been sharply curbed over the years. When the package store law passed in 1971, there were hundreds of distributors in Texas, about 20 of them major players. When Gray began lobbying for the industry in 1992, there were eight major companies.

Today, there are two: Glazer's and Republic control nearly all of the major liquor brands and most of the business.

The consolidation of the wholesale sector also reflects the consolidations of some of the larger liquor manufacturers.

Guaranteed savings?

Choosing between the package stores and the wholesale distributors isn't as easy as a simple cost saving, said Richie Jackson, president of the Texas Restaurant Association.

Big-volume chain restaurants that buy their liquor in bulk believe they can save considerably by not having to pay the markups of both the wholesaler that sells to the package store and the package store that sells to them, Jackson said.

There is, however, no guarantee that wholesale distributors will pass along the savings they say the change in the law will create, and small independent restaurants have expressed concerns that they might lose the individualized service they get from their favorite package store.

Ron Weiss, a managing partner in Jeffrey's, a well-known independent Austin restaurant, said he was initially all for the wholesale distributors' plan. He has since become less certain.

"It's not a clear-cut issue," Weiss said. "Unless there is a true cost savings, there is no reason to want the law changed. You can't attach a value to the service element of doing business with package stores."

Liquor laws in Texas

1933: Prohibition ends. Sale of liquor is prohibited unless counties, cities or justice of the peace precincts hold a referendum in which voters approve liquor sales.

1971: Legislature approves the sale of liquor by the drink. At the same time, it establishes a three-tiered system of sales: manufacturers, distributors and package stores, and bars and restaurants.

1979: Federal law allows people to brew up to 200 gallons of beer at home, paving the way for the microbrewing boom.

1993: Legislature passes bill allowing brew pubs, the 42nd state to do so.

2003: Voters approve a constitutional amendment that authorizes all Texas wineries to operate, sell wine for on-premises and off-premises consumption, and conduct wine tasting. In contrast with other entities, wineries are exempt from the 'wet' or 'dry' status of the political subdivisions in which they are located.

2005: Legislature overwhelmingly approves a law allowing state wineries to ship directly to consumers. Texas consumers are allowed to buy directly from out-of-state wineries.

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram: But the perks sure are nice

They like to call themselves citizen legislators. But there may not be a part-time job anywhere in America that comes with the kinds of perks that members of the Texas Legislature can collect.

But the perks sure are nice

By JAY ROOT
STAR-TELEGRAM AUSTIN BUREAU

AUSTIN -- They like to call themselves citizen legislators. But there may not be a part-time job anywhere in America that comes with the kinds of perks that members of the Texas Legislature can collect.

With just 12 years of service, they can retire at age 50, get state-paid healthcare and collect a yearly pension nearly five times greater than their salary, records show. Yes, that salary is a paltry $7,200 a year, but lawmakers also get an extra $19,460 in "per diem" payments while in regular session at current per diem rates, which go up annually.

The perks start to add up once you throw in the free parking, the wining and dining from lobbyists, and all the campaign money used for living expenses, critics say. Many say the notion that lawmakers work part time is outdated, arguing that they should get fewer perks in exchange for a reasonable -- and transparent -- benefit package.

"Without a doubt, legislators have found ways to compensate themselves for their years of service. They have hidden hefty pensions and their medical benefits from public view as well," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, head of the state branch of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. "What we favor is paying them $75,000 a year, reducing their retirement and eliminating the abilities to use campaign funds to help support them while in office."

Efforts to change lawmakers' wages and cut back their often hidden perks are generally greeted like the bubonic plague in the Legislature. Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, is pushing a bill that would cut off pension benefits to legislators convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, but he acknowledges that getting it and other ethics measures passed will be an "uphill climb."

"It's changing a system that has operated for some time," he said. "I'm not sure there are that many people who want to see it change."

Another lawmaker, Rep. Hubert Vo, D-Houston, is also swimming against the tide with legislation tying their pensions to the salaries of Texas teachers. Right now the pensions are tied to what state district judges get, so when legislators raised those salaries in 2005 to $125,000 a year, they increased their own pensions by 23 percent.

Free health insurance

Lawmakers also get full healthcare benefits, both as active members and in retirement. As they consider cutting back state healthcare benefits to the poor this year, 100 percent of the cost of their own health insurance premiums will be picked up by Texas taxpayers, records show.

Meanwhile, the city of Austin also provides perks, giving state lawmakers parking privileges at the Austin airport and any of its coin-operated meters, free dips at the famous Barton Springs swimming hole, and complimentary rounds of golf at any city-owned course, records show.

And though wining and dining aren't listed in the official benefit package of the "elected class," as legislators are formally known within the state retirement system, that also comes with the job. They and their staffers collectively receive millions of dollars in free meals, drinks, travel junkets, lodging and gifts from the special-interest lobby, records show.

From Jan. 1, 2005, to Oct. 10 of last year, registered lobbyists spent $5 million in entertainment and gifts for lawmakers and their staffers, according to figures compiled by Texans for Public Justice, a campaign watchdog group. The numbers include spending on close family members and certain executive branch employees.

In a new twist, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a pro-business group that has successfully pushed measures making it harder for lawyers to sue and win big jury verdicts, has begun sponsoring an annual event for female lawmakers and staffers: Instead of just offering martinis and hors d'oeuvres, they got manicures, pedicures and massages on "TLR's Girls' Night Out" at the swanky Four Seasons last week.

"We had a huge turnout," said TLR's Sherry Sylvester. "This is a very relaxing kind of venue."

Cost figures for the event were not available yet.

Campaign funds

While lobbyists spend to entertain politicians, many lawmakers also use their own campaign funds to finance living expenses, doling out thousands of dollars on cars, cable TV and furniture, as well as maintaining second homes in Austin. A study of campaign spending habits of state senators, conducted in 2004 by the watchdog group Campaigns for People, found that only 40 percent of the money went for politicking.

The rest went for items such as rent and car payments and club memberships, as well as boosting the pay of their government staff, the study found. Fred Lewis, the Austin activist who wrote the report, said his research has shown that the vast majority of legislators who get re-elected year after year without serious competition are "using their contributions to eat well, drink well and live well."

That may sound like a good deal for taxpayers since the campaign money comes from private donors. But Lewis said average Texans actually get charged more than they should because lawmakers are returning the favor to their contributors with state-funded largesse and costly special-interest legislation.

"We are being extremely penny wise and pound stupid," he said.

The law regarding campaign contributions seems clear. It says the lawmakers can't "convert the contribution to personal use." In practice, however, critics say the law is too vague and has allowed members to live large on private donations, which are used on luxury condos, plane tickets to conferences in Europe and items like satellite radio subscriptions or football tickets.

It's illegal to purchase real estate with campaign money, but numerous lawmakers have used campaign dollars to pay rent on homes that are put in the names of their spouses, who then use the money to finance a mortgage. An opinion by the Texas Ethics Commission says the practice is legal if the home is the spouse's "separate property," but it has still been controversial.

'Perception counts'

Rep. Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, said he took all the necessary steps to legally remove any personal ownership from homes he lived in while serving as a legislator in Austin. But he was criticized for paying rent to his wife from his campaign funds and ended up losing his seat in the November elections. Goodman said it was perfectly legal -- and discussed in advance with Ethics Commission lawyers -- but, in the campaign setting, was easily criticized.

"If I had it to over again, I wouldn't do it," Goodman said. "In a political campaign, perception counts."

Looking back, Goodman said he found his 16 years in the Legislature to be among the most rewarding experiences of his life -- but not for any perks. He said the notion of legislative service as a part-time job is about as realistic as sunbathing at the North Pole. Though some lawmakers abuse the system, Goodman, who is eligible to collect $46,000 a year in gross pension pay, said he would have made a lot more money practicing law in Arlington than making law in Austin.

The pension "is not that great," Goodman said, noting that he was already fully vested in the system after six two-year terms. "If I was in it for the pension, I would have quit after 12 years."

The perks and benefits

The framers of the Texas Constitution envisioned legislators as part-time politicians who would do the people's work in Austin once every two years and then go home to abide by any new laws they passed. But in modern times, the perks and benefits have come to include far more than their paltry $600-a-month salary. Here is a snapshot of what legislators can expect from this "part-time" job:

Annual salary, per the state constitution, of $7,200.

Per diem payments worth $19,460 per member in 2007. ($139 a day during any regular or special session, including weekends, holidays and adjournments)

Yearly pensions for vested legislators, allowing retirement at age 50 for members with 12 years of service, or at age 60 for those with at least eight years. (A 20-year veteran legislator could retire at 50 with a $57,500 annual pension.)

Lifetime retiree healthcare for any member with eight or more years of elected service. As with active members, the state pays 100 percent of the premiums.

Wide discretion to use campaign funds, often tapped for travel, entertainment, car leases and furniture, as well as maintaining second homes in Austin.

Free meals and entertainment, all-expenses-paid travel junkets, golf outings, skeet shoots -- even manicures, pedicures and massages -- all courtesy of special-interest lobbyists.

Blanket exemption from jury service, even when the Legislature is not in session.

Free parking for members and spouses at the Austin airport and city parking meters, free golf at city courses, free swimming at Barton Springs and other pools, courtesy of the city of Austin.

SOURCES: Texas Employee Retirements System, Texas Ethics Commission, city of Austin

They earn $7,200 a year for a part-time job.

But their daily allowance adds up to about $20,000 in the regular session.

They get thousands of dollars in free meals, drinks, even manicures.

Not to mention being able to finance cars and maintain second homes in Austin, at times paid for with campaign funds.

And after 12 years of service, they can retireat age 50, get free healthcare and collect an annual pension of almost $35,000.