Houston Chronicle: White's family appeal proving to be lucrative

Contributing to Mayor Bill White is a family affair. Nearly a third - $622,500 - of the $1.95 million he raised this year came from 59 couples or families whose combined donations effectively raise the ceiling on the city's campaign finance limits."That's a huge percentage of the money he raised," said Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans For Public Justice, a nonprofit organization that tracks money and politics. "It is a legal way to circumvent limits." Read the article at the Houston Chronicle

White's family appeal proving to be lucrative

By KRISTEN MACK
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Contributing to Mayor Bill White is a family affair.

Nearly a third - $622,500 - of the $1.95 million he raised this year came from 59 couples or families whose combined donations effectively raise the ceiling on the city's campaign finance limits.

"That's a huge percentage of the money he raised," said Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans For Public Justice, a nonprofit organization that tracks money and politics. "It is a legal way to circumvent limits."

Indeed, the limits only are imposed on individuals. Multiple contributions from one household are entirely legal.

Real estate developer Walt Mischer and his family were among White's biggest contributors, tipping the scales at $25,000. Mischer, his wife Leila, mother Mary and sister Paula each gave $5,000. For good measure, his company, Mischer Investments, chipped in another $5,000.

"It's not a way to get around anything. It's available. This is consistent with prior contributions," Mischer said of his family's participation in local politics and its particular affection for White.

"We have supported him from the moment he decided he was going to run. If he were running for a different elected office before or after mayor, we would give him the maximum."

Mischer noted that during Bob Lanier's first race for mayor, there were no limits in place. In fact, Lanier received notable contributions of $50,000 each from investor Fayez Sarofim and gallery owner Meredith Long.

The next year, campaign finance limits went into effect. The current maximum allowable contribution - $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for political action committees - has been on the city's books since 1992.

As previously reported, more than half of White's campaign donors contributed the maximum. The large donations helped White reach his self-imposed $2 million fundraising benchmark largely in one night.

Andrew Segal, of Boxer Property Management Corp., and his wife and three children, all of whom are listed as students on White's campaign filing, contributed a total of $25,000.

Popular with attorneys

It's not just families who are contributing in blocks. Lawyers at Susman Godfrey, where White began his legal career, ponied up $27,500. The largest number of attorneys associated with one firm, seven lawyers at Baker Botts, gave White $14,500. The Baker Botts Amicus Fund, a PAC, donated another $5,000.

None of this is to suggest that these kind of contributions are a new phenomenon. But now that candidates for city elective office are required to file their campaign finance reports electronically, it is easier to search for commonalities between contributors.

"It was one of the loopholes that was created when campaign finance laws were put in place," Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, a government watchdog group, said of couples writing separate checks to candidates.

"Having observed many fundraising operations, it's not unusual to see couples stand next to each other and sign the checks. That's part of expectation."

Herb Butrum, White's fundraiser, agreed it is nothing out of the ordinary.

"Many of them are playing at this level because they recognize his exceptional leadership and they want to do everything they can to help continue that," Butrum said. "I don't think it's any more complicated than that."

No limit in state races

City candidates aren't the only ones subject to limits. In federal races, the maximum contribution is $2,300 per individual. In state races, however, it's no holds barred. People can contribute as much as they want and often do.

That prospect has to excite White, who has aspirations for higher office.

Remember, White spent a record-breaking $9.7 million to win the mayor's seat in 2003, his first race for elected office. Nearly $2 million of that was his own money.

"Bill White has made a great effort to convince wealthy and powerful people to join his cause," political consultant Dan McClung said. "He has connections to them better than most people do."

White isn't expected to draw serious opposition for his third and final mayoral term. What will be interesting is whether his high-dollar donors contribute to this degree if he runs statewide.

Should that happen, the mayor - a former chairman of the Texas Democratic Party who was deputy energy secretary during Bill Clinton's administration - no longer will be able to cloak himself in a nonpartisan veil.

And those Republicans he has won over may feel obligated to saddle up with one of their own.

Waco Tribune Herald: John Young: More privatizing fairy tales

Back when Ronald Reagan could get taxpayers frothy over tales of welfare Cadillacs, the real scandal they didn't hear about until too late was corporate welfare. Today, a similar mind-set still prevails about stealing. Private contractors and off-shore corporations make a killing without penalty, but the pauper who takes an apple will forfeit a hand.

John Young: More privatizing fairy tales

Waco Tribune Herald
Thursday, July 26, 2007

Back when Ronald Reagan could get taxpayers frothy over tales of welfare Cadillacs, the real scandal they didn't hear about until too late was corporate welfare.

In the go-go '80s, exorbitant tax breaks made some developers very wealthy and caused a glut in commercial real estate. That led to the stunning collapse of savings and loans, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars.

Today, a similar mind-set still prevails about stealing. Private contractors and off-shore corporations make a killing without penalty, but the pauper who takes an apple will forfeit a hand.

In Texas, lawmakers went to great lengths this session to make sure working-poor families don't con Texas by exceeding income limits for the doctors' visits and flu shots made possible by the Children's Health Insurance Program. Fire up your ire, boys.

Where was the umbrage four years ago when, with thousands of children being dropped from CHIP, auditors found that the state had overpaid a vendor $20 million for administering the program, including millions for individual consultants?

But, you see, that's just the cost of privatizing government.
What neat toys

Four years ago, with a newly enthroned Republican majority in Austin, Texas was engaged into a veritable lalapalooza of privatizing social services. A privatalooza. And guess who the "loozas" turned out to be: certainly not the contractors. They raked in millions. The losers were the people who needed the social services.

The biggest boondoggle was Bermuda-based Accenture?s $899 million contract to remake how the state determines eligibility for state services. It promised $646 million in savings by replacing experienced eligibility workers with a big computer system and a skeleton crew. Who could say no?

Ultimately, with horrific foul-ups and delays in serving the needy, the state told hundreds of pink-slipped state workers not to leave. It dropped Accenture instead. Net savings to taxpayers: none.

A similar "return" on Texans' investment has come from an ambitious system to identify food-stamp recipients using their fingerprints. Texas is one of a handful of states that have bought into the notion.

At $2.5 million a year (about half footed by the federal government), the Texas fingerprinting program must really prevent a lot of welfare fraud.

But the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) in Austin estimates that Texas' finger-imaging project resulted in less than $150,000 in fraud caught in a six-year analysis period. The same savings could have been accomplished, said CPPP analyst Celia Hagert, by checking Social Security numbers.

But you see, treating welfare moms as potential felons is so alluring. And lobbyists for contractors are always so convincing, and sometimes generous with campaign contributions.

Texans for Public Justice just released a report on all the hay made by corporations in bidding for and winning contracts to do things the government was doing before privatizing became the rage.

In the case of finger imaging, to win a state contract, French firm Sagem Morpho spent from $520,000 to $1.1 million on 24 lobbying contracts. Last year, another firm won the contract. You might say Texans haven't gotten their money's worth on this enterprise. But the contractors certainly have.

When told that private enterprise can do something more efficiently and effectively than government, check the warning label.

When it comes to waste and fraud, the up-front riches to be had by government contractors in modern times are almost beyond comprehending.

The "cost-plus" pricing of services performed by Halliburton and other contractors in Iraq one day will shake down as one of the biggest shakedowns in the history of government largesse.

But don't let that Iraq veteran pretend that his VA disability claim is service-connected, or that CHIP mom fail to itemize some income on the side. That's fraud.

Dallas Morning News: Former judge's censure mitigated

A public censure against a former Dallas judge was partially overturned Friday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said that while Robert Jenevein was wrong to hold a news conference in his robes and in his courtroom, the former judge couldn't be punished for defending his name and speaking out against a lawyer he thought was behaving unethically. Read the article at the Dallas Morning News

Former judge's censure mitigated

Appeals court partially OKs his speaking out to defend his name

By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
mgrabell@dallasnews.com
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A public censure against a former Dallas judge was partially overturned Friday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court said that while Robert Jenevein was wrong to hold a news conference in his robes and in his courtroom, the former judge couldn't be punished for defending his name and speaking out against a lawyer he thought was behaving unethically.

The appeals court's ruling provides strong support for the free speech of judges and could affect future cases by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has the authority to discipline judges in Texas.

"To leave judges speechless, throttled for publically addressing abuse of the judicial process by practicing lawyers, ill serves the laudable goal of promoting judicial efficiency and impartiality," the opinion states. "Texas has persisted in electing its judges, a decision which, for good or ill, casts judges into the political arena."

The decision is similar to a ruling last fall by a state panel of judges that threw out the censure of Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht. He had been accused by the commission of misusing his office to publicly support U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Seana Willing, executive director for the judicial conduct commission, was on vacation Monday and didn't return calls seeking comment. The attorney general's office, which represented the commission, said it hadn't decided whether to appeal.

Assistant Attorney General Rob Johnson noted that while the court said Mr. Jenevein couldn't be disciplined for what he said, he could be sanctioned for how he said it.

"The censure still stands; we just need to edit it a little bit," he said. The court did uphold how the commission handled "how the judge uses the trappings of his office to amplify his message."
Calls it a victory

Still, Mr. Jenevein, who presided over County Court at Law No. 3 from 1999 to 2002, said the ruling was a victory.

"It has taken an obscene amount of money and seven years to gain some vindication," he said. "I think that I was attacked as a judge and that it was appropriate to react as a judge."

The case against Mr. Jenevein grew out of accusations from a lawyer in July 2000 that another county court at law judge, David Gibson, had solicited bribes from Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and a lawyer for Yahoo, who both had a case in his court.

The plaintiff's lawyer in the Yahoo case also alleged in court records that Judge Gibson had in other cases exchanged rulings for sexual favors and frequently made attorney appointments ? called ad litem appointments ? to Mr. Jenevein's wife.

After hearing about the accusations, Mr. Jenevein held a news conference in his courtroom in which he appeared in his robes and read a statement after moving from behind the bench.

He told reporters that the allegations were merely an attempt to intimidate the judge, "a tactic we normally reserve for the mob."

"It is disturbing to imagine that a lawyer can remove a judge from a case--whenever he thinks another judge might be more favorable--simply by making baseless and vicious allegations against the judge," he said.

Mr. Gibson announced his resignation in 2001 after the commission informed him that it planned to pursue administrative charges against him ranging from bribery to refusing to accept a subpoena.

The case was made weirder because for a time Mr. Gibson's conversations were taped by a friend at the behest of the FBI. But no charges were ever filed.

Mr. Jenevein was publicly censured for the news conference in January 2003.

"All Jenevein was accused of from the start was defending the honor of his wife, and I'm delighted to see that Texas still lets you do that even if you're an elected official," said Randy Johnston, an attorney for Mr. Gibson in the case who specializes in legal malpractice cases.

"It was all a litigation ruse that got him out of the case," he said of Mr. Gibson. "They had absolutely nothing on him related to the accusations of bribery or the accusations of selling ad litem appointments for sex."

Mr. Johnston said that if courts continue to raise constitutional questions, the commission will probably have to revisit how they apply the judicial canon that says judges shouldn't lend the prestige of their office to advance private interests.
'Take it outside'

In Justice Hecht's case, the state appeals court justices said the canon was meant to prohibit extortion, retaliation and preferential treatment ? not political speech. But a commission lawyer said the canons, written by the Texas Supreme Court, were meant to protect judges from being pressured to endorse political candidates.

On Friday, the federal circuit court said the commission should accept that judges are political actors but insist that they "take it outside."

"If Judge Jenevein had held the press conference a block away at the Adolphus Hotel, without his robe, it would have withheld censure," the court said.

An official with Texans for Public Justice, which has criticized the state's judicial election system, said he sympathized with the judges and called the rulings "extremely extraterrestrial."

"If our judges routinely get elected by taking campaign money from people who have cases in their courts, who cares if Judge Jenevein wore his robes to a courtroom press conference?" research director Andrew Wheat asked in an e-mail.

"Even if Judge Jenevein disrobed before the cameras, I doubt it would be as obscene as what our state judges do every election season."

Dallas Morning News: Report: Privatizing good for lobbyists, bad for taxpayers

Texas' efforts to hand off social services duties to private companies have enriched lobbyists while hurting poor people and wasting tax dollars, a watchdog group said Wednesday. Over the past decade, 13 companies ultimately hired by the state after four big pushes toward privatization paid 102 lobbyists between $4.5 million and $11.3 million, according to a report by Texans for Public Justice. Read the article at the Dallas Morning News

Report: Privatizing good for lobbyists, bad for taxpayers

Group calls outsourced social services a waste; official says that's wrong

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
Thursday, July 19, 2007

AUSTIN - Texas' efforts to hand off social services duties to private companies have enriched lobbyists while hurting poor people and wasting tax dollars, a watchdog group said Wednesday.

Over the past decade, 13 companies ultimately hired by the state after four big pushes toward privatization paid 102 lobbyists between $4.5 million and $11.3 million, according to a report by Texans for Public Justice.

The group, which tracks campaign money and lobby contracts in Texas, said the 13 companies hired well-placed lobbyists who nudged lawmakers to require outsourcing of work previously done by government health and human services agencies. The same companies then won bid competitions for $2.1 billion of contracts.

"Too often, architects of Texas' social services privatization schemes appear to have ensured that privatization would fill their own pockets and those of their past or future employers," the report says.

The report criticized the outsourcing efforts for failing to save as much money as was predicted or, as with four privately run call centers for social program signups, not saving any money.

Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, who has run the privatization efforts during the past 4 ½ years, called the report "somewhat flawed."

He said it suggests "any money that you spend on a contract for service counts as wasted expenditures, and that's clearly wrong."

Mr. Hawkins said $426 million spent since 2001 on a new Web-based computer system for processing applications for Medicaid, food stamps and cash assistance hasn't been wasted, as suggested by the report and even his own agency's inspector general.

"Funds expended for contract services, we've received services in exchange for those funds," Mr. Hawkins said. "That's not a boondoggle. That's not a waste. That's a point that I think is overlooked."

He also defended his actions to carry out a 2003 mandate from the Legislature to pursue replacing state eligibility workers with contract workers at private call centers. He said when problems arose, he ordered changes. And when those didn't work, he shut down the project and asked lawmakers for funds to fix it.

Mr. Hawkins said lobby expenditures didn't affect procurement decisions on the contracts mentioned in the report, some of which his predecessors awarded.

Contractors named in the report include HMOs, such as UnitedHealth and Amerigroup, which manage health care for elderly and disabled Medicaid recipients; and consulting giants Deloitte, which designed the eligibility computer software, and Accenture, which quit the call center project last spring.

Other firms in the report were Sagem Morpho, a French company that from 1996 until earlier this year analyzed food stamp applicants' fingerprints; and Convergys, which handles the health and human services agencies' payrolls, employee benefits and job applications.

"Our process takes place in an objective structure," Mr. Hawkins said. "Lobbyists have no influence on that."

Andrew Wheat, research director at Texans for Public Justice, responded, "He could say [lobbying] has no effect, but a shocking number of his agency's contractors clearly believe otherwise.

"Government contract lobbying is alive and well in the state of Texas. It's a massive, multimillion-dollar business."

Peddling Privatization Boondoggles

Texas' grand experiment in privatizing health and human services is a $2 billion cautionary tale that has wasted more tax dollars than it saved. Contractors for four recent privatization boondoggles invested up to $11 million to hire over 100 lobbyists to sell their tax-dollar schemes.

Read the report

Dallas Morning News: Judge who didn't report campaign finances fined

A Dallas civil court judge has been sanctioned by the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to file campaign finance reports in the 2006 election. And now the Texas attorney general and a state judge are demanding that he pay $38,000 in fines and court fees. Because Texans elect their judiciary, it's important for judges to comply with the law, said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group that tracks campaign donations. "Half or more of their money historically comes from people who have cases in their courtrooms, which presents a horrible conflict of interest," he said. "Disclosure is the best tool we have for accountability."

Judge who didn't report campaign finances fined

Democrat who has said he opposes fundraising must pay $38,000

By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
mgrabell@dallasnews.com

A Dallas civil court judge has been sanctioned by the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to file campaign finance reports in the 2006 election. And now the Texas attorney general and a state judge are demanding that he pay $38,000 in fines and court fees.

Judge Bruce Priddy, one of 42 Democratic judges elected in Dallas County in November, has said that he is philosophically opposed to the idea of judges asking people for money. He did not return calls Tuesday, but he said in February that he didn't think he had to file reports because he didn't raise any money.

The judge has since held a fundraiser in which lawyers were invited to hear a polka band and dance the hokey pokey. It's unclear how much he raised at that event because he didn't file the report due Monday, according to the ethics commission.

"Our concern here is the fact that he owes this money to the state of Texas and the fact that he has ignored a judge's order," said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott's office.

Elected officials and political candidates are required to file campaign finance reports to show the public who gives them money and how they spend it.

Because Texans elect their judiciary, it's important for judges to comply with the law, said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group that tracks campaign donations.

"Half or more of their money historically comes from people who have cases in their courtrooms, which presents a horrible conflict of interest," he said. "Disclosure is the best tool we have for accountability."

Judge Priddy was fined $30,500 for failing to file four reports between July 17, 2006, and Jan. 16. The attorney general sued him in Travis County in April.

But Judge Priddy never responded to the lawsuit, and State District Judge John Dietz granted the state a default judgment, ordering the Dallas judge to pay the $30,500 fine and $7,500 in attorney's fees and court costs.

Tim Sorrells, spokesman for the ethics commission, said Judge Priddy hasn't responded to state officials.

"We send a notice to file the report to all the filers, and if the report is late, we send them a late notice," he said. "If the report is still not filed, we'll send a notice saying that we're going to refer it to the attorney general's office."

The state has the option of freezing the judge's bank accounts if the fines aren't paid. And he could face discipline from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Judge Priddy's situation is similar to that of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Paul Womack, who said he raised so little money in his 2002 campaign that "the public interest was not significantly harmed by the delay" in filing seven required reports.

The judicial conduct commission publicly condemned Judge Womack after he told the commission he had attention deficit disorder and a procrastination problem.

During the campaign, friends and colleagues described Judge Priddy as one of the most ethical and upstanding candidates ? someone who avoided almost all politicking to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In 2002, while still an attorney, he donated nearly $400,000 to agencies that help the homeless after winning a verdict for thousands of apartment residents who were overcharged for water, according to an article on the state bar Web site.

"I really think it's a philosophical issue with him," said Darlene Ewing, chairwoman of the Dallas County Democratic Party. "He thinks the judiciary should be totally free of campaign contributions."

Regardless of intentions, Ms. Ewing said, she expects all Democratic officeholders to file the reports.

Judge Priddy has had other problems since taking office. For several weeks in April, the State Bar of Texas, which licenses lawyers, listed him as suspended for failing to complete his legal education requirements.

But it turned out that the judge just hadn't filled out the correct form to change his status from lawyer to judge.

Despite the judge's statements against raising money, he did hold a fundraiser after the election.

His Web site invited the public to "blow out" the campaign season at "the one and only" fundraiser for Judge Priddy. The March 6 event at the Hickory Street Annex near Fair Park featured the polka band Brave Combo and "upscale festival food with cold beer."
"Where else can you mingle with the greatest legal minds in the area AND do the hokey pokey?" the invitation read. "Guaranteed to be the most fun you have ever had at a judicial candidate fundraiser!" "Of course, any contributions would be appreciated, but $ is not necessary," the Web site said.

San Antonio Express-News: Many lawmakers failing to report donor information

Two-and-a-half years after it took effect, many Texas lawmakers appear unable — or unwilling — to follow a law of their own making. Collectively, they received failing grades in a recent report, "Ain't Nobody's Business," by the Austin-based watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. Only eight of the House's 150 members received an A, while 89 got an F. Only three of the Senate's 31 members received A's, while 13 got F's. Read the article at San Antonio Express-News

Many lawmakers failing to report donor information

San Antonio Express-News
07/15/2007

AUSTIN — The ethics bill Texas lawmakers passed in 2003 contained a simple provision: To more completely report special interest money in the political process, candidates must disclose the occupations and employers of their big donors.

Two-and-a-half years after it took effect, many Texas lawmakers appear unable — or unwilling — to follow a law of their own making.

Collectively, they received failing grades in a recent report, "Ain't Nobody's Business," by the Austin-based watchdog group Texans for Public Justice.

Only eight of the House's 150 members received an A, while 89 got an F. Only three of the Senate's 31 members received A's, while 13 got F's.

Among those who flunked were 28 House members and three senators who have failed to report both the occupations and employers of a single one of their large donors since House Bill 1606 took effect in 2004.

That last group included Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville, and Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo.

Menendez said he was upset with his accountant; Zaffirini said she had been unaware of the law and that a software program she used listed both categories as optional. Lucio did not return calls for comment.

"People suspect that donors give money and get something in return," said Andrew Wheat, research director of Texans for Public Justice. "(Lawmakers) who think that's not the case should have no objection to providing (full disclosure)."

Democratic lawmakers, who generally tout themselves as champions of tougher ethics laws, fared worse than their Republican counterparts, averaging a grade of F while the GOP eked out a D average.

Rep. Jim Dunnam, leader of the House Democrats, said the party "could do a better job of educating candidates" about the law. But while depicting state Democrats as ardent supports of ethics reforms, he sounded less enthusiastic about this particular one.

The public has other ways to discern the occupations and employers of big campaign contributors, he said.

"You've got their name and address. If you go on Google, you can figure out who they are," said Dunnam, whose C was a better grade than many of his colleagues.

Some have taken issue with the criteria the think tank used in evaluating lawmakers.

Rep. Tracy King, D-Batesville, lost points for identifying a donor listed as "Hon. Dolph Briscoe" as a ranch owner — and leaving out that he was the governor for six years in the 1970s.

Rep. Mark Homer, D-Paris, lost points for identifying his parents, Molly and Frank Homer, as "retired" — without mentioning what they retired from (running a Sonic restaurant franchise).

Three lawmakers, including House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, were cited for identifying one of their big donors, Alice L. Walton, as either a rancher or a self-employed investor — without noting that she is a Wal-Mart heiress.

The Ethics Commission's Tim Sorrells said the law requires only the current occupation of donors, not what they did in the past — or their family lineage.

Wheat acknowledged that there was room to quibble, and said what concerned him most were the folks who consistently failed to divulge the most basic information.

Several lawmakers vowed to catch up. Zaffirini, for example, said she has hired a temporary employee to redo old reports.

Menendez said he gave his accountant a little scolding.

"I could have easily gotten a college intern to do this, and they could have done it just as badly," he said, adding that he would redo old reports.

Rep. Joseph Deshotel, D-Beaumont, the one lawmaker to pull a perfect score for fully reporting the one major contribution he received, said he would urge his colleagues to do better.

"I'd let 'em know that I got 100 and ask, 'What did you get?'"

Lobby Watch:Speaker Craddick's Money Balked Instead of Talked

The May Mutiny may have left the Texas House’s leader in tatters but Speaker Tom Craddick can spend millions on repairs before the rebels get another shot at him in the next legislative session. Craddick reported in January that he sits on more than $4 million. This war chest—which more than doubled over the past three years—is five times larger than his nearest House competitor.
Read the Lobby Watch

Gimme Shelter: Tax Shelter-Funded Affordable Housing

From 2004 through 2006, Texas doled out $1.3 billion in federal tax breaks to a handful of private developers to create low-income housing that is beyond the reach of those with the greatest housing needs.

Read the report

San Antonio Express-News: Opponents criticize Strayhorn over tax attorneys' contributions

In her quest to become the next governor, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has continued to accept, despite criticism, hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from attorneys whose firms appear to have a stake in tax rulings made by her staff. Watchdog groups criticized Strayhorn for engaging in the kind of questionable campaign practices that are the bedrock of Texas politics. Special interest money prevails throughout the system. Read the article at the San Antonio Express-News

Opponents criticize Strayhorn over tax attorneys' contributions

San Antonio Express-News
7/2/07

AUSTIN — In her quest to become the next governor, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has continued to accept, despite criticism, hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from attorneys whose firms appear to have a stake in tax rulings made by her staff.

Campaign records indicate that over the past 18 months, the comptroller, the self-described "tough grandma" who is running for governor as an independent, has received roughly $788,000 from individuals working for firms that practice tax law.

All of which raises a thorny question: Should an elected officeholder who leads an agency charged with settling tax matters take money from people whose livelihoods may depend on agency rulings?

Good-government watchdog groups say no, and so did a state audit last year, which concluded that Strayhorn had accepted nearly $2 million in contributions over 51/2 years from donors who — within a year of their donations — benefited from tax reductions totaling $461 million.

The audit said it uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing on Strayhorn's part, but it urged legislators to prohibit the comptroller or candidates for that job from taking contributions from individuals with business before the office.

On Thursday, Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders issued a statement in response to questions about the ongoing contributions, saying critics of it are engaging in "a political witch hunt" without merit.

"There is no conflict and there is no wrongdoing, according to the auditor himself," the statement read.

It also said the majority of firms cited in the audit "today infrequently, if at all, practice before the comptroller's agency — most are large general practice firms and one is a plaintiff attorney."

Her opponents criticized the contributions.

Chris Bell, the Democratic candidate and a former congressman, whose office gave the San Antonio Express-News an initial survey of Strayhorn's contributors, said the donations reflected a "cash-and-carry system" that should concern all Texans.

"Folks who are looking for special favors from certain elected officials are willing to curry that favor through writing checks," Bell said. "This has got to change."

Passing campaign finance reforms that would bar these type of practices, he said, would rank among his highest priorities.

Laura Stromberg, a spokeswoman for gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, who also is running as an independent, said: "This isn't about 'Grandma,' this is about following the money if you want to know how policy is determined in Texas."

Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, accused Strayhorn of engaging in "dirty dealings" and said "the new information comes as no surprise" on the heels of last year's audit.

Watchdog groups criticized Strayhorn for engaging in the kind of questionable campaign practices that are the bedrock of Texas politics. Special interest money prevails throughout the system.

"The people who have a vested interest are more likely to curry favor by giving you a campaign contribution, and that's true if you're a judge or the comptroller or the speaker of the house or the governor," said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, a group that advocates campaign finance reform.

McDonald said a report by his group several years ago indicated that more than half the contributions received by the state's supreme court justices came from lawyers, law firms or litigants with pending appeals. Contributors were more likely than non-contributors to have a favorable outcome.

Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, who heads the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee, said he didn't expect to see legislation pass that would restrict who gives how much to whom. "It's a hard one because practically every contribution any of us gets comes from people who have business with us," Bailey said.

Years ago, California barred lobbyists from contributing to politicians they lobby. But California is pretty much the exception, said Steve Levin, project director at the Center for Governmental Studies in California.

Like Texas, most states have statutes prohibiting explicit agreements of favors doled out in exchange for money.

Recent campaign reports indicate Strayhorn received more than $750,000, at least 19 percent of her total, last year from attorneys who worked for mostly full-service firms that do tax law in addition to other specialties. She received another $38,000 from similarly situated attorneys during the 2006 special session, 12 percent of what she raised during that period.

The contributors include employees of Ryan and Co., a tax consulting firm that gave Strayhorn $602,000 in 2005 and was named in the audit as being the biggest donor of 19 firms that represent businesses in tax disputes before the comptroller's agency.
lsandberg@express-news.net

Database Editor Kelly Guckian and News Researchers Julie Domel and Kevin Frazzini contributed to this report.