Since his announcement for the presidency, there have been a slew of articles, left, right, and center, decrying Rick Perry’s cronyism — his supposed habit of rewarding his biggest donors with patronage positions or valuable state contracts. So is the criticism fair?
Perry is a legendary fundraiser, and his preferred method is sticking with the big game. He has raised $37 million over the last decade from just 150 people, per the Los Angeles Times. Expand the list to the top 200 or so donors and you get $51 million, per The Nation. That’s already more than the total amount raised by George W. Bush in two campaigns as Texas governor, and just over half of Perry’s total haul of $101 million since his first campaign.
Advertisement
Accumulating all this cash has certainly left the governor with favors to return, and return them he has, say critics. The case most often cited is that of billionaire Harold Simmons, who donated a total of $1.12 million to Perry and in turn secured permission to build a radioactive disposal site in west Texas. Not only did Simmons successfully lobby to have state law changed so that a private company such as his could obtain the requisite license, he also made sure the law would allow the granting of only one such license. Moreover, the license itself was approved by the Perry-appointed commissioners of the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, and the review process was overseen by the executive director they hired: one Glenn Shankle, who within six months of signing off on the waste facility left TCEQ and secured a lobbying contract worth up to $150,000 in Simmons’s outfit.
As Glenn Davis — a TCEQ staffer who resigned in protest over what he claimed were irregularities in the approval process — put it in an interview with The Texas Observer, “Even the Mafia was more cirucmspect than this.”
And there’s more where Simmons came from. Take B. J. “Red” McCombs, who gave Perry $400,000, and received $25 million in subsidies to build a Formula One racetrack near Austin. Or James Dannenbaum, who gave more than $320,000 to Perry, and in turn received multiple transportation contracts from the state. Or the more than half of Perry-appointed university regents who have donated money to his campaign. Or the Texas Enterprise Fund, which awarded millions in grants to corporate donors (to little avail, according to critics). And on it goes.
But even as the headlines can and should remain a significant factor as conservative opinion-makers and the primary electorate vet Perry for his presidential run, a look at the institutional and political context of Perry’s governorship reveals that there may be less to the Perry-as-crony-capitalist story than meets the eye. Here are five reasons why:
1. The Texas governor is constitutionally weak, sharing authority with a number of other statewide elected officials, including the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, and various commissioners. Perry’s personality, his bully pulpit, and his long tenure in office (Texas has no term limits) have helped turn him into “the strongest weak governor” in America, and so too have the appointments Perry makes to the approximately 200 boards, commissions, and agencies he oversees within the state — appointments that have come to be used as strategic leverage for advancing the governor’s policy agenda.
“It’s a legitimate use of power,” says Joshua Trevino, a vice president at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a free-market 501(c)(3) think tank based in Austin. “There’s nothing [Perry] is vested with in terms of patronage power or appointment power that would be out of place in the federal government itself.” Or indeed in many other states. And as with governors in many other states . . .
2. Perry’s decisions are constrained. Cash grants from controversial programs like the Texas Enterprise Fund require approval of the independently elected lieutenant governor and speaker of the house, not just the governor. Most executive appointments require approval of two-thirds of the state’s senate, and informally many require “senatorial courtesy” — the approval of the senator from the appointee’s home district. As such, the vast majority of Perry’s appointments require a buy-in from Democrats. Furthermore, commissioners and other appointees serve staggered terms, and Texas governors are proscribed from replacing their predecessors’ picks. Then again . . .
3.Perry has been around so long that virtually every appointed official in the state was appointed by him. Even commissioners who serve six-year terms, even commissioners who were originally appointed by George W. Bush or Ann Richards, have been re-appointed by Perry. This both ups the sample size of appointments for critics to scrutinize and amplifies the chance that Perry’s friends and benefactors will be appointed.
Your recitation of the facts at the beginning of the article is good, but your attempt to justify the facts you raised reminds me of the legal briefs I used to write when I had no GOOD arguments to make.
That he rewarded his political donors with favors concerns me greatly. How we know about those special deals is irrelevant.
Is this the kind of behavior we want in the White House? Do you think Democrats will excuse these faults as easily as you have? Not a chance.
Well apparently they already have erstwhile we would not have Messrs. Imult,Geithner, and the Goldman Sachs family singers in the offices of the presidency.
Mr. Foster,
It seems to me that you've answered all your own charges. But that incredibly snide little "(yet)" in the comparison to Blagojevich, who's headed to federal prison, for crying out loud, makes me think that you'll continue squeezing blood out of this rock.
Why?
So, redsquare76, would the argument be that we need a candidate without a political paper trail, or would that candidate be disqualified as inexperienced or a blank page?
Daniel, you are whistling past the grave yard here. At the end all what you are showing above, and I am sure you are spinning it beyond belief, is going to be meaningless when it comes to who is going to win the primaries and the Presidency.
Rick Perry record is vastly superior to any of the Republican candidates and for certain to Obama utterly failed record. Rick Perry is three terms governor, and still governor, of the second largest state in the Union, one of the most prosperous states in the union, the state that has created almost 40% of the jobs in the nation in the last 2.5 years, and a state that has no income tax, and a state that has a lot of business growth due to its pro-business policy.
At the end people are going to vote on record and who is going to being back a strong economy and job not on insignificant details of fundraising, or what state is someone from, or what his opinion on evolution, the scam of man-made global warming, etc… and when the people vote on the candidate record Rick Perry is going to win the nomination and the Presidency.
By the way why do you think the media and the Obama administration are going insane against Perry? It is because they know that Perry is the total opposite to Obama the utterly failed President and hence he is certain to crush Obama in the general elections. Something to think about Daniel.
Did I read the legislature passed that disposal bill?
I'm sure Perry has done what every politician has done... Posted supportive people to positions in government. Makes sense to me. Look at Obama... He has posted the likes of Van Jones, a Communist and many other left wing radicals... Makes sense to me...
You don't make sense to me tho...
Daniel,
My take from what you've written is that Perry is conscientious in establishing a collateral government that gets the job done. He might not completely agree with the political ideas of every person he assigns, but overall, and very likely, not a one of them offends his political sensitivities.
You've actually described something important here: that when elected President, Perry would establish the right people in the right places to ensure GOVERNMENT becomes govt (read his book) and to further move Washington from our collective conscience.
I've said it before and from your article it bears repeating: it's extremely difficult (Gallup aside) to unseat an incumbent. A nearly polar opposite is what will do the trick. I can't think of a finer President than a former Governor who believes in "limited" govt and not a Washington GOVERNMENT.
Again, not letting perfect get in the way of good; Perry is the right man for this job right now.
Redsquare76 seems to like the "reds". Perry may not be perfect, but the stupid would be dictator now squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will be an easy act to follow.
Foster omitted that subsequent to Perry's executive order mandating that Texas school girls recieve the Gardisal vaccine, HPV ($360.00 per student), there was established a clear financial & lobbyist connection between the sole Gardisal drug manufacturer MERCK, Women in Government & Rick Perry.
In future, Foster needs to spin away Perry's mantra that Obama's Stimulus would reek destruction on America's economy/jobs, state governments, & "our grandkids future's"--on the very day he requested from that Stimulus bailout 6.4 billion to plug his 6.6 budget deficit for 2010-11, to be used, in his words, "to promote economic growth & create jobs".
Foster needs to explain why the debt load in Texas under "Fiscal Conservative" Perry's stewardship has grown faster than the national debt (28% v.s. 23.4%)--and why Perry's state budget deficit for 2012-13 was 27 billion in the hole.
Ditto Foster needs to explain why "Anti-Sanctuary City" Perry has facilitated a Sanctuary State since 2001, i.e., in-state-tuition (cash grants)--and has supported a blanket amnesty to reward illegals with legal status while opposing the Mexican/U.S. Barrier, E-VERIFY, & the Arizona Law.
Conservatives need to know why Perry is partial to "moderate" (affirmative action?) judicial nominees and has publicly opposed jurists like Steve Wayne Smith, known for his conservative judicial philosophy & opposition to racial quotas.
Conservatives need to know why Perry's key initiatives & signature legislative accomplishments were as follows:
1) In-State-Tuition for illegals. (Sustained).
2) Executive mandated HPV vaccine.
(Voided by popular demand).
3) Eminent Domain/Globalyst "Super Highway" to create an "American Union" & give Mexico legal access to the U.S.
(Aborted by popular demand.)
4) Perry's 2006 Business Margin Tax hike that has proved a conservative disaster costing Texas taxpayers jobs, 8.8. billion in 2008-09, & created a permanent budget deficit.
Diito why pro-life Perry's political candidates of choice have run the gamut from pro-abortion Al Gore in 1988--to pro-abortion Giuliani (& King Rhino McCain) during the 2008 GOP primaries.
Hmmm... Let's just imagine if Obama gave a campaign donor a monopoly on dumping toxic waste in Illinois. Somehow I doubt NRO would be offering pathetic excuses for it.
His executive experience comes as a Governor of a state with limited powers. And what pray tell did obama bring to the table executive-experience wise when he ran for President? This is the big argument for not voting for him?
" Conspicuously missing from the Perry stories is any suggestion that Perry himself has done anything unlawful. "
" All the commissioners Perry appointed and all the commissions that have awarded money to Perry donors have conducted their business in accordance with the state’s open-records laws. "
To then smear Governor Perry as a Rod Blagojevich is something one would expect from Chris Matthews.
Not NRO.
Ardis,
You should learn something about Texas before passing on what you hear in the void.
1) Gardisal – all the info at the time was it would save lives – lots of lives. Not a bad place to stand, regardless of who benefits financially.
2) We accepted the stimulus money and DIDN’T spend it. Instead, cut spending and put the money in reserve. Ticked the White House off too.
3) Debt Load in Texas? What are you talking about? Texas maintains, by law, a balanced budget. You are either parroting someone else, no knowing what you’re talking about, or are using numbers showing debts of individuals or localities for which he has no control or responsibility.
4) “Sanctuary State” – what a laugh. Those of us who grew up here, grew up respecting hard working people from Mexico. As far as education goes a) the is no “cash grant” for anyone. We have in-state tuition and, for residents attending private schools, tuition equalization grants, even for residents who didn’t grow up here and whose parents haven’t spent a life time paying taxes. Children brought here by their parents have lived here a lot longer than many recent arrivals but we natives don’t raise a big stink about that. So how would you justify to the Lord Almighty what would you do this these kids who have lived nearly their entire lives here? Judgment Day comes.
5) Judges – they’re elected here, not appointed.
6) Trans-Texas Corridor: I-35 is a mess and is holding back economic development in Texas (in addition to making travel more dangerous). How do you solve this without incurring a HUGE cost to the state? Two step answer – a) keep I-35 and b) build another highway, in planning for decades and the land for which we already own most of, and contract with a private firm to build as a toll road. The contractor builds, maintains and administers the road and, in return, receives toll for a set period of time. Don’t want to pay tolls? Use I-35. Want faster travel with a charge? Use the Trans Texas Corridor Highway. Yes, we’ll have to use eminent domain to make it happen but it’s not like we’re building a shopping mall. It’s a road that significantly benefits the whole state.
7) Business tax – Oh I would love to have no taxes too. But it’s killed our economy? What are you drinking? Texas is one of the most business friendly states in the country and our economy and job growth show it.
Advise – get out of the heat and drink some cool water. Stay away from the cool aid they’ve been serving in your neck of the woods.
Don't people ~normally~ fill political appointments with folks they agree with? Don't donors normally donate money to people who they share an agenda with? I think people often confuse the flow of causality when it pertains to political positions.
You don't get worried when a pro-business candidate appoints pro-business regulators and gets donations from businesses. You get worried with a STATIST gets donations from a business and then appoints anti-business regulators who take the jackboots to non-donors (IE, those that didn't pay "protection money").
Donors, campaigners, and constituents always have more access to a representative's ear than the opposition lobbyists and non-constituent complainers. That's normal. I don't get worried about pay-for-play until I see a politician start changing fundamental positions because a big donor made noise about contributing to the other guy this time around.
'Crony capitalism' is a problem - but only if the gov't in question has the ability to hand out the candy. Perry is a non-libertarian federalist, meaning he is fine with big state gov't but wants a small fed gov't. Perry's claim to make the feds 'inconsequential' means there will be far fewer FEDERAL favors available under Perry than under Obama.
In other words, even if Perry was just as prone to 'crony capitalism' as Obama, or even more prone to it than Romney, the actual financial harm will still be the smallest under Perry. Hence, this is only a 'meh' character flaw.
Follow
