When Rick Perry joked last night that the $5,000 he had received from Merck wasn’t enough to buy him off, the line failed to charm the audience as he’d expected. Turns out, the line also significantly low-balled how much he’d received from Merck. “Merck PAC—the company’s D.C.-based political action committee—has given Perry $28,500 since 2001, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings. The bulk of that money came prior to 2007,” the Los Angeles Times reports today. Even so, that doesn’t make Merck one of Perry’s top donors: the LA Times notes that he’s received over the years donations totaling more than six figures from over 200 sources.
"underestimated"? "significantly low-balled"?
Is that Perry talk for "lied"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis may also be an example of counting two different things: (a) all contributions since 2001, which total $28,500 and (b) the contribution in the election before the decision, which was $5,000.
It could also be an example of his not knowing how much he received in campaign contributions from a given entity. Assuming that he keeps careful track of such things, which he may or may not do so, the Merck contributions were relatively small compared to (a) the total contributions he received and (b) the contributions from other donors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was a horribly off-key line that reminded me of countless evil-villain lines from movies.
Aside from the fact it begged the question, "Well, what exactly is your price governor?".
I come from a state where the governor was forced to resign after disclosing gifts and services received from "supporters".
That state isn't Texas and I understand laws are different but I think Big Rick is in for a Big Surprise when he discovers how un-Texas a substantial chunk of the country is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour governor was forced to resign because he had received campaign contributions?
You run a tough state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet up on the subject.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe $28,500 figure is for 2001 to date.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow much had he received prior to the Gardisil EO being written. I understand that was some time prior to the most recent election.
Check your calendar again. Perry became governor in 2001, and he signed the executive order in 2007.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you are implying he lied...only you include the facts that show he didn't really?
In my view there are a bunch of lemon-suckers dogging Perry's heels in these posts today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd therefore, per year, on average . . . Rick Perry OVER stated it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Merck didn't pay off much, huh? No wonder he regrets his decision. When is the referee going to deduct a point for all the low blows? Let's do immigration next, but then that would make the guy look like a moderate or something. As I understand it, we need to court those Hispanic voters, so NRO may be boxed in on that issue. I'm wondering, since that is an issue I really disagree with Perry about, whether we'll see the same glee in going below the belt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeez people - let's lose the forest for the trees. Who cares if his number was off - the point is just as valid. The man raised millions of dollars for his last election - and millions more for other races for governor. And we're talking about less than $30k over the last 10 years. His point was - "I raise a ton of money and this is a pittance - do I look like I'd do someone a favor like this to get what amounts to pocket change?" Does the difference between $5k and $29k really change that basic point?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't care about the contribution or the confusion over the size of it. I am concerned about the relationship between Perry and his former Chief of Staff that was Merck's lobbyist. There is an implication that Merck wanted to increase sales of the vaccine and their new lobbyist (Perry's man) got that to happen via an Executive Order. How does this not stink of blatant cronyism? Just think if this had happened under the Obama Administration. How many republicans would be sympathetic with Obama's line of: "I just wanted to err on the side of life"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How many republicans would be sympathetic with Obama's line of: "I just wanted to err on the side of life"?"
That's an easy one... THAT would NEVER be Obama's line (or excuse).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood lord, the more we learn about Rick Perry and his bumbling incoherence, the more distasteful his candidacy becomes -- clearly not ready for prime time. I hope the GOP is not that stupid to nominate this character.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Trinko needs to post a correction, since she is wrongly implying that Perry got his facts wrong.
As "CTL" pointed out, there's a difference between the $5,000 donation in relatively close proximity to the timing of the decision (not a huge amount) and the total amount contributed over a period of years.
Many companies, including Merck, give thousands of dollars in contributions over such a long period of time, and often to members of both parties. The only controversy would be if donations either influenced a decision or rewarded a decision - a pay for play situation. And in this case, there is absolutely no ground for such an accusation, other than political opportunism.
Now, might Perry have trusted his former chief of staff's advice on the benefits of Gardasil? That I can believe. Would he be wrong for doing so? Not if he properly balanced the opinion with advice from other parties without a financial stake in the decision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas anyone scrutinized the amount and from where Obama has received his campaign money? Or for that matter anyone else in the primary field. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but if Perry is going to get hammered over a special interest contribution let's look at everyone else!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they haven't yet, they soon will.. It wouldn't have come up with Perry yet either, had it not been linked to another issue... The reason "Pay to Play" and "Crony Capitalism" are such hot topics now is because Republicans have been complaining so much about Obama's use of it.. If Republicans now back away from the issue and make excuses for Perry using it, what would that say about the Republican Party.???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney has received hundreds of thousands from the financial industry, and he came out strongly against the Frank-Dodd financial regulation bill. External Link
Guess he was bought too.
See how easy it is to play the game? Or is it just head you win, tails I lose?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a ridiculous comparison, Romney played no part in the passage of that bill, he wasn't a member of Congress.
Also, Dodd-Frank has been universally criticized by conservatives, I would be much more concerned if he WAS in support of the bill.
Had Perry has an ounce of common sense, he would have seen the optics of the Guardasil situation and not gotten near it, especially since no other state mandates it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you're a conservative to the core, you don't issue an edict from on high REQUIRING people to do something like this. That's something Perry's old pal Al Gore would do. As for the "coincidence" that the $5k campaign contribution came about the same time as the order, please! Here's another coincidence: Solyndra execs give about $100k in campaign contributions to O and then got Federally-backed loans for $527 million. Any connection? My position is that there are in both cases. Is it an impossible dream for the next GOP candidate to be free of this kind of behavior? Sadly, it looks like it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse