Chron editorial board settles 1999 grudge
The Chronicle posts an amusing correction to a staff editorial (of all things!) today:
Mike Toomey is a lobbyist and former chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry. An editorial on Page B8 of Friday's City & State section misidentified him.
Yesterday's house editorial erroneously referred to "Mark Toomey, a crony of then-Lt. Gov. Rick Perry."
Now, it's well known that Toomey is a longtime friend of Perry. But the Chronicle editorial board apparently couldn't wait to use the more pejorative term "crony," a not-so-subtle slap that a quality newspaper wouldn't have made. Then again, a quality newspaper would have gotten the man's name right, since Toomey has now served as chief of staff for two governors, is a prominent lobbyist, and is generally regarded (for better or worse) as a mover in Texas politics.
For that matter, a quality newspaper probably wouldn't have run such a misleading and incoherent editorial in the first place.
The end of the editorial not only contains the Toomey error, but also deceives readers by omitting important context:
In 1999, a Harris County agency had to make an emergency $50,000 payment in the last week of the session to Mark Toomey, a crony of then-Lt. Gov. Rick Perry. Toomey, who was already being paid to lobby for the city of Houston and the county, was paid extra to make sure a harmful bill did not reach the floor.
Why didn't local officials go directly to Perry with their concern?
Savvy insiders say that is not the way it's done. Legislation, they say, rises and falls in the Legislature based upon who pays key lobbyists $50,000 and who doesn't.
That sounds outrageous, doesn't it? However, it sounds less outrageous with a little context.
Here's the Chronicle's 1999 news coverage of the Toomey affair:
Concerned that the protests of residents living near the Port 's proposed Ned S. Holmes Bayport Container Terminal might gain a sympathetic ear in the state Legislature, Port officials plan to hire former legislators Al Luna and Mike Toomey and the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld to monitor any relevant legislation.
The session ends May 31, as do the Port 's contracts with the law firm and the former legislators.
"We needed to make sure we did everything possible to protect ourselves," said Port spokeswoman Rosie Barrera. "We have a big stake to protect the future development of Bayport."
Luna will get $25,000 and Toomey will get $50,000.
From what I can tell, this was an editorial that followed on the subject (although I don't think the newspaper usually archives editorials):
At their Monday meeting, commissioners of the Port of Houston Authority approved contracts to pay two former legislators $75,000 to represent the Port in Austin during the remaining eight days of the legislative session. The fees seem excessive and cast doubt on the Port commissioners' fiscal judgment.
The Port will pay Al Luna $25,000 and Mike Toomey $50,000 to monitor the swift tide of legislation at the close of the session. Both Luna and Toomey already are paid by the taxpayers of the city of Houston and Harris County to lobby on their behalf, but apparently the two need to be paid yet again to take any notice of matters that impinge on Houston's all-important seaport.
One Port official said there was no particular threat to the Port's interests in the Legislature, but the lobbyists would be there just in case. The official said Toomey would get twice as much as Luna because the work loads would vary, yet both are working for the Port only part time.
Rosie Barerra, the Port's spokeswoman, said the high fees would not be used to buy legislation but would go straight into the pockets of the lobbyists to compensate them for previous work only now authorized by Port commissioners, and for future consultation after the session ends....
Barerra said the Port had to hire lobbyists because Harris County's delegation in the Legislature alone could not be relied upon to safeguard the Port's interests and that legislators were not generally susceptible at the end of the session to the entreaties of officials and friends of the Port and other citizens not being paid to haunt the Capitol.
Many Texans have long suspected that legislators are more attuned to the slick ministrations of paid lobbyists than to the interests and requests of ordinary citizens. It's a shame that Houston-area taxpayers have to pay professional lobbyists - twice or three times, in some cases - to convince their legislators to refrain from damaging one of this hemisphere's largest and most important ports.
Now, we can certainly debate whether the $50,000 payment to Toomey nearly six years ago was a wise use of taxpayer funds, but notice that the full context is somewhat different than the current Chronicle editorial would have readers believe. It was not some small Harris County "agency" paying Toomey to protect its interests, but the rather important Port of Houston Authority. The expenditure was not (as the current editorial suggests) in response to emergency legislation, but rather in response to potential action as well as services previously rendered. And it's not as if Mike Toomey was some insignificant political hack the commissioners paid simply because he was a "crony" of Chron "bad guy" Rick Perry; Toomey made a small fortune as a lobbyist working for MANY different interests (27!) in 1999; his reported lobbying fees ranked him among the top 50 lobbyists (of more than 1,000) registered in Texas in 1999. "Good" guy or "bad," Toomey was a major player, and one who demanded significant compensation for his services.
Including that context -- not to mention the journalistic nicety of getting Toomey's name right -- apparently wasn't as important to the editorial board dinosaur who wrote this particular piece (and who seems still to be carrying a grudge from 1999).
Substantively, the editorial board covers the usual, overly simplistic, ground:
Small cities can't afford their own lobbyists but pay dues to the Texas Municipal League, which fields a team. This year officials of heavily Republican suburban communities say they are afraid the Republicans who control state government in Austin will sock them with more unfunded mandates and erode local control, hence the need for lobby protection. This costly phenomenon is curious, as unfunded mandates and centralized power are precisely what most conservatives oppose. The Republican leadership that controls every facet of state government should oppose them axiomatically.
We've already dealt with the Chron editorial board's seeming lack of knowledge of Republicans and conservatism, but it's still bizarre that the editorial board dinosaurs take a cheap shot at Republicans because political interests spend money on lobbying! Lobbying is hardly a Republican or Democratic matter. It's a natural extension of what happens when government (in general) moves from a highly limited, watchman role to the vast, administrative/regulatory/redistributive behemoth that it's become. Of course it behooves interest groups to try to influence legislators when those legislators have such a say in regulating so many activities and redistributing so much wealth!
Further, one would expect the interests and concerns of governmental officials at various levels to diverge at times from those of officials at the state level. There's a famous phrase in political science, "where you sit determines where you stand." The phrase refers to the interests of officials in bureaucracy, but it's just as applicable to the various governmental institutions and levels within a single state. We can look to Mayor White's plans to lobby the legislature for red-light cameras (which it has opposed), and State Senator Whitmire's threats to introduce legislation to rein in Houston's original SAFEclear program as recent manifestations of that divergence, and examples that have little to do with pure party politics.
Frankly, it's a little shocking that the Chron editorial board thinks Republicans at various levels in goverment should march in lockstep, thereby somehow reducing the need for intragovernmental lobbying. The last time Texas Republicans did march in such lockstep, they produced one of the more partisan power grabs in recent history. It was known as redistricting, and the Chronicle editorial board certainly did not support it! Surely they are not now urging more of that style of lawmaking upon Texas?
It's hard to know, because the editorial just breaks down in error, incoherence, grudges, and near deception.
We urged the Chronicle in our 2005 Recommendations to adopt more of a focus for its editorials, and for that focus to be more local. This is not exactly what we had in mind. So here's an addendum to those recommendations: Drop the cheap shots at "bad guys," which is not what reputable newspapers do. Go back and read your own news archives when applicable -- then read them again, and one more time for good measure. And for goodness sake, write down a thesis statement and develop that point in your future editorials! It will help you avoid these incoherent editorials that seem to exist only to settle old scores.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/15/05 03:31 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.