The Karma of Quack: Gary King and Pay-to-Sue

duckbillNew Mexico Attorney General Gary King was singled out for a special scolding by the mighty Wall Street Journal yesterday over the so-called “pay-to-sue” practices allegedly common among some state Attorneys General.

Yesterday’s editorial was triggered after King called the paper to complain about being mentioned in a previous WSJ editorial called The Pay-to-Sue Business.

That April 16th editorial focused on the questionable practice of state attorneys general accepting large campaign donations from law firms, then turning around and retaining those firms in no-bid contracts for “off-the-shelf” suits that require little original work.  Most of the editorial focused on Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and donations he accepted in 2006 from the firm of Houston attorney F. Kenneth Bailey, who was later given a no-bid, contingency-fee contract to sue a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the state.

But the piece, in listing other contributions made nationwide by the Houston firm, also mentioned a $50,000 campaign donation the firm made to King shortly before his election in 2006.

In yesterday’s editorial, titled Mr. King and His Courtiers, the WSJ explained how King’s explosive reaction to merely being mentioned in the story compelled them to look more closely at operations in King’s office.

“Some public officials are touchier than others. Take Gary King, the New Mexico Attorney General, who reacted to our recent passing reference to him by denouncing us and calling our pay-to-play facts nothing but politics. That sounded like an invitation to investigate Mr. King further, and, sure enough, he deserves an editorial all to himself.”

The editorial goes on to dig into the details regarding the donation to King from the Houston firm and notes that the firm was later retained by the state of New Mexico to sue a pharmaceutical company in a suit similar to others the firm had tried. It also uncovers some embarrassing irregularities regarding the contracts and ultimately, forces King to defend the practice of contracting private law firms altogether.

The knock on King has not gone unnoticed in New Mexico.

Perhaps the most interesting response comes from conservative blogger Mario Burgos, who references widely-ridiculed statements that King has made in connection with his definition of political campaign intervention, an issue that is currently in the courts.

“There’s an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck,” say AG King. “And I think we know a duck when we see one.”

I’m quite certain King is hoping no one decides to use the old “quacks like a duck” legal standard on him in this case.


Playing in Prop. 8

Seems 190 New Mexicans contributed to Proposition 8 — the California ballot measure banning gay marriage. (link) (hat tip to Jim Baca)

Unfortunately, it passed.

Being the geek I am, I decided to pour over the list and see who’s supporting a ban on gay marriage and who’s opposing it. Here are some preliminary numbers.

  • There were 57 financial contributions from New Mexicans and New Mexico businesses in support of Prop. 8 (meaning they support banning gay marriage). Several donors made multiple contributions.
  • There were 131 contributions from New Mexicans (no discernible business listings) in opposition to Prop. 8 (meaning they oppose banning gay marriage). There were little, if any repeat donors.
  • New Mexico supporters of Prop. 8 contributed $147,915 to ban gay marriage in California. The average donation was $2,595.
  • New Mexico opponents of Prop. 8 contributed $34,283 to fight against banning gay marriage. The average donation was $261.70.
There is so much more that can be drawn from this information, but I’ll just start with this macro donor profile.

Power Shifting

The next two weeks mark the American quadrennial event of party conventions for both Democrats and Republicans.

Of course, this week the Democrats meet in Denver, while the Republicans gather next week in my town(s) of origin, the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

For a time, the seat of American political power will shift away from Washington, D.C. The figurative shift is noteworthy because it marks a time-honored tradition for our political system.

The unfortunate reality about this presidential election year is that another, much more disturbing shift is taking place.

I’m talking about the eyebrow-raising shift in PAC donations from Republicans to Democrats. Seems money finds its way to the party most favored to have power after the upcoming election. Continue reading