Alliteration aside, there's a turf war brewing in Texas, and industry PAC contributions have placed lawmakers smack in the middle of it.
Liquor wholesalers dumped nearly $1.7 million on Texas lawmakers in the weeks leading up to the 2007 Legislature while pushing for changes that would allow them to sell booze directly to restaurants and bars.
The law now allows only package liquor stores - not wholesalers - to supply establishments where patrons drink on the premises. Wholesalers say that's not fair; package stores say giant wholesalers would undercut their prices to monopolize the market, potentially costing thousands of people their jobs.
That's the gist of the situation - now here's the interesting part. That $1.7 million in the last ten weeks is five times more than what was spent in the entire previous year. And the recipients were of that money should come as no shock - just about everyone in a position of influence.
"It shows that in Texas, we have a pay-to-play system," said Suzy Woodford of Common Cause Texas, which tracks ethics in government. "We have no limits on the amount of money that these individuals, their PACs and their officers can contribute. So it clearly demonstrates to the average Joe that if you don't have the big bucks ... the item you care about is not even going to be considered."
It's an interesting article that breaks down the issue and the law in question. A list of the top campaign contribution recipients from the wholesalers follows after the jump.
Is Ken Blackwell engaging in a little pay-to-play action with the Ohio Department of Transportation and contractors? The Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate has invited more than 600 people, including contractors, to a "transporation summit" featuring the Director of ODOT as a special guest, with the expressed purpose of outlining his transporation policy beliefs. Democrats say the event is inappropriate.
[Blackwell spokesman Carlo] LoParo said, "That's what candidates for governor do; they assemble crowds and talk about their public policies."
He said the event is not a fundraiser, and no one is being asked for money or charged admission.
But Democrats believe the message will be clear to those attending: Support Blackwell's candidacy, or risk losing public contracts if he takes office.
"The wink, wink, nod, nod is that Blackwell is hinting at pay-to-play. Why else would you have Gordon Proctor there?" said Brian Rothenberg, of the Ohio Democratic Party.
Oh, there's definitely more inside.
The gauntlet has been thrown down:
Estimating that the practice of pay-to-play costs New Jersey taxpayers about $1 billion annually, state Sen. Leonard Lance has challenged Gov. Corzine to support a Republican-sponsored bill banning the practice at all levels of government.
Will the Governor pick it up?
"The governor remains committed to a pay-to-play ban at all levels," according to Corzine spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. "We will have to review this specific bill" before commenting on its merits, Gilfillan said.
We'll keep you updated.
New Jersey's slate on pay-to-play reform laws have been a big success around the state in limiting the effect of campaign contributions on lawmakers' decisions.
Apparently, though, not all are enthralled with the new way of doing things:
Many contractors gave money because they saw an easy inroad into getting government contracts, said Harry Pozycki, a former Common Cause chairman who lobbied for reform.
But the law has some Democrats crying foul.
Democrats say the law hinders their ability to raise money and gives the upper hand to opponents who can foot the bill for their own campaigns.
"It's hurt us quite a lot," Democratic State Committee Chairman Joe Cryan said. "You know what hasn't changed is the cost of elections. They are still going up."
You know what is going down, though? Voters' patience with lawmakers who, in a state where anti-pay-to-play legislation is sweeping through communities big and small, continue to knock its benefits.
Now, I'm not from New Jersey, but recent news from there makes me think I should get up that way more often.
For a good while now, New Jersey has been experiencing a spreading call to reform over something called "pay-to-play." Anti-pay-to-play ordinances "would ban campaign contributions by developers who wish to do redevelopment work in the township," and they have been passing in townships, cities, and counties across the state. Common Cause New Jersey has more information on reports that Lawrence and Dover Townships have such ordinances on their council agendas tonight, with widespread resident support in each township.
Good for New Jersey! Nowhere in this country should wealthy businesses or contractors be able to secure themselves contracts with campaign contributions, to the detriment of small businesses that can't pay enough to play.
So what do you say, New Jersey? Got room for a Red Sox fan up there?
Common Blog
