'Pay to sue,' or supporting Democratic 'activist' AGs?
Posted 4/22/2009 11:44:00 PM
On Aug. 3, 2006, then-N.M. Attorney General Patricia Madrid signed a contract granting a Houston law firm the right to sue a big pharmaceutical company on behalf of the State of New Mexico.
Approximately seven weeks later, on Sept. 27 of that year, the law firm, now called Bailey Perrin Bailey, gave $25,000 to the campaign of the man who would replace Madrid in that office at the beginning of 2007, current AG Gary King. And about three weeks after the first contribution -- on Oct. 18, 2006 -- the law firm gave another $25,000 to King, who like Madrid is a Democrat.
The contributions, which I wrote about last week, are revealed on the money-in-politics Web site FollowTheMoney.org. The potentially lucrative 2006 contract -- and a one-year extension granted by King in 2008 -- were obtained from King’s office this week in response to a public records request.
Click here to read both contracts.
The massive campaign contributions came under scrutiny when the Wall Street Journal accused the law firm, King and some other Democratic state attorneys general last week of engaging in a “pay-to-sue” scheme. The newspaper alleges that Houston lawyer F. Kenneth Bailey has taken a “pre-packaged lawsuit” against Janssen Pharmaceuticals to a number of states and convinced their AGs to get involved by giving them big campaign contributions.
It’s an allegation King said last week is false.
The attorney general painted a different picture: The business-friendly newspaper, King said, is being used as the latest assault by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and drug companies that are trying to stop “activist attorneys general” from taking on big business. In 2006, King said, the groups funneled $650,000 to his GOP opponent through the Republican Leadership Council. Lawyers such as the Bailey firm, he said, are giving contributions to the other side in the battle.
Either way, King isn’t the first Democratic politician in New Mexico to whom the law firm has given money. According to FollowTheMoney.org, in 2002 the firm gave $25,000 to Madrid and another $25,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson. And in 2005, Bailey gave $10,000 to Richardson.
The original contract given to the firm by Madrid in 2006 followed a competitive bidding process. In 2008, King extended the contract without soliciting bids. Last week, he said that was done because it wouldn’t make sense to change attorneys in the middle of a lawsuit.
The lawsuit is ongoing. The contracted can be extended each year until it’s complete, King said.
Labels: Courts, State government
2 Comments:
Good article. This shows precisely why politicians do not listen to or respond to citizens. The are too busy doing the bidding of their big campaign contributors. Even if a citizen were to contribute $5K or $10K, that is peanuts compared to these types of influence peddlars.
Newsflash:
Trial attorneys give to Democrats because they are, for instance, more likely to sue pharmaceutical co.’s for lying about side effects of their drugs. Pharmaceuticals on the other hand give more to Republicans because they are more likely to sweep any harm they’ve done under the rug.
More specifically, Wal-Mart, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, HMOs and others under the banner of the US Chamber of Commerce gave $650,000 to Republican AG candidate Jim Bibb because he would stand tall for their interests and would never sue them for anything they do wrong. On the other hand, Bailey Perrin Bailey, a firm that sues pharmaceuticals which have wronged New Mexicans, gave $50,000 to King to help him get elected so he could do what AG’s are supposed to do: advocate for the consumer.
Since his election, King has been a consistent crusader for all types of ethics reform including the capping of campaign contributions. Not to mention he has done more to fight public corruption in 3 years than any NM AG has ever done in 4 or 8 years. He doesn’t like the system as it now exists and has fought to improve it. The real scandal is that only this year, 2009, did the NM legislature decide it was a good idea to cap campaign contributions.
Before you criticize him, lets look at King’s other options.
1) He could have changed attorneys in the middle of a lawsuit. That would have been reckless and dumb.
2) He could have dropped the lawsuit that was started by Madrid. That would be a derogation of his duties. I don’t know the details of the lawsuit, but Madrid was probably right to file the lawsuit and King was probably right to continue with it.
3) He could have not accepted the money in the first place. In fact he could have not taken any money for his campaign at all. If after reading Heath’s post, that is your position, then you don’t live in the read world. If that were the case, then we would have Jim Bibb as our AG and there would be no lawsuits against tobacco companies, polluters, or any entity that has wronged New Mexicans to begin with. And there certainly wouldn’t be a lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which ripped off the state and withheld information about the dangerous side effects of its drugs.
This is a non-scandal.
This is a non-story.
This is a hit job carried out by the Wall Street Journal on behalf of business interests.
Don’t take the bait, Heath.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Published comments have been deemed by Heath Haussamen to be in compliance with this site’s comments policy. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Heath Haussamen or this site. If you know of a person who is abusing this site’s comments system by impersonating someone else or in other ways, please report it by clicking here.