Three City of Austin Lobbyists Hosted Brewster McCracken Fundraiser

Pay for Play? Of course (0.00 / 0)

Of course there's pay for play, that is actually the definition of government these days, both parties, right and left. Why else would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a campaign for a job that pays them only a few thousand in return....it's because they get the keys to the financial stream that is TAX DOLLARS.

I don't know why people assume that only one party or faction is corrupt. It is in the nature of government to be such. Wake up, give them less power and we won't have to worry who's in power.

---

by: nowayjose @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:03:11 PM UTC

David Mauro....Politically Unbiased, or slandering? (0.00 / 0)

David,

I find it ironic that you attack under the guise of maintaining a professional journalistic fashion when you are listed as a supporter on Lee Leffingwell's campaign site.

Smell something fishy?  I do.  If you want to support Lee, great.  But, if you want to report in a fashion that is deceiving as fact than perhaps you should state where your loyalty and support stands as it states on Lee's website.
FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS SILLY TOPIC AND ATTEMPT TO REMOVE FOCUS ON REAL TOPICS AND REAL NEWS.  I DID RESEARCH AND DISCOVERED THE TRUTH IS THIS:

The Texas Democratic Party had a lobbyist fund raiser that night at the same time in the same building... and they don't limit how much they take.  At Brewster McCracken's fund raiser, Austin citizens can give $350 to a candidate.  City lobbyists can only give $25.

WOW, A whopping $25 max, great reporting David.  

---

by: thebikeriderj @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:19:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Welcome to BOR (3.00 / 1)

I have been open about supporting Leffingwell. If you have followed my writing on BOR, you've noticed I've written plenty of positive posts about McCracken, a guy I think would be a fine mayor.

I posted this because I am not sure what to think about people who have a direct and significant financial interest in city government all supporting the same candidate.

I believe it is a legitimate story and would have reported it if it was about Leffingwell.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:39:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perspective (0.00 / 0)

If it is a legitimate story, then there are other writers at BOR who can cover it.

---

by: Jeb @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 22:19:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

added disclosure (3.00 / 1)

that I have used in past posts on Mayor's race. Should have had it in this one from beginning.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:46:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for adding it David (0.00 / 0)

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:48:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please (3.00 / 2)

There are certain courtesies we ask for online.

1. Caps constitute yelling online.  Please don't yell at our readers.
2. Please cite facts when necessary.  Can you please provide a link in regards to the $25 rule?

You can agree or disagree with us all you want, it's great for the market place of ideas, but we do ask for you to respect the community.

Thanks and welcome to the site.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:48:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

These lobbyists can give $350, not $25 (5.00 / 1)

These lobbyists in question are not registered to lobby the city. Those are the only lobbyists who can't give more than $25.

The lobbyists I wrote about are hired BY the city to lobby the State. They, like any other citizen, is allowed to give $350.

This, it seems, is actually "the truth."

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:04:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pravda (1.00 / 1)

No offense, dude. But no one trusts BOR to report anything except through a hyper-partisan lens. And how couldn't they do anything else? Their relationships with certain pols is incestuous, thus the ridiculous number of "full disclosures."

My favorite this week has been Todd Hill following Wendy Davis around like a wittle puppy dog, breathlessly reporting every time she so much as sneezes. It's not journalism. It's the Texas version of Pravda.

---

by: effin @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:49:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least... (0.00 / 0)

we have the courage to sign our names to our beliefs and stand by our convictions.

We also put our partisanship and our agendas out in the open.  Since you are a newly registered user on the site you may forget that KT and I disclose who we work for in both posts and on a static page.

You may also forget that we don't censor people.  We allow other people to make absurd comments like yours as long as they don't violate our community guidelines.

We have implemented policies fair to every progressive or Democratic candidate like a right to respond program, and we even protect the identity of anonymous users when they make naive comments (as long as they don't work for a client they are shilling for on our site).

We expect these sort of comments during city elections, so we will continue to remind all of our community members (new and old) about our programs and bias.

Thanks for reading and hopefully you will be engaged in our community in the future too.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:58:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not be upfront? (0.00 / 0)

You should make it clear that BOR is not a journalism or investigative reporting site. It is site that is run by campaign consultants and that covers campaigns. So anything that someone reads on this site has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are extremely incestuous relationships among BOR's writers and the campaigns that they cover, so one should not expect very objective posts on this blog.

---

by: eme @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 18:17:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Last response (5.00 / 2)

First, we aren't all "consultants".  We have students, political consultants, campaign operatives, and general community members who write for the site.

Second, we never said we were a journalism organization and we never called what we do here investigative journalism.  In fact the only one to make that claim is you.

Third, incestuous relationships?  Not sure what you mean.  We all have our individual bias.  None of us write about our conflicts unless it is a clear Republican vs. Democrat issue.
That's why I am not writing about the race for Mayor.  Some people support candidates.  Those people write about those races.  Those same writers disclose their support.  What else would you like?

How about a right to respond policy for every progressive or democratic campaign or group?  We have that.

How about the ability for other campaigns and their supporters to write on BOR in the user journals?  We have that too.  

How about front paged storied on every race before we make our endorsements?  That's our policy!

Seems like we are doing a lot of stuff to get both sides of the issue and race our there.  Seems like we really value the fair exchange and an improvement to the market place of ideas.

Just in case people think we don't honor those values, we also have a standing policy to use our real names and provide contact information for anyone or any candidate.

After 5 years, we value this community and we understand it has taken half a decade to make this a resource for the progressive community.  It takes a single post to destroy everything Byron, KT, Phil, Jim, and other have built.  We take that seriously.

If you have any suggestions, we will listen.  If you just want to throw mud and make defamatory accusations, that's fine too.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 20:04:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fine, but... (0.00 / 0)

It's very clear where most of your most frequently published writers stand on the candidates, whether these writers are staff, consultants, volunteers, or friends of the campaigns. This is not always disclosed upfront, as evidenced by David Mauro's initial failure to disclose that he is a confirmed supporter of Leffingwell. Further, you may have an equal access policy, but stories that are positive about Leffingwell far outnumber those that are positive about McCracken, for example.

BOR is clearly a resource for shedding light on how a small group of politically involved people in Austin feel about the local campaigns. How is recognizing that "throwing mud or making defamatory accusations"? It is what it is. I guess I had thought you considered yourself journalistic in some sense, but if you admit that you're not, then that's fine.

It seems that you react very defensively to criticism. I seriously doubt that some back and forth on the nature of your site can "destroy everything Byron, KT, Phil, Jim, and other have built." But in the end the question is, what have you built? I can't find a mission statement on your site. It seems like BOR is a nice glimpse into how a few insiders feel about politics, but where can someone in Austin find some good relatively unbiased coverage of local and statewide politics? I have not found it yet, and I am not convinced that BOR is not trying to pass itself off as such.

---

by: eme @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 20:42:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've written extensively (0.00 / 0)

about the Mayor's race and consistently disclosed I am a support of Leffingwell's campaign.

Having said that, I am not a consultant or even a volunteer. I have never even met Council Member Leffingwell.

I have disclosed that I plan to vote for Leffingwell to be as open as possible.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 20:56:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Fine, but... (0.00 / 0)

I can't find a mission statement on your site. It seems like BOR is a nice glimpse into how a few insiders feel about politics, but where can someone in Austin find some good relatively unbiased coverage of local and statewide politics? I have not found it yet, and I am not convinced that BOR is not trying to pass itself off as such.

Maybe you should check out Austin Political Report.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:42:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Restart (0.00 / 0)

Maybe he should restart APR. The last posting was from August of last year. Wow, did that site fall down.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:12:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hahah. (0.00 / 0)

Man, talk about real independent political analysis- APR was top notch. :)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:46:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Evolution of Media (5.00 / 3)

I think you're making a lot of late-20th century assumptions about what journalism is, and trying to apply those assumptions to BOR, which is on the cusp -- like a lot of blogs and, truthfully, like a lot of the "unbiased" media sources in Texas and across the country -- of the latest evolution of journalism.

Unbiased journalism is not considered, by some, as a core value in journalism. Telling the truth is a core value. Providing an equal opportunity -- equal, not equitable -- for response is a core value. But bias has always existed in journalism. Fundamentally, bias exists any time the supplier of the news chooses to feature, highlight, or discuss one story before another. That choice is an editorial one -- and an editorial decision is, almost (though not quite) by definition contains bias. But at its core, the editorial choice is "what information will provide the greatest public good to our news consumers."

That requires a philosophical discussion and understanding of what a public good is, and what kind of public good we want to provide on our site. To do that, we must determine what kind of people visit the site, who we want to bring in to our site, and what kind of community and public forum emanates from all these interactions and relationships. The Houston Chronicle has, as its base community, people that live in the greater Houston area. That's how they define the boundaries of their community. We have always defined the boundaries of our community as those interested in state and local politics, particularly of a focus on Democratic news and issues. We believe there is a public good in highlighting policies and politicians that are working for the shared values that KT, Matt, myself and the whole writing staff believe in --- if for no other reason, than to pursue the very definition of journalism itself:

To inform the public. We inform the public (the community that participates on BOR) of news that we choose to write about it (that editorial choice all journalists share). This is no different than a town orator standing on a soap box in the middle of a dirt road in 1770's Boston, or a lone voice transmitting electronic signals across radio frequencies in the 1930's. Our venue is different, our community is different, and what we choose to raise our particular focus to is different than others around us --

But that does not separate what we do from journalism. Not by any standards and definitions we believe, and not by any standards and definitions of the larger journalism community.

What have we built? We have built a community of thousands upon thousands of individuals who have great passion for an issue. We have built a public space where those individuals can seek news that they don't find in the local papers, on local radio, or on local television. We have created an opportunity for local campaigns -- like Austin city council races -- to have an extra megaphone, and where, in turn, we can reply back with the same level of voice and force.

We have made a space where authority is strictly limited, and where democratic participation is placed at the highest level of importance. Sometimes we fail to live up to the standards we've set for ourselves and the community expects of us. You think we've done that here.

I thank you for raising it to our attention.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 16:41:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

dem's some pretty words, college boy :) (5.00 / 1)

here's my reductionist theory, based on technological and economic capabilities and constraints driving our ethical norms.

pre-1950: characterized by fragmented media (mostly newspapers), often divided along ethnic, ideological, and spatial lines.

technological capability: printing press, telegraph
technological constraint: non-universal literacy, poor transportation networks, low bandwidth e-communication
economic constraint: high cost of distribution, fragmented culture
ethical norm: muckraking acceptable. media is diverse, often-biased.

1950-1990: Beginning in the 1920s with the popularization of radio and reaching an apex in the 1950s with television, for the first time a truly national media emerged.  Characterized by authoritative, unified, but few media voices.

technological capability: television, radio
technological constraint: high bandwidth, but broadcast only communications
economic constraint: technology was expensive, leading to only a few important players
ethical norm: with the scarcity of voices, it becomes more important to prevent single viewpoints from dominating.  Hence the "Fairness Doctrine" and the esteem held for "unbiased reporting"

1990-?: Beginning with Cable TV in the 1970s and strengthened by talk radio, satellite TV and the Internet, the number of media voices with global reach explode in number.  This leads once again to media fragmentation along cultural and ideological lines.

technological capability: cable + satellite tv, talk radio, teh intertubes
technological constraint: none
economic constraints: none
ethical norm: with any voice able to get its message out, the need for "unbiased" sources is lessened.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 19:19:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the analysis (0.00 / 0)

There are a couple other media revolutions you could go back and date. The expansion of railroads and the ability to deliver mail (re: news) across the country faster than on horseback was a big one. As was the telegraph.

A lot of what I wrote above delves from a couple of books, the best of which is a book called The Elements of Journalism. It's a knock-out to read.

I like the analysis you wrote up, though. Though I'd split the post-Fairness Doctrine era (what was that, 1985 or so?) with about 1998 and the rise of the internet. Talk radio and cable TV are substantively different than teh intertubes, if for no other reason than you no longer have to have a big corporate sponsorship to increase your legitimacy.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 22:48:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The last two replies... (5.00 / 1)

Should seriously be an entire post. Some good stuff in there.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:48:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

read The Elements of Journalism (0.00 / 0)

for a class last semester ... its a great read.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:40:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Silly season is here (0.00 / 0)

So the future of journalism includes tedious dissections of a city council race in Fredericksburg, sycophantic essays about hopelessly lame Democrats running for statewide office, and transcripts of Twitter conversations?

I don't have any problem with BOR not following a traditional journalism model. My beef is that it's hardly journalism. The purpose of this site is to promote particular candidates and a particular political party. Your candidates and your political party. And here's the money shot: That's What You Get Paid To Do. You're not paid to inform and educate the public - you're paid to be promoters, party men, apparatchiks.

What news you produce that isn't derived from outside media can usually be sourced to your writers' proximity to Party activists, politicians, consultants and the like. There's some value to that but I wouldn't locate it in the grand tradition of journalism, though no doubt you've gone to great lengths to do so.

---

by: effin @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:24:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The progressive blogosphere (0.00 / 0)

In your attempts to understand it and dissect it you criticize this community. What you wrote here:

The purpose of this site is to promote particular candidates and a particular political party. Your candidates and your political party. And here's the money shot: That's What You Get Paid To Do. You're not paid to inform and educate the public - you're paid to be promoters, party men, apparatchiks.

I believe that you are a very fine example of a Texas Republican who feels a little threatened by all of this. And so, you would really like to tear it all down with ignorant and uninformed comments.

Good Luck! I do think you owe the BOR community (and its amazing writing staff) an apology for your insults and rudeness ~ if you ever wish to be part of it. Otherwise, please be on your way. Take care.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:36:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you don't like it... (0.00 / 0)

...no one is forcing you to read it. Until this site make enough money to live on, the writers are going to be forced to make a living somehow, and other than the ones in college, it's through political work. Ironically, it's that same work that allow for more insight and information about what is discussed here. How else would you have a blog about Texas politics that wasn't simply regurgitating 100% of what other people knew first unless the writers had better access to that information.

This site has always put forward and was based on the fact that written by people who enjoy politics for people who enjoy reading about it and both cases from a Democratic perspective. It's a blog, always has been. However you want to define it in terms of 'new media' or whatnot I could care less. It's not pretended to be anything and unless you are that new the world of politics or online media, then you're missing the ball (which is apparent in your inability to make the connection of why we cover the things that we do, Fredericksburg city council races included).

As for this...

What news you produce that isn't derived from outside media can usually be sourced to your writers' proximity to Party activists, politicians, consultants and the like.

I'll file that one in the "no shit sherlock" file.  Where do you think any news comes from written by any beat or niche reporter? I think that the "media" has a word to describe these people. I'm having a hard time thinking of it.... something like.. oh, yeah, that's it.

Sources.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:02:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Community Guidelines (0.00 / 0)

I'm not asking the leopard to change its spots... But please let's just stop with all the journalistic pretense and the ceaseless faux-earnestness. Whenever a Texas Dem needs to get his or her talking point out, where do they turn? Here, to the ol' BOR... Purveyor of Party Talking Points Since [year]. This blog might not be a paid project of the TDP but it certainly plays one on the web.

I did finally get around to reading the Community Guidelines and sadly I wasn't surprised to find out that it's Official Policy that remarks deemed "excessively" anti-Democratic are banned from this site. As a democrat, I find that profoundly offensive.  

---

by: effin @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:08:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

as a Democrat (0.00 / 0)

You may have missed out on some of our more epic coverage of things party related. So back to 2006 and you'll find more than your fair share of non talking point related material.

If you think BOR's relationship with the TDP is cozy than, well, sorry, I'll have to get back to you after I go finish laughing a bit.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:20:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a Texas Democrat (0.00 / 0)

You may very well believe it's still 2003. Don't worry. It's safe to be openly Democratic, now. I'm glad you read the community guidelines.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:37:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thin skin (1.00 / 2)

Did you all go to the same political finishing school? I ask because every BOR writer seems to be afflicted with the same problem of having very thin skin.

And always with this weird overly earnest tone! "We have that... We have that too... That's our policy!" It's like you're the scriptwriter for some late night infomercial.

---

by: effin @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:20:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're welcome to provide useful commentary... (0.00 / 0)

...related to the actual post at hand. Your 4 posts to date have been devoid of anything other than attacking other users and writers and complaining how the site is run. Seeing as you've stated you've read the Community Guidelines I'll remind you of the second to last one at this point in an official capacity.

I wouldn't be surprised if the community self-moderates you soon as it doesn't tend to be interested in the sort of things you're harping on.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:47:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

New thread (0.00 / 0)

Just put a new post up on the front page. Would love to have this conversation there, and not on a 3-day old post.

Just making an offer...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 23:08:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (5.00 / 1)

KT said I'm not his type, so despite my best efforts, no incestuous relationship among BOR writers has occurred. Yet.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 20:10:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

Matt's not my type either. Not Katherine, but that's for entirely different reasons. In fact, she might be more my type than you or Matt. Now that's scary.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:31:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the levity KT and Phillip (0.00 / 0)

I was getting a little too wrapped up in the accusations by some of the readers. Wow, I never knew about these "incestuous relationships." I guess I'm one of the naive readers.

Thanks for breaking up the intensity.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:41:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a legitimate story and a rather sad one... (0.00 / 0)

...looks like Brewster is heading in the same direction as his ex-wife when it comes to questionable lobby and GOP support.  He used to seem like such a rising star.  There has been a serious dimming.  

---

by: politicsforjim @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:24:59 AM UTC

Shady (0.00 / 0)

I have to say this clearly raises the issue of Mr. McCracken's judgment.  I don't know if there was a quid pro quo here (I'll assume not), but it obviously raises the appearance of impropriety when persons who personally -- and very generously -- benefit from a contract with the City organize a fundraiser for a mayoral candidate while the ink is still wet on the contract.  Even the most enthusiastic of Mr. McCracken's supporters would have to concede that the fundraiser likely took place with Mr. McCracken's full knowledge and that the appearance created is problematic.  

I also think it's important to note that the City often finds itself in the crosshairs of the Legislature on a number of issues that are near and dear to the hearts of Austinites.  If Mr. McCracken cares to line himself up with the fat cat lobbyists and the interests they represent that regularly attack the City, fine.  Now we know where he stands.

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:49:55 PM UTC

These lobbyists (3.00 / 1)

are ones hired BY the city to represent the city AGAINST the bad guys in the state legislature.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 20:43:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong, Mike (0.00 / 0)

The City lobbyists sent this invitation to the full lobby list -- they were soliciting contributions for Mr. McCracken from all interests that have engaged lobbyists on the state level.  

If Mr. McCracken would care to disclose today what lobbyists he hobnobbed with in the confines of the private Austin Club, I guess we could put all this to rest.  Was it the homebuilders lobby, who have a strong interest in ensuring continued sprawl?  Was it the toll road lobbyists?  Was it landfill operators?  Who was it?

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:47:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was referring to (0.00 / 0)

the ones who sent the invitation, same as you were (originally). Don't move the goalposts and then claim victory.

---

by: m1ek @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 16:54:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stone Houses (0.00 / 0)

David, this is an outrageous posting.  "Pay to Play?"

You owe readers an apology.  There are lobbyists on Lee's list of supporters as well.  

And there are bloggers who get paid by campaigns, referred business by various campaign consultants and who ask for advertising of candidates.  I don't think this disqualifies a site or the bloggers and will continue to defend you guys and this site.  But, don't cross the line.

---

by: EugeneS @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:42:40 PM UTC

What? (0.00 / 0)

1) City approves contract paying individuals fairly excessive amounts of money to lobby the Legislature;

2) Individuals who personally benefit from said contract throw fundraiser for candidate who voted on contract just weeks before;

3) Candidate attends said fundraiser and accepts campaign contributions made possible by contract beneficiaries.

How is this not a reasonable inquiry?  Did Mr. McCracken think this is acceptable -- this is not how we do business in Austin, Texas.  Perhaps this is OK in Corpus, but we don't play this way in Austin.

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:56:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of Necessary Apologies! (0.00 / 0)

EugeneS, it sure sounds like you are threatening the good folks who run this blog.  I don't know you or David, but David has every right to cover any issue he pleases, and we can all decide on our own if something "crosses the line".

The question isn't whether Lee has supporters who are lobbyists -- he clearly does have wide and deep support.  The question is whether folks who personally benefit from City contracts feel obligated to throw fundraisers for him right after the contract is approved.  If you think that's the way our City government should operate, Mr. McCracken is your man.  Can you cite an example where Mr. Leffingwell has done what Mr. McCracken has?  If so, end of inquiry.  Until then, it sure sounds like a legitimate issue to many of us to discuss.

I guess it's wrong for Gov. Blago to lean on folks w/ gov't contracts for contributions, but A OK for CM McCracken to do so?  Help us understand your logic.

---

by: The Lorax @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 00:47:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lorax (3.00 / 1)

Lorax, if you'll identify yourself, I'm happy to engage in discussion with you.  I've learned the hard way it doesn't pay to engage with anonymous (read: no accountability) postings.  thx

---

by: EugeneS @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 13:13:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Facts (0.00 / 0)

Why should I identify myself -- so you can threaten me like you have threatened David?  My identity has nothing to do with Mr. McCracken's display of incredibly poor judgment, which is the topic of discussion here, and which I presume you lack the ability or facts to refute.

But if you insist, I will tell you.  I am the Lorax.  I speak for the trees.

---

by: The Lorax @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 15:39:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no threats intended or meant to be implied (0.00 / 0)

I consider Matt & KT friends and, though I first met David when he was 6yo (I've known his daddy for 16+ years), I only know him from afar.  "Don't cross the line," was meant as advice to preserve the integrity of BOR.  It's a topic widely discussed and no doubt at least as much among these guys as anyone else.

Lorax, you've already come out to me before.  You should in these pages.

---

by: EugeneS @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 21:45:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should have said I think (0.00 / 0)

you've already come out to me before.  I can't find the email but seem to recall.  best,  

---

by: EugeneS @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 21:47:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

Eugene,

There are no lobbyists who are paid by the City of Austin on Lee Leffingwell's supporter list. Refer to the list of 10 CoA lobbyists and then look at Lee's list ... no overlap at all.

If Leffingwell had CoA lobbyists hosting fundraisers for him, I would write about it on BOR.

As you are someone I have much respect for, I am disappointed you find this post "outrageous." But the facts in this post are completely accurate and I stand behind them.

Please contact me at david@burntorangereport to follow up on this or any other posting. That goes for anyone and everyone.

David

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:34:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lobbyists (0.00 / 0)

David, I am talking about registered city of Austin lobbyists

---

by: EugeneS @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:25:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of the list of CoA lobbyists that I have seen (0.00 / 0)

no one is on the Leffingwell supporter list.

If you have other info, please post or e-mail me.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:31:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

confusion (0.00 / 0)

So you are talking about lobbyists who LOBBY the city, not lobbyists who are paid and lobby FOR the city. Gotcha.

Point taken, but that really was not the subject of this post at all.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:32:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, sure you do (0.00 / 0)

Austin just likes to act like it's better than everyone else.

The bullshit stacks up in Austin just as high as it does anywhere else; ya'll just dress it up a little purtier.

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 00:47:49 AM UTC

Brewster's Pals (0.00 / 0)

From Ms. McWilliams own website:

"The national media, including Newsweek, USA Today, CNN and NPR, have reported on McWilliams' role as a leading fundraiser for President George W. Bush. One of the first to be named a Bush Pioneer in 2000, McWilliams also served on the Honorary Committee for the 54th Presidential Inauguration. Andrea and her husband Dean, along with State Representative Phil King, served as Texas co-chairs for Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee during the 2007-08 presidential cycle."

Bush?  Huckabee?  Doesn't sound like Brewster's new pals share our values.

---

by: The Lorax @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:01:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]