Replies

I'm guessing that since you did not get too specific with your "connect the dots" scenario that you want us to believe that you've found a smoking gun of some sorts? That because this contractor contributed to the campaign that was in favor of continuing to build more light rail, that somehow this gave them some kind of advantage?

Have you ever worked on a contract of this type personally? Let me give you a little insight that might calm you down just a little before you pop your "safeties." It is a normal expectation in doing business like this, that as one of the "winning" contractors for a project, that you might be asked to help "contribute" to any cause that furthers the work to be performed. There is no collusion or nefarious dealings in making this happen. STV has the right, as well as any of its' competitors, to make donations to support the legal process by which they work. The fact that STV followed the legal guidelines and publicly admitted they were supporting the side they did shows that they followed the law. If they tried to "slip it under the table" and got caught, that would be another thing and they should be prosecuted for doing so. But that is not what happened here.

Considering STV was already the winning contractor for this portion of the contract for Metro, I do not see any "conspiracies" in the way this worked out. If, instead, STV had not won the previous contract and then made a contribution only to be awarded the follow-on contract, then I would say you should get a little concerned about the awards process.

I bet you there are more freepers out there who have been part of these kind of transactions (especially sales types) who know exactly what I am talking about. This is normal - you might not like it, but it is legal.

That because this contractor contributed to the campaign that was in favor of continuing to build more light rail, that somehow this gave them some kind of advantage?

The main advantage they had going into it was possession of a contract from phase I. The contribution to the PAC was twofold - First, ensure yourself future business by expanding a system that you are highly likely to get the nod on.

Second, show the people in power that you'll go up to bat for them if they go up to bat for you at a later date (by that I am referencing the fact that Metro's board chairman Art Schechter, Metrorail's chief orchestrator Ed Wulfe, and dozens of other politically powerful Metro players literally ran the PAC that took those checks)

Have you ever worked on a contract of this type personally?

No, though I have conducted professional transit policy studies and probably know the intricacies of Houston political campaign practices and players better than some 99% of this forum.

It is a normal expectation in doing business like this, that as one of the "winning" contractors for a project, that you might be asked to help "contribute" to any cause that furthers the work to be performed. There is no collusion or nefarious dealings in making this happen.

You evidently don't know Houston Metro then. Collusion and nefarious dealings are what they do best - as in colluding to redirect and reshape the routes of train lines so that they service the property ownings and developments of politically connected individuals within the Metro machine (look up a little project called Gulfgate Mall and then find out what a man named Ed Wulfe has to do with both it and Metro if you doubt me). This one is also something more than a little "thank you" political contribution to a politician. Sure - companies give donations to reelection campaigns and the sort all the time and they often do it in gratitude or return for some break the politician gave them. We all expect that and, though we SHOULD also condemn it even if "they all do it," there is relatively little that will ever be done to stop it.

STV/Metro's PAC/Metro took that to the next level in this case because the contribution wasn't a simple reelection favor with loose connections that may help with some return benefit in the future. The nature of the referendum and the contributions make the connection much stronger than that and are in fact direct. STV gives to a Metro-backed PAC, the PAC pushes through $$$ for Metro in a referendum, Metro gives the $$$ to STV in a contract. The political scientist calls a relationship of this sort an iron triangle and a very strong one at that. Iron triangles are known as one of the greatest ethical lapses of the democratic system as they turn the simple wink and nod relationships we all expect will be there into blatant cronyism.

STV has the right, as well as any of its' competitors, to make donations to support the legal process by which they work.

You are blurring technical legality (and a very loose one at that. The collusion between the PAC and Metro via Wulfe and Schechter, for example, plus Metro's own campaign spending were of very questionable legality in any sense) with having "rights" in the ethical sense. A loophole in a statute, if loosely interpreted to the benefit of that loophole's users, may permit "legal" bribery and cronyism to occur. That doesn't make what happens any less unethical or any less corrupt.

The fact that STV followed the legal guidelines and publicly admitted they were supporting the side they did shows that they followed the law.

Did STV send out a press release "publicly admitting" they were supporting Metro's PAC? Did they send out a notice saying "STV announced today that it would better its financial well being by assisting in the adoption of a referendum bond for which it is a likely candidate to recieve $61 million in contracts." Did they do anything of the sort? Heck no! Or at least not to my knowledge or that of anybody else in Houston. Their $25,000 check simply appeared listed deep within the PAC's disclosure filing through no act of their own and only then several weeks after it had been cut (also per its absence from the ethics commission's online database, it appears that PAC has yet to file the last of its required disclosure reports though this should've been done about 6 months ago). Was this technically legal? Probably, but then again you can just as easily pull up Hildebeast's finance reports and probably find all sorts of dirty cash from terrorist bagmen and Johnny Chung.

Considering STV was already the winning contractor for this portion of the contract for Metro, I do not see any "conspiracies" in the way this worked out.

That's a circular conclusion. By being the winning contractor for phase I they had a substantially above-average chance at getting the phase II contract IF there was to be a phase II. By cutting that check to campaign for phase II they substantially increased the likelihood of there being a phase II.

You are correct in one sense - they may have been able to do this "legally" or at least done it in a manner that was legal enough to get away with it. But crony deals of the STV-Metro sort are not what make for good government and certainly aren't something that conservatives should overlook. The government envisioned by our founders derives from consent and undeniable truths rooted in our bible, our constitution, and our common law. The STV/Metro model you extoll as technically "legal" throws all that out the window and substitutes the "honest" grafts of Plunkitt of Tammany Hall in its place.