Those "lot of Texans" were mainly his ex-Chief of Staff Mike Toomey who was then pharmacutical company Merck's Texas' lobbier, his then Chief of Staff Dianne Delisi's mother-in-law who worked for Merck's state advocacy group, and himself with kickbacks. Do you not see a bit of conflict of interest there? Merck a chief of staff and a chief of staff's MIL doesn't raise red flags with you?
In the grand scheme of things you should research donations made to political action committees (PACs) and direct contributions that companies like Merck make to ALL politicians. That's what lobbyists do. They prowl the halls of government buildings across the country. (Where do you think Barack Obama's $1Billion is coming from, the poor?)
Lobbyists start out in government--where they build up their rolodex. Then they move on to represent businesses who know it is required that they come hat in hand to pay tribute to the legislators who will be passing or not passing legislation that will be levying taxes and regulations upon them.
It is the nature of the beast -- why we need to have elected officials spend less time on the job and go home to work a real job. The Texas legislature meets every 2 years for 140 days (additional days if special sessions are called).
Rick Perry's platform in brief:
1. Don't spend all the money.
2. Have fair and predictable tax and regulatory policy.
3. A legal system that doesn't allow for over suing (lawsuit abuse) and make loser pay (no more jackpot justice).
With that as Rick Perry's platform and political ideology, I conclude that Merck contributed to Rick Perry's PAC to have less government entanglement in their business, which would do considerably more for their bottom line than what you are suggesting.