At best, business-friendly newspaper is doing shoddy reporting. At worst, it has ulterior motives for distorting the truth with its ‘pay-to-sue’ allegation.
The Wall Street Journal went after New Mexico Attorney General Gary King this weekend for a third time in its ongoing “pay-to-sue” assault. Its new editorial reveals that the newspaper is not treating King fairly and is doing a disservice to its readers.
The Journal editorial left out a number of facts that contradict its claim that King took massive campaign contributions from a Texas lawyer who has a contract to sue a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the state. At best, it’s shoddy reporting. At worst, the newspaper has ulterior motives and is cherry picking some facts while intentionally leaving out others.
At issue is whether Houston lawyer F. Kenneth Bailey was part of the Williams Bailey law firm when the firm gave $25,000 to King’s AG campaign on Sept. 27, 2006 and another $25,000 to King on Oct. 18, 2006. Bailey’s current firm, Bailey Perrin Bailey, is suing Janssen Pharmaceuticals on behalf of New Mexico and a number of other states. The Journal has alleged that Bailey was still part of Williams Bailey when the firm gave the contributions to King and that the situation amounts to pay to play, or what it calls “pay to sue.”
The contract was initially given to Bailey Perrin Bailey by King’s predecessor, Patricia Madrid, in 2006 following a competitive bidding process. A Madrid political action committee took a $25,000 contribution from Bailey in 2005.
King says Bailey broke off all ties with Williams Bailey in 2004, long before the firm gave money to King’s campaign, so the contract to sue Janssen and the contributions to King’s 2006 campaign are unrelated. As evidence, King’s office provided an announcement published on Sept. 5, 2005 in Texas Lawyer that indicates that Bailey had left Williams Bailey and helped form Bailey Perrin Bailey.
The Wall Street Journal’s newest hit piece, in claiming that King is wrong, cites a handful of campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission:
“But Williams Bailey is listed as Mr. Bailey’s employer on campaign documents well past 2004 and as recently as 2007. In fact, on August 23, 2005, Mr. Bailey gave $25,000 to Ms. Madrid, who was then AG, and listed the street address for Williams Bailey under ‘donor’s address.’ Mr. King can find these facts where we did, on the Web site of New Mexico’s Secretary of State. Multiple reports at the Federal Election Commission also show Mr. Bailey listing Williams Bailey as his employer through 2007.”
Other contribution records left out
When a source told me several weeks ago about those contribution records, my eyebrows shot up. I began asking questions, and immediately learned that the situation is much more complicated than the Journal wants you to believe.
While it’s true that some campaign reports from 2004-2007 list Bailey’s employer as Williams Bailey, others list Bailey Perrin Bailey as his employer. Some list Bailey as being self employed, and others don’t list any employer. One lists Bailey’s employer as the Bailey Law Firm, which he formed after leaving Williams Bailey and before helping form Bailey Perrin Bailey. (If trying to keep all this straight has your head spinning, know that it does mine too. Bear with me.)
You can see the lack of consistency in the listing of Bailey’s employer on campaign reports on the Web sites of the Federal Election Commission (follow this link and then search for “F. Kenneth Bailey”), OpenSecrets.org and FollowTheMoney.org.
A couple of contribution forms even contain errors, like spelling Perrin as “Perron.” That reveals a truth the Journal ignores: It’s campaign staffers, not donors, who fill out contribution records. While campaigns often ask donors what information should be included on some forms, if they’re already familiar with the donor, many won’t ask.
Bailey is a long-time donor to Democrats who has relationships with campaigns across the nation. It’s reasonable to assume some filled out contribution forms without asking him what information should be included, and that they didn’t know he had left Williams Bailey.
Other evidence
If that’s not enough to cast doubt on the Journal’s assault on King, the AG’s office provided me with two noteworthy documents. The first is Bailey’s Feb. 1, 2004 letter to then-partner John Eddie Williams (the other half of Williams Bailey) in which Bailey notifies Williams that he is withdrawing from their partnership. The second is a form filed with the Texas secretary of state on Oct. 14, 2004 in which Bailey officially created the Bailey Law Firm.
King has said Williams Bailey kept the Bailey name for a time, “even though Mr. Bailey no longer participated in the firm,” because of a prior agreement. Williams Bailey didn’t take the “Bailey” out of its name until 2007.
There’s even more evidence, in an article published this weekend in the Albuquerque Journal, that contradicts the Wall Street Journal’s claim. The Albuquerque newspaper spoke with Bailey, who said he “had nothing to do with the contributions to King, but did confirm giving $25,000 to a Madrid political action committee a year before his firm won the state contract.”
“I have never given Attorney General King a penny,” the Albuquerque Journal quoted Bailey as saying. “I have never instructed anybody to give Attorney General King a penny.”
Bailey shared the circumstances surrounding his leaving Williams Bailey with the Albuquerque Journal.
“I didn’t know if I was going to practice law again, and when I left they felt it was very important for them to maintain the name. So I said, OK, for a time period, I don’t have a problem (with that),” he was quoted as saying. “The minute I left that firm, I never once again had one bit of authority to instruct anybody … to pay a check … or nothing. In fact, my law partner (Williams) and I are in a big arbitration right now over some disputes …”
Facts aren’t on your side? Attack the local media
Ignoring all of that, the Wall Street Journal instead points the finger at the “sympathetic New Mexico media.”
“The New Mexico press corps might buy this claim of mistaken identity, but the bottom line is that Mr. Bailey and other plaintiffs attorneys donated big bucks to the campaigns of New Mexico’s attorney general candidates,” the newspaper’s editorial states. “Those attorneys were then hired by the state AG’s office to prosecute a tort claim the tort lawyers have shopped to AGs around the country. Bailey Perrin is still pursuing the case under Mr. King’s dispensation, even as he claims to be an innocent bystander.”
The facts — which are being revealed by the New Mexico media, not the Wall Street Journal — prove otherwise. King has claimed that the business-friendly Wall Street Journal was being used 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 opponent through the Republican Leadership Council.
If the Wall Street Journal continues to ignore the facts even as the New Mexico media reveals them, and insists on instead perpetuating falsities, I might be convinced that King is right.