Forrest for the Trees

Josh Treviño at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin.
Patrick Michels
Josh Treviño at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin.

Updated below with statement from Treviño at 4:52 PM, March 1.

Some folks in Texas took notice today when Buzzfeed reported that Josh Treviño, a conservative pundit employed by the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation, had been paid $389,000 to produce propaganda for the Malaysian government, including attacks on a pro-democracy leader.

Although it was known that Treviño had ties to Malaysian interests, he apparently lied about the full extent of his relationship when directly questioned by Politico‘s Ben Smith.

The payments to conservative American opinion writers — whose work appeared in outlets from the Huffington Post and San Francisco Examiner to the Washington Times to National Review and RedState — emerged in a filing this week to the Department of Justice. The filing under the Foreign Agent Registration Act outlines a campaign spanning May 2008 to April 2011 and led by Joshua Trevino, a conservative pundit, who received $389,724.70 under the contract and paid smaller sums to a series of conservative writers.

Trevino lost his column at the Guardian last year after allegations that his relationship with Malaysian business interests wasn’t being disclosed in columns dealing with Malaysia. Trevino told Politico in 2011 that “I was never on any ‘Malaysian entity’s payroll,’ and I resent your assumption that I was.”

[…]

Trevino acknowledged that he shouldn’t have lied to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith, then at Politico, when this first came up in 2011.

“When Ben Smith contacted me in July 2011, I ought to have come clean with him at the time,” he said.

The article reveals that Treviño: a) Worked for a foreign government with a sketchy human-rights record; b) produced paid propaganda for that government; c) failed to disclose his dealings with the Malaysian government; d) lied about his involvement to a reporter when directly questioned.

Treviño is no stranger to controversy. Last year he was hired separately by the Guardian and Texas Monthly to write a column. His Guardian position attracted widespread condemnation when comments he’d made about Palestinians and peace activists resurfaced. (His greatest hit may been cavalierly calling for the murder of Americans he disagrees with: “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”)

With pressure mounting, the Guardian severed its ties with Treviño; the Monthly followed suit, citinghis need to pursue other professional opportunities that will preclude him from writing for Texas Monthly.” In fact, Treviño went back to work for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where he had worked before his brief stint as a journalist. In Texas, Treviño merely resumed what he was doing before: enjoying a plum spot in the political and media mainstream. His pieces still appear on the Texas Monthly website. Just today he was on a right-wing radio show in Dallas. Last week, he was interviewed by Evan Smith at a Texas Lyceum event about conservative bloggers.

Treviño told Buzzfeed that he “terminated his relationship with Malaysian interests when he joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation.” However, according to his LinkedIn profile, Treviño began working for TPPF in January 2011 as “Senior Projects Director” followed by his appointment as “Vice President for Communications” in March of that year. His federal disclosure reports that he collected his Malaysian paycheck through April 2011. In other words, it appears that there were four months in which Treviño worked for both the Malaysian government and TPPF. (See Treviño’s statement below. I asked TPPF to explain the discrepancy. The foundation’s Chuck DeVore, who incidentally was one of the people Treviño hired to write pro-Malaysian articles, said he “had no idea” but would forward my question to Treviño.)

Why does this matter? Well, it suggests that Treviño’s relationship to the truth is tenuous at best. Second, TPPF is arguably one of the most successful and influential state-level think tanks in the nation. Its budget tops $5 million, with contributions from many of the state’s most powerful corporations. The foundation is close with the state’s top Republican elected officials, including Attorney General Greg Abbott and Rick Perry, who donated the proceeds of his book Fed Up! to the organization.

One of their key employees is a paid propagandist and an admitted fabulist. Does all that end when he punches the clock at TPPF?

Updated: Here’s Treviño’s explanation in full: You’ll note that my LinkedIn profile lists me as “Senior Projects Director” from January through March 2011. This was a contract position that did not preclude my engagement with other clients. In late February 2011, I was offered the position of Vice President for Communications, which is a full-time employee position with the Foundation. I therefore initiated the winding-down of my client engagements, as required by Foundation policy, which does now allow FTEs to have non-Foundation sources of income. I assumed the Vice Presidency for Communications in March 2011; and that client disengagement and handoff was fully complete by April 2011.

State Rep. Scott Sanford (R-McKinney)
State Rep. Scott Sanford (R-McKinney)

Texas’ successful wind industry could be hobbled by legislation filed today by freshman Rep. Scott Sanford, a Republican from McKinney.

Sanford’s bill would effectively eliminate Texas’ wind energy standards. Texas leads the nation in wind power, thanks in no small part to aggressive renewable energy targets—called a renewable portfolio standard—created in 1999. The wind industry is far ahead of most of the goals. Sanford’s House Bill 2026 would delete the renewable portfolio standard from state law as well as strip the Public Utility Commission of the authority to oversee the $82 million market in which credits for renewable energy are traded.

Supporters of wind power are blasting the bill as backwards-thinking.

“Rep. Sanford’s bill doesn’t make any sense,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. “Renewable energy has been a huge success story in Texas. We shouldn’t take the wind out of the sails of an industry that’s creating jobs, reducing pollution and saving water.”

It’s not clear if eliminating the wind standard would have an immediate impact on the Texas wind industry. The goal is to have 5,880 megawatts of renewable energy installed by 2015 and 10,000 megawatts of installed by 2025. Right now, there are over 12,000 MWs of wind in Texas. However, environmentalists and the industry would like to see the RPS updated at some point, especially to include solar, geothermal and biomass. Non-wind renewable energy is already contemplated in the law, but the Texas Public Utility Commission has been resistant to implementing it.

Metzger says Sanford’s bill is part of a nationwide effort led by the corporate-funded Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to repeal renewable energy standards state by state. Heartland and ALEC call their model law the “Electricity Freedom Act.”

Sanford, who pastors a Baptist church in Allen,  is part of a cohort of ideological tea partiers elected in the past two election cycles who preach free-market purism alongside social conservatism. No surprise, then, that Sanford’s chief of staff released a statement on Townhall.com.

“I believe in free market principles, and with Texas’ booming population we must prepare our state to handle its growing electric demand. Allowing natural gas, coal, wind and all forms of energy to compete on a level playing field will allow the cheapest, most efficient, and cleanest form of energy to prevail. Governments cannot pick winners and losers in our global economy.”

A cynic might wonder when Sanford will file legislation to repeal the high-cost natural gas tax exemption, which allows frackers to take advantage of a tax break passed in 1989 before anyone dreamed of tapping the Eagle Ford or Barnett Shale. It costs the state taxpayer over $1 billion every year.

Citgo logo

When a jury convicted Citgo of environmental crimes in 2007, it was a triumphant moment for the long-suffering folks in neighborhoods near the company’s Corpus Christi refinery. For a decade, residents of Hillcrest, a low-income black and Hispanic community in Corpus, had been exposed to benzene and other toxic substances wafting from giant tanks of oil that Citgo illegally operated and hid from state inspectors. Suffering from headaches, dizziness, scratchy throats and nausea, they’d filed hundreds of complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. A criminal conviction, they felt, was finally some measure of justice.

It was also a landmark legal case: the first time a jury had found a corporation guilty of criminal violations of the Clean Air Act.

Yet more than five years later, Citgo has yet to be sentenced. Prosecutors and attorneys for the victims say the delay is extremely unusual. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Bill Miller, a special prosecutor who worked on the Citgo case and is now retired.

And some recent developments are alarming. The judge is considering a fine that victims consider a pitiful recompense for health problems they link to the refinery. Prosecutors and a group of 600 victims want the judge to consider the financial gain Citgo enjoyed from its crimes. The government has calculated that Citgo pulled in $1 billion over the decade it operated its refinery illegally. If U.S. District Court Judge John D. Rainey were to empanel a jury to consider such “pecuniary gain,” Citgo could theoretically pay up to $2 billion in penalties. Rainey has so far declined to establish a jury, ruling that it would prolong the sentencing process. (An irony that isn’t lost on some. “That’s too funny,” said Suzie Canales, an environmental justice activist in Corpus. “People have died waiting for the judge.”) Without a sentencing jury, the judge can levy a maximum fine of only $2 million—a paltry sum compared to the billion the company earned during its criminal activity.

Miller said letting the company off easy could have far-reaching consequences.

“You might as well just throw the whole Clean Air Act out of the window,” he said. “Your refineries, your chemical plants, your power plants, all of them would not be subject to sufficiently high criminal penalties” to defer future egregious pollution. The Citgo case is so rare because most companies, cognizant of steep criminal penalties, agree to make changes long before a jury is empanelled or criminal charges are filed, he said. Prosecuting a company criminally is the nuclear option of environmental regulation. But without the fear of enormous fines, a polluter could see violations simply as the cost of doing business. After all, even if the U.S. Supreme Court thinks corporations are people, you can’t shuffle a company off in leg irons to do 25 to life.

State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston
Patrick Michels
State Sen. Dan Patrick unveils a new plan for public education reform and school choice at Cathedral School of St. Mary's in Austin.

A Senate hearing today on a bill that would restrict use of RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, felt almost perfunctory. There was very little discussion, much less debate. Senators asked few questions of those who came to testify.

Sen. Jane Nelson, the Republican who chairs the health and humans services committee, delayed public testimony until late in the afternoon. The lack of drama was unusual for legislation that would further restrict abortion rights. Senate Bill 97, authored by Sen. Dan Patrick, the Houston Republican who carried last session’s controversial sonogram bill, adds new restrictions to the use of “abortion-inducing drugs.”

Doctors would have to administer the drugs in-person as well as schedule a follow-up visit to occur with the same doctor within two weeks—a burden on women living in rural parts of the state where doctors and abortion clinics are scarce. Like last session’s pre-abortion sonogram law, SB 97 would add another scheduling burden by requiring the same doctor to be present at multiple appointments.

In addition, the bill requires that the doctor administering the drug have a contract with a second doctor who ”agrees to treat emergencies arising from the administration or use of the drug.”

Patrick has said he is only concerned about the well-being of women and improving the doctor-patient relationship. However, there’s no doubt that the legislation would make it more burdensome to get an abortion in Texas, placing the proposal firmly in the crucible of abortion politics.

Patrick, a conservative radio talker, let his three invited guests do most of the talking today. Two of them were young women who shared similar, painful stories about their experiences taking RU-486, subsequent depression and guilt over their abortions, “post-abortion healing” and conversion to pro-life activism.

“Let me begin by saying I’m post-abortive,” said Sarah, one of the women.

When they were finished, Patrick offered that he filed SB 97 “so women don’t have to go through these experiences.”

The theme of RU-486-as-instrument-of-horror was sounded again later by Tama Chunn, a veteran anti-choice activist from Houston. Women, she told the committee, are “often sent home to expel the baby and have occasion to see their dead child in that process and it’s very traumatic for them.”

But Dr. Al Gros, an OB/GYN, blasted SB 97 as medically and scientifically-unsupportable. “Essentially this is the Legislature practicing medicine without a license.”  The legislation, he added, is “badly drafted and a dangerous precedent to set.”

Waste Control site

Citizen challenges to a West Texas radioactive waste dump owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons (and Dallas’ most evil genius) would be limited under legislation filed by state Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo).

It’s the latest in a long string of favors making life a little easier for Waste Control Specialists, the Simmons-owned company behind the burgeoning Andrews County dump. Darby’s House Bill 1653 is a grab-bag of measures that would put up roadblocks for groups or individuals challenging the company even as it allows Waste Control to bring in “hotter” waste.

“It guts the protections that assure citizens get a fair hearing on any changes in the radioactive waste dump,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen.

Darby’s chief of staff, Jason Modglin, however, characterized the legislation as streamlining a burdensome process.

“I think the larger theme is that we’ve moved past construction, we’ve opened the facility, we’ve had a few months of operation to see what works,” he said.

In the last two years, Waste Control’s PAC has given Darby $20,000.

Darby’s bill would bar people from other states from challenging Waste Control’s licenses, even though Eunice, New Mexico is the closest town to the dump. Rose Gardner, a florist, has been a long-time opponent of the dump, arguing that it puts the health of the town at risk.

“They are not any less affected because they’re on the other side of the border,” said Marisa Perales, an Austin attorney who represents the Sierra Club. “I just can’t imagine what the justification is.”

Modglin said he didn’t see any reason why people from New Mexico should be entitled to a contested case hearing at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

“It’s a Texas facility and TCEQ is not a national body,” he said. “It’s a Texas body.” However, the standard used by the agency—a person potentially affected by a polluter—says nothing about whether an individual resides in Texas.

The bill would also take away the three TCEQ commissioners’ authority to call for “public comment or hold a public hearing” on Waste Control matters deemed “minor.”

The bill would also allow Waste Control to keep operating even if a court were to order TCEQ to reconsider its license. The legislation appears aimed at an ongoing Sierra Club lawsuit. Sierra Club contends that TCEQ improperly denied the organization and several of its members in West Texas and eastern New Mexico the opportunity to challenge one of the dump’s licenses through the contested case hearing process. Environmentalists and a group of state geologists and engineers have long contended that the dump is dangerously close to water tables that may even be linked to the Ogallala Aquifer.

In 2009, TCEQ decided to issue Waste Control a license to bury radioactive waste from the federal government as well as nuclear-waste generators in Texas and Vermont. (Waste Control later successfully lobbied regulators to open the dump to dozens of other states.)

Last summer, a Travis County judge agreed with Sierra Club that TCEQ should’ve given the organization a chance to challenge the license before it was issued. The decision is on appeal. Under current law, if the courts order TCEQ to allow a contested case hearing—basically an administrative trial—Waste Control would have to stop accepting radioactive waste, according to Perales. Darby’s bill would allow the company to keep operating regardless.

Waste Control would also be allowed to bring in “hotter” radioactive waste from out of state each year. The legislation allows the company to bury 220,000 curies of waste—a curie is a measure of how radioactive something is—instead of the current limit of 120,000 curies.

“The upshot of this is that it allows the dump to be quickly filled by highly profitable radioactive materials from out of state,” said Smith, “enriching Harold Simmons now. As a result when we need the dump 30 years form now for the South Texas Project nuclear reactor or the Comanche Peak reactor, there won’t be space.”

Modglin said the provision is just to allow for “operational flexibility” and the annual limit “doesn’t affect” the overall cap of 3.9 million curies.