San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

November 2nd, 2010
Porterfield, Prather, Scott hold huge funding leads


San Marcos City Council hopeful Shane Scott, left, has spent the most money among city council candidates going to Tuesday’s election. Council incumbent Kim Porterfield, right, has raised the most money. Photos by Andy Sevilla.

Associate Editor

Three city council candidates supported by outgoing San Marcos Mayor Susan Narvaiz each showed substantial campaign fundraising advantages on the two finance reports submitted in October.

Councilmember Kim Porterfield, the only incumbent seeking re-election this year, leads all candidates with $8,919 raised since July 15. The largest spender is council candidate Shane Scott, who has expended $8,308.97.

The largest percentage advantage in fundraising goes to Planning and Zoning Commissioner Jude Prather, who has raised $5,896, more than four times as much as his opponent, hospital administrator Toby Hooper, who has raised $1,450.

Narvaiz is listed as a contributor to Porterfield, Scott and Prather. She also has endorsed mayoral candidate Daniel Guerrero, who is running for the office against Councilmember John Thomaides.

Porterfield is being challenged by business owner Dave Newman, who ran an unsuccessful mayoral bid against Narvaiz in 2008. Newman has raised $2,180 and expended $3,960.12. Porterfield has spent $5,764.73. Porterfield reported $3,472.15 in her campaign war chest, while Newman has $658.50 on hand.

Porterfield’s largest political contributions came from the San Marcos Professional Fire Fighters Association (SMPFFAPAC) and TREPAC (Texas Association of Realtors) at $1,000 each. Among her other contributors are the HBA (Home Builders Association) Home PAC, developers W.C. Carson and sons John David and Chris, developer Randall Morris, Robert McDonald of Austin, Bucky and Pam Couch, Chuck Nash, Fray Stokes, and council hopeful Scott.

Newman’s largest contributor was Russell Dowden of San Marcos with a $700 in-kind contribution for advertising. Former Councilmembers Jane Hughson, Robert Mooney and Betsy Robertson also have contributed to Newman’s campaign.

Prather has spent about twice as much as Hooper — $5,785.76 to $2,885.37. Hooper’s campaign account is penniless, while Prather reported $145.78 on hand.

Prather’s largest contribution is from TREPAC, at $1,000. He also has received money from former San Marcos Mayor Kathy Morris and two sitting councilmembers — Porterfield and Chris Jones. Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commissioners Bill Taylor, Chris Wood and Bucky Couch also have contributed to Prather’s campaign, as well as McDonald, developers John David and Chris Carson, and the HBA Home PAC.

Hooper’s largest contributor was John B. Rogers of Stephenville with a $500 contribution. He also has financial support from Hughson.

Scott and his opponent, retired San Marcos police officer Rodney Van Oudekerke, were neck-and-neck in campaign contributions at $2,751 and $2,700, respectively. However, Scott has spent $8,308.97, compared to $1,898.69 by Van Oudekerke. Scott has loaned his campaign $3,382.37.

Van Oudekerke’s largest contribution came from Thea Dake of San Marcos at $350. Morris and her developer husband, Randall Morris, also contributed to his campaign, as has Hughson.

Scott’s largest contributors are Narvaiz and Dirk A. Gosda of Aspen, CO, with $500 each. Taylor and failed 2009 council hopeful Shawn Maycock also have contributed to Scott, along with Nash, and Purgatory Creek developer Larry Peel, Paso Robles developer Shaun Cranston, and Buie Tract developers Edward Coleman and Gordon Muir.

Van Oudekerke is left with $1,094.44 in his campaign account. Scott has $807.25 on hand.

All council races will be decided Tuesday. The polls for city, county and statewide races will close at 7 p.m.

Email Email | Print Print


7 thoughts on “Porterfield, Prather, Scott hold huge funding leads

  1. This is where local politics is going. It’s following the trend lines you see in state and national races, with local candidates increasingly sponsored by, and beholden to, corporate benefactors and local political heavies who have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the election.

    As my business partner likes to say, Isn’t the future great?

  2. So Porterfield and Prather have been bought and paid for by the developers, eh? Should be “more of the same” from Council these next couple years then – much to the detriment of the citizens of San Marcos.

    All I can say is at least the numbers are more modest this time….no $100K war chests in these elections….

  3. Maybe the least noble thing about local, non-partisan campaign fundraising is, as in the state and national cases, the accumulation of a PAC, Group, or just a bunch of wealthy BFF’s to stuff one’s pockets with money, in the sure and certain knowledge that that “support” will be rewarded with contracts, incentives, fast “deals” which can self-perpetuate on down the road and maintain its own infrastructure for long continuity. The most loathsome of all practices, however, is selling one’s sacred trust to perform fairly for all citizens, just for the privilige of being Powerful and Prominent, and looking for better days ahead as one climbs the slimy ladder. To accept a major-size donation form an out-of-town bidness interest, interested in benefitting from our citizens, is a sweetheart deal or a rewrite of City policy that does not suit the supposed dignity of democratic government. The lies and deceit and favoritism that result may actually be the lesser of the evils which follow Greed about like ducklngs after a Mama duck.

    I take false and negative campaigning as maybe a lack of breeding, or a simple sign of unworthiness. Or stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.