Cox has little to back up her charge that opponent Mark Taylor’s “family interests” got "sweetheart deals" on state leases of their buildings. Taylor lashes back but goes too far, casting Cox’s appearances in public service announcements about investor fraud as being far more scandalous than they were. He may have caught her in what he says is a lie, but her campaign says he’s taking a quote out of context.

"Sweetheart Deals?"

The Cox campaign cites the fact that companies connected to Mark’s father, Fred, and sometimes to Mark himself, made far more money leasing properties to the state after he was elected state senator and then Lt. Governor than before he took office. From 1975-1987, when Mark was elected to the senate, the rental income from the state was $148,778, the campaign says, whereas from 1987-2003 it was $3,919,145. Okay, but. First off, the latter period is several years longer. Second, factor in 30 years of inflation and the fact that rent for office space has increased nationwide. Third, even if the numbers seem out of whack, they’re hardly proof of sweetheart deals.

Cox’s best specific example concerns a state lease of Fred Taylor property in Albany , GA , that, according to the Cox campaign, has earned the company $272,460. In a letter dated Nov. 27, 1998, an agent for Fred Taylor asked that the state keep leasing the building for another three years even though a new building was being constructed to house the Department of Human Resources agency that occupied the space. The extra time would allow Fred Taylor to amortize the cost of improvements to the building, the letter said. A handwritten notation at the bottom, apparently penned by the state official who received the letter as he forwarded it to another state official, says, “Joe – Notice the name of the company – this is Mark’s father!”

A letter from Fred Taylor himself to two state officials on Oct. 27, 2000 indicates that the agency indeed stayed in his building for the requested time, and that efforts had been made to keep the agency there even longer. What’s unclear, of course, is why. While officials who were in charge of leasing office space for state agencies were clearly aware that Fred Taylor was the father of Mark Taylor, who had just been elected lieutenant governor after serving more than a decade as the Albany area’s state senator, the impact of that knowledge on the  leasing decision isn’t spelled out. There's no evidence here that Mark Taylor did anything to influence the decision. There’s also no evidence that the other six leases involved any “sweetheart deals.”

Other Deals?

The Cox ad might have been on firmer ground had it accused Taylor of favorable contracts other than real estate. In 1994, when he was a state senator, Taylor said he'd be happy to aid his father’s business interests. “If there’s something that I can do to assist any of the companies that my father owns, then I’m willing to do so,” he said. At the time, he had visited officials in 25 counties to try to persuade them to do business with a large trash-hauling company that his father’s firm, which operated the transfer station where the trash was taken, was trying to help, according to an Associated Press story at the time. And there’s no doubt that Taylor ’s own finances, his father’s, and those of his father’s companies have been intertwined for years. Taylor currently draws a $100,000-a-year salary from Fred Taylor Co. for what he himself says is no more than a few hours’ work each month.

The rest of the ad deals with old battles between Cox and Taylor. Her ad says "Taylor knows Cathy Cox repeatedly voted to crack down on sexual predators." That refers to an accusation by Taylor that Cox voted against a child-predator bill that became law. In fact, she voted for another version of the bill, and for other measures. Cox repeats a charge that he arranged for free prison labor to be used on a project that benefited one of his father’s companies, which we’ve addressed  previously and described as exaggerated.

Taylor's Own Attack

Taylor ’s ad, also a 30-second statewide buy that began June 27, says Cox spent $4 million “from a public trust on TV ads promoting her campaign.” Was Cox using taxpayer funds to run “Vote Cathy Cox” ads? No. She did spend about $4 million from something called the Investor Protection Trust, which was funded with settlement money from a lawsuit against 10 giant national investment firms, on ads in 2004 and 2005 warning the public of investment scams, which is exactly what the money was supposed to be used for. The Secretary of State is also Commissioner of Securities in Georgia .