Showing posts with label Board of Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Elections. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Mark-Viverito convenes secret meeting to fix pick of Board of Elections chair

PUBLISHED : TUES, 26 AUG 2014, 06:57 PM
UPDATED : WED, 27 AUG 2014, 08:20 AM

The New York Daily News to City Council Speaker : Vote of No Confidence

Threatening retaliation, the City Council's Manhattan delegation, overseen by Speaker Mark-Viverito, are on quest to stop leaks to the media about shady closed-door meetings to select the city's next chair of the Board of Elections

The Editorial Board of The New York Daily News again admonished Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito for her lack of ethics and violations of transparency, this time over the decision by the Manhattan delegation of the City Council to meet in secret to select a new commissioner representing the Democratic Party on the city's Board of Elections.

As if that weren't enough, the Editorial Board found it appalling that City Councilmembers, who are overseen by Speaker Mark-Viverito, further decided to retaliate against a fellow member for blowing the whistle about the shady closed-door meeting. Apparently, one of the Councilmembers has been leaking information to The New York Daily News political reporters, and City Council officials have set out to identify and punish the whistleblower. In an act of retribution, the Manhattan Councilmembers circulated a memo of unspecified origin "stating that the leaker would be expelled from the delegation if identified," according to The New York Daily News editorial.

That Councilmembers are having to conduct the public's business in an environment of secrecy, political hostility, and likely retribution means that the City Council hasn't change much since it was governed by former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who famously strong-armed the City Council to do her political bidding.

This isn't the first time when self-appointed progressive members of the City Council have tried to use secrecy to subvert the public's business of running city government. Late last year, during the race to select the next City Council speaker, members of the Council's Progressive Caucus briefly considered voting by secret ballot to select their choice for City Council speaker. The Progressive Caucus, then co-chaired by Councilmember Mark-Viverito, was trying to finagle ways to rally support for her speakership campaign without agitating big money campaign contributors, who were then coalescing around her opponent in the speakership race, Councilmember Daniel Garodnick. The brief flirtation with the idea of a secret ballot was abandoned after government reform activists pointed out the hypocrisy of self-styled progressives flagrantly violating government transparency. Councilmember Mark-Viverito eventually won the speakership race, after she reportedly violated city ethics rules and possibly campaign finance laws, triggering previous condemnations by the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News.

RELATED


For Council Speaker Mark-Viverito, a Vote of No Confidence (The New York Daily News)

Manhattan Council members make Board of Elections pick in closed-door, split vote (The New York Daily News)

Manhattan Dems, City Council on Board of Elections power-struggle/collision course ? (The New York Daily News)

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito evaded campaign finance caps by opening second account to fund Council speaker race

City and state campaign finance regulatory authorities look the other way, as New York Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito uses a campaign committee account set up for a sham 2017 campaign to pay over $100,000 for her 2013 Council speaker race.

Not even former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was accused of being each of shady, unethical, and a political boss in the old-fashioned corrupt sense by many New York political bloggers, ever dared to be this blatantly egregious

Updated information about campaign committee fundraising and expenditures were made this week by elected officials serving in New York State to the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, the New York State Board of Elections.

The filing by New York Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito showed some activity since her January filing, but the latest disclosures of her 2017 campaign committee still showed no expenditures to pay for the lobbying services provided to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign that began in earnest following her successful reelection to the City Council.

It was publicly reported that The Advance Group was providing lobbying services to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign. Those services were described as being provided for free, even though municipal campaign finance regulations require that in-kind contributions be declared. The Council speakership is a leadership post of the city's legislative body that is secondary to the leader's Council seat. The speakership is served concurrently for the term of the leadership post with the elected official's service of the underlying Council seat.

Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's use of The Advance Group triggered extensive media scrutiny, notably by political bloggers and several mainstream media outlets. Further criticism were made when it was shown that many of the political operatives, who worked on Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign were later given high-ranking patronage jobs with the City Council. Other lobbyists were reported to have been helping Speaker Mark-Viverito determine the assignments of secondary and tertiary leadership posts at the City Council.

Candidates, who run for the City Council and who participate in the matching contribution program of the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board, as was the case with Councilmember Mark-Viverito, are subject to fundraising caps and spending limits. However, Councilmember Mark-Viverito opened a second campaign committee account with the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, and her campaign committee designated that second account for the 2017 election cycle.

If the state Board of Elections had done its due diligence, it would have relatively easily discovered that Councilmember Mark-Viverito had just participated in the Campaign Finance Board's matching campaign contribution program, and that the leadership post she was very publicly seeking would be won through a lobbying campaign of her fellow City Councilmembers, who vote to select the Council speaker, rendering that second state campaign committee account to be a vehicle to fund the leadership post that would be served concurrently with her elected office. Until now, nobody knows the rationale for why the state's Board of Election continues to approve the fundraising and expenditures through Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's sham 2017 campaign committee account, when that account has been and is being used for a leadership post with dual mandate implications. A dual mandate is a controversial loophole that allows a person to serve more than one elected office at the same time, meaning, that an elected official would have competing interests as the office holder carries out his or her duties to the public. An elected official serving a dual mandate would be beholden to teams of lobbyists, campaign consultants, and big money donors that would trash the spirit of campaign finance laws and would open the door to appearances of conflicts of interest, steering patronage jobs to political operatives, allowing lobbyists a greater say over government business, and other questionable dealings. There is no known municipal precedent for dual campaign committee accounts to be authorized for the concurrent service of a publicly elected municipal office and a municipal leadership post that is secondary to the elected office.

Furthermore, no other City Councilmember was allowed the unfair advantage of staying within the fundraising and expenditure caps of the Campaign Finance Board and still circumvent those caps with a state Board of Elections campaign committee account that is subject to no restrictions.

When contacted last March, representatives of the state Board of Elections turned down a Freedom of Information Law request for the rationale for approving Councilmember Mark-Viverito's second campaign committee account, and, after negotiation, agreed to provide the account opening documents for her sham 2017 campaign committee.

RELATED


Melissa Mark-Viverito spent big bucks on speaker's race, campaign filings show (The New York Daily News)

Council speaker puts connected lobbyist on payroll (Crain's New York Business)

Lobbyists aid Mark-Viverito transition (Crain's New York Business)

Monday, July 14, 2014

At the Board of Elections, Council speaker's political machinations threaten to undermine ballot petitioning

Ousting the president of the city's Board of Elections was supposed to give City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito "power and control of a host of patronage jobs," but the succession process has been turned ndsıpǝ poʍu

Melissa Mark-Viverito photo Melissa-Mark-Viverito-Board-of-Elections_zpsf705d945.jpg

"It's in the Council's hands."

New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito was all set to expand her power, influence, and control over patronage jobs that govern the corrupt ballot counting for New York City elections. Except that the president of the Board of Elections, whom she had threatened to replace, got up and quit on her.

Last Friday, Board of Elections President Gregory Soumas resigned his post.

With President Soumas' sudden departure, Speaker Mark-Viverito may lose the upperhand she had been coveting in choosing his replacement.

Since Manhattan Democratic Chairman Keith Wright had failed to reappoint Mr. Soumas for another term as president of the Board of Elections, the City Council, headed by Speaker Mark-Viverito, was salivating at the opportunity to seize control of the appointment process. But President Soumas' resignation may allow the Manhattan Democratic chair to appoint a replacement.

Speaker Mark-Viverito's power grab over the Board of Elections is reminiscent of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's egocentric reasoning for disbanding the Moreland Commission : “It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow. So, interference? It’s my commission. I can’t 'interfere' with it, because it is mine. It is controlled by me.”

Generally, appointments of the commissioner, who serves as president of the Board of Elections, comes with corrupt spoils and privileges. A commissioner on the Board of Elections, especially the Board's president, can establish election policy and make politically-motivated hires for the scores of patronage jobs controlled by commissioners. Often, those politically-motivated hires are made in concert with the politicians or political operatives, who appointed the commissioners, The New York Daily News reported.

While the Council speaker and the Manhattan Democratic chair fight over control over President Soumas' successor, the broken political system is ignoring the threat of confusion that now threatens to spread to the ballot petitioning being undertaken now by political candidates running for office this year. The Board of Elections reviews balloting petitions for accuracy and completeness, and on top of the mixed-motivations that govern who gets appointed as commissioners of the Board of Elections, those political machinations are compounded by the way some political operatives scheme to challenge balloting petitions, a process ultimately overseen by the Board of Elections' commissioners -- and its president.

RELATED


Melissa Mark-Viverito may replace Board of Elections head with her own pick (The New York Daily News)

Melissa Mark-Viverito on elections board prez's future: "It's in the Council's hands." (The New York Daily News)

NYC Board of Elections President Gregory Soumas quits ahead of possible ouster in City Council Speaker power play (The New York Daily News)

Monday, June 2, 2014

Charles Hynes Used Seized Drug Money To Pay Campaign Consultant

If the former Brooklyn D.A. was improperly using money seized from drug dealers and other criminals to pay a political consultant, what does that say about the political consultants he paid through his campaign committee ?

Charles Hynes photo charles-hynes_zps067ecc4d.jpg

The disgraced former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is accused of paying the consultant Mortimer Matz over $200,000 in payments from the seized money from drug dealers and other criminals. By law, the seized money controlled by the district attorney's office can only be used for law enforcement purposes, The New York Times reported.

Since Mr. Hynes's campaign activities were benefiting from the political consultations being paid for by these illegals payments, Mr. Hynes was not just allegedly engaging in public corruption, but he may have also been engaging in campaign finance corruption by failing to declare these illegal services to the state's Board of Elections.

Hynes's campaign committee paid over $600,000 to The Advance Group.

Select Schedule F reports filed in 2013 by Mr. Hynes' official campaign committee with the Board of Elections show that Mr. Hynes' use of seized drug money to pay Mr. Matz allowed his campaign committee to make rich payments to still yet other political consultants. For instance, The Advance Group, a lobbying and political campaign consulting firm operated by Scott Levenson, who is already facing multiple investigations into electioneering and campaign finance improprieties, was paid over $600,000 in declared consulting and campaign mailing expenditures from Mr. Hynes' campaign committee in 2013. Will the illegal use of seized money for campaign activities render a shroud of criminal scrutiny on Mr. Hynes' political campaign committee expenditures ?

If it is possible for one of New York City's district attorneys to dip into the seized criminal assets for political campaign spending, does that mean that the city's other powerful district attorneys, including Cy Vance, will be investigated, too ?

2014-XX-XX Charles Hynes - NYC Department of Investigation Misconduct Report

2013-07-Xx Charles Hynes - Nysboe July Periodic Report - Schedule f Expenditures

2013-01-Xx Charles Hynes - Nysboe January Periodic Report - Schedule f Expenditures

2013-XX-XX Charles Hynes - NYSBOE 32 DAY PRE PRIMARY - Schedule F Expenditures

2013-XX-XX Charles Hynes - NYSBOE 11 DAY PRE PRIMARY - Schedule F Expenditures

2013-Xx-xx Charles Hynes - Nysboe 10 Day Post Primary - Schedule f Expenditures

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Campaign Finance Board Penalizes NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC For Campaign Violations

Million-Dollar Anti-Quinn Super PAC Fined Pennies On The Dollar

Ushered in by the corruptive Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a Super PAC that helped end former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's mayoral ambitions was fined $7,050 by the Campaign Finance Board Thursday morning for failing to report $70,000 in expenditures, The New York Daily News reported.

Activists had spent years organizing against former Speaker Quinn for allowing the NYPD to institute a protest parade permit, for over-turning term limits, and for doing nothing to save St. Vincent's Hospital, amongst other betrayals. But then last year, the Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC. With its very visible negative attack ads on TV, NYC Is Not For Sale took public credit for defeating Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, decidedly handing victory in the mayoral race to former Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. In exchange for having received the benefit and support from the Super PAC, the new mayor helped raise money for at least one of coalition members that organized the Super PAC, and the mayor has repeatedly promised to honor the legislative request of the wealthy donors behind the Super PAC.

The fine levied by the Campaign Finance Board represented a financial penalty of about 10 cents on the dollar for the infraction amounts that the Super PAC failed to declare.

That NYC Is Not For Sale flouted city campaign finance regulations revealed how some of the long-term reform activists, who were initially excited for the Super PAC's help to defeat former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, were not fully aware that NYC Is Not For Sale represented trouble.

The Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC.

Following the Campaign Finance Board's announcement of the fine, reform activists were troubled by the relatively small penalty against the Super PAC. The whole purpose of the activism to defeat former Speaker Quinn was to reform government processes to end corruption and the appearance of corruption. Since the board members of the Campaign Finance Board answer to Mayor Bill de Blasio and the present Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, it is not known how independent the Campaign Finance Board can be in reviewing violations of groups that have relationships with the administration. Both the mayor and the Council speaker have close ties to the coalition of left-leaning unions, Democratic donors, and animal rights activists that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. NYC Is Not For Sale was advised, in turn, by the political lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which is headed by Scott Levenson. The Advance Group and Mr. Levenson have close ties to the mayor and to the Council speaker. If city campaign finance regulators only assessed this politically-connected Democratic Super PAC with a nominal financial penalty, then reform activists may not reasonably expect just outcomes in respect of complaints about other controversial electioneering work during last year's municipal elections. For example, many of the campaigns and/or Super PAC's advised or administered by The Advance Group have triggered critical press reports questioning possible financial or ethical improprieties.

Notwithstanding, the Campaign Finance Board denied John Liu any public matching dollars in last year's mayoral race over questions of the integrity of his fundraising. Yet, the Campaign Finance Board allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to keep all of her public matching dollars, even though she exceeded the spending cap by opening a second campaign finance account with the state Board of Elections in Albany during the same election cycle to fund her speakership race. Separately, the Progressive Caucus of the City Council employed their own lobbyist, Alison Hirsch, in the Council speaker race. However, the Campaign Finance Board has not indicated whether it is comfortable with allowing undeclared or possibly unpaid electioneering work made at the direction of elected officials that take place during an election cycle that subjected those same election officials to spending caps and other public matching dollars restrictions ?

The regulations for campaign finance do not guarantee that every politician is owed a right to keep raising money for post-election leadership races, like the campaign for Council speaker, during the same election cycle where there were spending caps and other matching public dollar restrictions. Every time that politicians raise money, they create opportunities for the undue influence of wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists to have even great influence over our public officials, always at the expense of the mere voter. By allowing Councilmember Mark-Viverito to exceed the spending cap, the Campaign Finance Board has now opened a backdoor to allow any public official to open up campaign accounts with the state Board of Elections that can be used for electioneering purposes that would effectively allow those public officials to game the public matching dollar system through the Campaign Finance Board and still raise more money through a state Board of Elections account. This is a dangerous precedent that the Campaign Finance Board has set. Compounding the concerns of reform activists, the board members of the Campaign Finance Board are now partly answerable to the Councilmember Mark-Viverito, because she has since become the Council speaker as a direct result of questionable electioneering work that falls under the jurisdiction of the Campaign Finance Board.

Judging by the tiny fraction of a fine levied on NYC Is Not For Sale, the Campaign Finance Board is not sufficiently independent to review complaints of campaign finance violations of parties, such as The Advance Group, Mr. Levenson, the animal rights group NY-CLASS, and others, who have as close, if not closer, ties to each of the mayor and the Council speaker than the coalition of left-leaning unions and Democratic donors that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. Indeed, as the Campaign Finance Board continues with its post-election audit, one of the very campaign accounts it must review belongs to the Council speaker, herself.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Proposed NYS public matching dollars at risk of being gamed, just like with "model" NYC campaign finance system

  • During the same election cycle, campaign finance loopholes allowed Melissa Mark-Viverito to accept, on one hand, New York City public matching dollars hinged on a spending cap through a city campaign finance account with indifferent oversight from the New York City Campaign Finance Board for a total election cycle spend of $284,000 ;
  • Followed by a parallel state campaign account, that allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise and spend more campaign money subject to no cap and with no oversight by the New York State Board of Elections for her speakership campaign for an additional spend of $72,000 ; and
  • And book-ended by another city Campaign Finance Board account that allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise $30,000 from real estate developers and other supporters for her transition/inauguration celebration.

The Moreland Commission, a state panel formed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and delegated with the charge to investigate public corruption, is recommending nominal reforms to the campaign finance system for New York State elected officials.

"New York needs comprehensive campaign finance reform. The Commission recommends, among other things, lowering contribution limits and closing campaign finance loopholes, empowering regular New Yorkers with a small donor matching system of public financing, limiting the use of campaign funds, and creating tough new disclosure rules for shadowy outside spending groups," the Commission is recommending on its Web site.

But the general Moreland Commission recommendations will do nothing to address how municipal candidates can open several campaign accounts at city and state levels to exceed spending caps imposed on the city level. Because city campaign regulators are not accountable to state Board of Elections and vice versa, candidates for public office can exploit weaknesses of laws relating to lobbying, conflicts of interest, and public ethics, as was seen in the case of the $386,000 spent by New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito during one single election cycle when the private spending cap imposed by the New York City Campaign Finance Board was $168,000 for her official post at the City Council -- a limit more than once over exceeded.

The "compliance apathy" noted by Moreland Commission co-chair Kathleen Rice in the panel's report calls into question how city and state campaign finance regulators will police spending caps, public matching dollars, and rules violations when some candidates can jurisdiction-shop for the loopholes between city and state regulations. Extending the New York City model of campaign finance to the rest of New York State will do nothing to curb the undue influence of large-money donations and lobbyists in our elections if there is no robust regulatory compliance review. What effect does a spending cap have on the campaign finance account of a candidate in one jurisdiction, if the candidate can skirt that spending cap by opening a campaign finance account in another jurisdiction ?

Campaign finance regulators with the state's Board of Elections should have been able to determine that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's intent in opening a state campaign finance account was to skirt the spending cap imposed by the city's Campaign Finance Board. But the Board of Elections did nothing to stop the exploitation of the loophole that did not subject state Board of Elections account openings to spending caps governing an elected official's public post. In this past election cycle, Councilmember Mark-Viverito was running for reëlection. Campaign finance laws help candidates run for public office ; these laws do not promise that candidates, once elected, can keep opening further campaign finance accounts to fund further political campaigns, either for leadership posts, to lobby other publicly-elected officials, or for other purposes -- during the same election cycle. If candidates can open a series of parallel campaign finance accounts across various jurisdictions, what good is it to impose spending caps ?

The dangerous precedent set by Melissa Mark-Viverito : An elected official can hire outside lobbyists to "lobby" other elected officials.

By receiving lobbying services from The Advance Group, Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin LLC, and others, Councilmember Mark-Viverito effectively outsourced official acts, which she needed to personally undertake, to seek the speakership post. This means that Councilmember Mark-Viverito very visibly retained, as an elected official, teams of lobbyists, either paid or unpaid, to lobby other elected officials with dangerous consequences to transparency and democracy. Cloaked behind the imperfections of the same campaign finance regulations which allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to open three campaign finance accounts during the same election cycle, these lobbyists skirted the reach of the do-nothing Campaign Finance Board ; took advantage of the fact that only dollar amounts associated with their activities, not their activities themselves, would be disclosable to the public ; took advantage that some payments, if any, for post-Election Day work could be had by opening a Board of Elections campaign finance account in Albany ; may have enjoyed the opportunity made available by the further loophole that allows subcontractor operatives to skirt disclosure requirements ; and took advantage of the fact that the dueling city and state regulators would not have exclusive authority over the provision of free campaign services. The combined effect of this imperfect system gave unfair advantages to each of (i) The Advance Group, other lobbyists, and the clients of those lobbyists over other lobbying firms and (ii) Councilmember Mark-Viverito over other candidates for the City Council speakership. When elected officials are allowed to hire lobbyists to do the public's business, all the work that those lobbyists do constitutes a subversion of the government's work.

Indeed, it was believed that this was the first reported instance when a public official intentionally opened at least three campaign finance accounts during one election cycle for the same elected office, but the public official, flush with about $400,000 in cash, still needed, for economic or other reasons, to receive free lobbying services. At each step of the way, Councilmember Mark-Viverito's "need" to raise money opened new opportunities for wealthy campaign contributors to have a role in and to influence Councilmember Mark-Viverito's public activities. It was reported by Crains Insider that Jon Del Giorno, a lobbyist with Pitta Bishop, on Councimember Mark-Viverito's behalf, was "involved in setting up the structure of an 'appointments committee' charged with council staffing." Another lobbyist, Alison Hirsch, also worked to select the Councilmember Mark-Viverito as Council speaker, but Ms. Hirsch's work was reported to have been being provided on behalf of the Progressive Caucus of New York City Councilmembers. It's not known who was paying for the post-Election Day functions of Pitta Bishop or Ms. Hirsch in relation to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's "transition." Were members of the Progressive Caucus expected to file fundraising and expense disclosure reports to campaign finance regulators, too, for the outside lobbying services they directed ? If so, to which campaign finance regulators, at city or state levels, or both, were the Progressive Caucus supposed to report ? Moreover, further reporting by Crains Insider has revealed that, that separate from campaign finance regulation loopholes, another exception that lobbyists exploit are City Clerk Office's disclosure rules that specifically do not require the reporting of lobbying for leadership posts. These serious questions and loopholes come on top of the fact that neither The Advance Group nor Ms. Hirsch were not paid through Councilmember Mark-Viverito's state Board of Elections campaign account for their roles in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign. When lobbyists are not paid for work they provide to elected officials, the provision of these free lobbying services are said to violate city ethics regulations. "The city’s conflict of interest rules bar public officials from accepting freebies from lobbyists, and they prohibit lobbyists from dispensing same to public officials," wrote the Editorial Page editors of The New York Daily News.

Councilmember Mark-Viverito accepted public matching dollars from the Campaign Finance Board in exchange for promising to keep her political expenditures under a cap during the 2013 election cycle. But she opened a state campaign finance account to skirt around the cap under the loopholes of state regulations, opening the door for others to do the same.

Campaign finance regulations aim to each of expand disclosure and transparency, enforce spending caps to limit undue influence of special interests, and to add elements of public financing, like matching public dollars, to level the playing field. Campaign finance regulators are supposed to monitor electioneering to maintain voters' faith in the acts of elected officials. Regulators maintain the integrity of fair elections by curtailing the situations whereby contributors of large campaign donations or free lobbying services give some candidates unfair advantages over other candidates. It's supposed to be a level playing field.

Since Councilmember Mark-Viverito raised nearly $400,000 through three separate campaign accounts, she signaled to other Councilmembers that big business interests and other wealthy constituents had voted with their dollars to give her a special dominance over other elected officials. One consequence of this unfair advantage is that voters of other Councilmembers, seemingly equal to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's own voters, have had their voices and roles diminished before the City Council compared to the contributors to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's three campaign finance accounts. This opens the door to lobbyists and insiders, like The Advance Group, Pitta Bishop, Mr. Levenson, Mr. Del Giorno, Ms. Hirsch, NY-CLASS, and other Super PAC-funded groups, to have greater access to Councilmember Mark-Viverito than mere voters, especially voters, who were not wealthy enough to be campaign contributors.

Besides determining whether there was illegality in each of the provision of unpaid lobbying services and the possible coordination of independent expenditures, city and state campaign finance regulators must deal with how "compliance apathy" and "regulatory apathy" have created Swiss cheese out of city and state campaign finance and ethics regulations. But as has been noted before, city campaign finance regulators answer to the mayor and to the Council speaker, leaving voters to conclude that city campaign finance regulators are not independent enough over the public officials whose campaign finance accounts they are charged to regulate.

The politicized Campaign Finance Board spent the first municipal election cycle under the undue influence of Citizens United by seemingly persecuting John Liu's campaign, but not focusing on the obviously corruptive role of Super PAC's.

Councilmember Mark-Viverito was allowed to keep her public matching dollars, even though she opened three campaign finance accounts through two different jurisdictions, but former Comptroller John Liu was denied public matching dollars when his mayoral campaign was beset by controversy when it was reported that his campaign may have received "straw donations," an illegal tactic that masks the true identity of donors in an attempt to game the city's public matching dollars. Mr. Liu's campaign challenged the allegations, but his campaign's ex-treasurer and a former fund-raiser were charged with wrong-doing. Martin Connor, Mr. Liu's campaign finance attorney, acknowledged issues with 35 out of more than 6,300 donations, but the Campaign Finance Board, in an unusual move, denied any matching money to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign in a move that did not seem proportional to the problem, if it was, indeed, isolated to only a small percentage of donations at the same time when, for example, Crains Insider was reporting serious questions with the finances of some Super PAC's operating during the same election cycle.

The impact of the Campaign Finance Board's controversial decision essentially put an end to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign. Because he was denied matching money, totaling approximately $3.5 million, he was put in a "severe financial disadvantage," The New York Times reported, "because he will now have significantly less money to buy television advertising." To the last, Mr. Liu challenged the decision by city campaign finance regulators, because he said that his campaign committed no wrong-doing, and prosecutors never had proof of wrong-doing against he himself. "There’s no question that this weakens my campaign. For the last couple of years, I have taken body blow after body blow," Mr. Liu said after the Campaign Finance Board's decision. Many astute political observers never understood why The New York Times metropolitan reporters seemed obsessed with taking down Mr. Liu's campaign, since it was The New York Times, which first reported these allegations in 2011 after having sent reporters to stalk Mr. Liu's donors, and The New York Times never seemed to let up, in spite of the questions being isolated to such a small proportion of donations. Less than three weeks after the Campaign Finance Board dealt its lethal blow to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign, the editors of The New York Times endorsed Mr. Liu's rival, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Democratic mayoral primary. Speaker Quinn, who had a role in approving the board members of the Campaign Finance Board, was said to have a close working relationship with the editors of The New York Times, some activists said.

2014-03-08 Moreland Commission - Follow-Up E-Mail Re Loopholes

Monday, September 16, 2013

Will Christine Quinn Hold Public Hearings Investigating "Worthless" $95 Million BOE Electronic Scanners ?

Christine Quinn votes September 10, 2013 Democratic Mayoral Primary Election photo 2013-09-10christine-quinn-votes-NYDN_zps85fb8eb4.jpg

Will Christine Quinn Hold Public Hearings Investigating "Worthless" $95 Million BOE Electronic Scanners ?

The editorial board of The New York Times will call for in an editorial to be published in tomorrow's newspaper a call for a reform effort to revamp the inept and patronage-laden New York City Board of Elections.

"Perhaps a good, civic-minded project for Mr. Bloomberg, Speaker Christine Quinn and Mr. Thompson — all of whom know how to run big operations — is to take on reform of this abysmal system," the editors write.

Earlier today, Democratic mayoral candidate Bill Thompson conceded loss to his rival, Bill de Blasio, after political pressure had been escalated from Mr. de Blasio's camp. Before today, Mr. Thompson had said that he had wanted to stay in the race, after he had finished in second place, to see if the counting of 80,000 paper ballots would force a run-off between he and Mr. de Blasio.

“We don’t know how many votes I got, or even how many votes were cast,” said Mr. Thompson, adding that he was frustrated with the slowpoke mishandling of the vote count by the Board of Elections, “When are they going to finish?” Mr. Thompson further noted that the Board of Elections had denied him -- and voters -- a final count of the votes cast on primary election day : “it’s such a disadvantage — it just isn’t fair.”

Will Christine Quinn redeem her failed political career by holding public hearings into the "worthless" $95 million electronic scanners that the Board of Elections had to scuttle in order to run the primary election day ?

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

VIDEO : Broken Lever Voting Machine - Queens 63rd Election District - No Paper Ballots - NYC Primary Election Day

VIDEO : Broken Lever Voting Machine - Queens 63rd Election District - No Paper Ballots - NYC Primary Election Day

Voting problems with the single lever voting machine for the 63rd Election District in Jackson Heights, Queens. I was detained by a police officer and nearly taken into custody for using my iPhone to take a photograph and video of the broken voting machine.

We were denied paper ballots, as you will hear on the video. They tried to let us use another voting machine, but then we were taken back to the using the broken 63rd ED lever voting machine after it was "reset."

I'm taking a risk by uploading this video, but I feel it is important to document what happened and to register my vote.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

2009 Campaign Payments Fraud - Update

The New York Times reported :
''Suit Suggests Political Party Knew of Fraud''

UPDATED !
In contradictory new developments in the trial against GOP operative John Haggerty, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office allege that ''Mr. Haggerty lied to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party,'' according to court documents released on February 17 and reported about by The Times.

How did Mr. Haggerty lie to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party, if the campaign to reëlect the mayor (CREEM) knowingly used Mayor Bloomberg's private banking accounts to ''wash in'' money in order to deliberately funnel the Independence Party donations to Mr. Haggerty ?

What is more, the reporter Aram Roston from PolitickerNY has raised questions about Mayor Bloomberg's pattern in using private donations for campaign-related activities. Indeed, in court filings made on December 15, 2010, in the criminal trial against Mr. Haggerty, defense attorneys made assertions that CREEM "intentionally chose the least transparent way possible to conduct ballot security....It was Mr. Bloomberg who chose to hide payments, not Mr. Haggerty," reported The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's article added :

Mr. Haggerty's attorneys suggested the district attorney's office should "commence an investigation immediately" into the possibility that the mayor violated laws by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party for the direct purpose of helping his campaign with a ballot-security operation. If Mr. Bloomberg "made the contribution directing how it should be spent, he would be in violation of both the New York State Election Law and the New York City Campaign finance Law," Mr. Haggerty's attorneys allege.

According to New York State law, contributions in excess of $94,200 to a state political party are prohibited from being used to promote a candidate, The Journal reported. Furthermore, New York City law requires politicians' electoral campaigns to report and disclose campaign-related expenditures, and The Journal added that Mayor Bloomberg's ballot-security operations expenditures were not reported or disclosed by CREEM.

Adding to the lack of transparency about Mayor Bloomberg's intent in structuring the expeditures by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party is the fact that the Mayor's Office refuses to release all related e-mails about campaign-related activities. After The New York Post filed a Freedom of Information request, demanding more information about Mr. Haggerty's involvement with the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's Office release only "nine e-mail exchanges" between Mr. Haggerty and "mayoral aides" during 2008 and 2009. "There were other e-mails that the mayor's refuses to release on the grounds of 'personal privacy,' " The Post reported.

Meanwhile, back to The Times's own report about the February 17 court documents : this is the first time that prosecutors have said the Independence Party may have known about the alleged fraud. But The Times seems to be continuing with the storyline that the ''fraud'' committed was that the act that Mr. Haggerty used the CREEM payments for personal use, not that CREEM failed to disclose Mr. Haggerty's work as campaign-related activities.

''An extensive review of records and campaign documents by The Observer, as well as interviews with witnesses, indicate that Mr. Bloomberg funneled money to Mr. Haggerty, who claimed to be a 'volunteer,' sidestepping the political committee the mayor had promised to use to finance his election campaign. By deploying Mr. Haggerty and an unrelated political party, the mayor's team avoided drawing attention to a controversial election day tactic. But even more serious, experts say Bloomberg may have broken campaign finance laws,'' reported Mr. Roston.

The way that CREEM structured the payments to Mr. Haggerty allowed CREEM to avoid having to legally disclose the payments (and controversial activities), and the structure troubles some legal experts. "This is clearly an attempt to evade the purpose of the law," John Moscow, a former white-collar prosecutor in Manhattan, told Mr. Roston.

Meanwhile, the artist and blogger Suzannah B. Troy offers a slightly different political analysis. Mr. Haggerty is a "fall guy," she wrote. ''I have been saying all along Haggerty is innocent ! John Haggerty is as innocent as Mike Bloomberg,'' wrote Ms. Troy. ''Technically there is no doubt Haggerty broke the law but so did Mike Bloomberg by wiring money from his personal account, 1.1 million dollars the day before the election !''

The controversial campaign reëlection-related services that Mr. Haggerty was hired to provide have been described as a ''ballot security operation.'' In Mr. Roston's article, the impression of the ballot security operation was to presumably discourage or fend off the voters of Mr. Bloomberg's opponent, Controller Bill Thompson (D), an African-American. Although alluded to, left unsaid was whether the ballot security operation was intended to deliberately turn away Mr. Thompson's African-American voters from the polls.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Bloomberg Testified Against Haggerty

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg provided secret grand jury testimony in the case against his own reëlection campaign worker, John Haggerty, Jr.

Carl Paladino, John Haggerty. Mr. Haggerty, right, escorts Mr. Paladino during the Columbus Day Parade in New York City on October 11, 2010. Photo by Anonymous.

Mr. Haggerty, right, escorts 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino during the Columbus Day Parade in New York City on October 11, 2010. Photo by Anonymous.

During public proceedings in the criminal trial against John Haggerty, Jr., Assistant District Attorney Eric Seidel, one of the prosecutors in the case, told Judge Ronald A. Zweibel that Mayor Bloomberg had testified before a grand jury, and that the grand jury evidence supported the state's case against Mr. Haggerty.

In June 2010, Mr. Haggerty was indicted for allegedly stealing $1.1 million in campaign related payments funneled by Mayor Bloomberg through his private banking accounts to the Independence Party of New York State.

In 2009, Mayor Bloomberg was on pace to spend over $100 million dollars in declared campaign expenses through his committee to reëlect the mayor (CREEM). Because there a backlash at Mayor Bloomberg's outrageous reëlection campaign spending, there must have been some sensitivity within CREEM to substantially exceed $100 million in declared reëlection campaign expenses, ergo the use of millions of undeclared campaign-related expenses from Mayor Bloomberg's personal and private banking accounts.

In 2008, Mayor Bloomberg made private donations to the Independence Party of New York State totaling $1.2 million. Around this time, the New York City Council changed the term limits law without a voter referendum. Then, in 2009, Mayor Bloomberg was endorsed by the Independence Party of New York City.

Ostensibly, Mr. Haggerty was to provide ballot security operations, which is a reëlection campaign activity, for Mayor Bloomberg. Which campaign laws did Mr. Haggerty break, if CREEM knowingly used Mayor Bloomberg's private banking accounts to ''wash in'' money in order to funnel the Independence Party donations to Mr. Haggerty ? What is more, the reporter Aram Roston from PolitickerNY has raised questions about Mayor Bloomberg's pattern in using private donations for campaign-related activities.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Accountability Needed Over 200,000 Missing Votes Scandal

One Month after November Midterm Election, 200,000 Missing Votes Are Found in NYC

New York voters held Mayor John Lindsay accountable for not plowing the streets of snow after a severe winter storm in 1969 dumped 15 inches of snow. But what do you do with a mayor, who's administration misplaces 200,000 votes ?

Just like voters held Mayor Lindsay accountable for snow removal, voters need to hold Mayor Bloomberg accountable for voting irregularities and potentially tainted election results.