Showing posts with label campaign finance loopholes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance loopholes. Show all posts

Friday, September 5, 2014

Teachout and Wu sue State Democratic Party, Cuomo, and Hochul

The New York State Democratic Party is violating campaign finance laws by funneling money to prop up the Cuomo-Hochul ticket in next week's gubernatorial Democratic Party primary election, alleges a legal petition filed by the Teachout-Wu campaigns. The petition seeks a temporary restraining order against the State Democratic Party from coordinating the spending of party money on behalf of the Cuomo-Hochul campaigns, amongst other legal reliefs.

Teachout v NYSDC Et Al

While the judge refused to grant the temporary restraining order, a hearing was scheduled for Monday to hear arguments in furtherance and in response to the filing of the legal petition.

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, 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 reƫlection. 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

Saturday, January 18, 2014

The Advance Group Kept Working on Melissa Mark-Viverito's Speakership Campaign Until the Very End

The-Advance-Group-Melissa-Mark-Viverito-Campaign-Finance-Violations photo The-Advance-Group-Melissa-Mark-Viverito-Campaign-Finance-Violations_zps67980fb3.jpg

Prior to the backroom deals that selected Melisa Mark-Viverito as the new Council speaker, she had accepted unpaid assistance from The Advance Group, a prominent lobbying firm headed by Scott Levenson, the news Web site Politicker reported. (The Advance Group Helping Melissa Mark-Viverito in Speaker’s Race * Politicker) After controversy erupted over Ms. Mark-Viverito's receipt of unpaid assistance from The Advance Group (City Council Speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules * The New York Daily News), Ms. Mark-Viverito deceptively announced that she fired the The Advance Group. (Melissa Mark-Viverito Drops Advance Group for Speaker Bid * Politicker) However, Jonathan Yedin, an operative with The Advance Group, has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Frank Seddio’s political club. Mr. Yedin was a crucial player in brokering the backroom deal with Mr. Seddio to give Ms. Mark-Viverito the win in her bid to become the next Council speaker, sources said. (Inside Melissa Mark-Viverito’s Road to Victory * Politicker) But The Advance Group was never paid for their work, according to New York State Board of Elections campaign finance disclosure records, raising the specter anew that Ms. Mark-Viverito was in violation of prohibitions on publicly-elected officials from accepting a “valuable gift” from a firm that intends to do business with the city, according to an analysis by The New York Daily News of the City Charter regulations, which include prohibitions on lobbyists from giving valuable gifts to publicly-elected officials.

2014-01-15 Melissa Mark-Viverito NYS Board of Election Campaign Finance Disclosure Expenditures

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The Growing, Corruptive Role of Money and Lobbyists In NYC Politics Contravenes Progressive Values

The lobbyists, big businesses, and special interests that game the broken political system do not want reforms of campaign finance law.

The 2013 municipal elections in New York City were the first time that Citizens United brought the corruptive use of Super PAC money into local elections here, and the top lobbying firms, which double as campaign consultants, used the scourge of independent expenditures as a backdoor to funnel millions of dollars through Super PAC's. This corruptive use of money has never been fully investigated, excepting for a series of articles in Crain's about the shady double-dipping by one lobbying firm, The Advance Group. (Scott Levenson NY-CLASS ABQ WFP Timeline to Benefit Bill de Blasio ?) The serious questions into The Advance group's shady dealings will go uninvestigated, because the city's Campaign Finance Board now answers to the mayor and the Council speaker, who have close ties to The Advance Group. The shady embrace of Super PAC's in New York City politics is joined in murky darkness by the shameless role of lobbyists in determining leadership posts in the new de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration.

NYC Council Speaker Race Campaign Finance Controversies (2013)

The corruptive role of money and lobbyists continues to erode away at transparency and democracy in New York City municipal politics, or whatever is left of it.

New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito raised more than $100,000 after her election, and spent nearly $80,000 on consultants and donations to other political groups in her bid to become Speaker. (Mark-Viverito spent big on speaker race * Crain’s) One of the city’s biggest lobbyists, Vito Pitta, quietly assisted Ms. Mark-Viverito in her campaign for City Council speaker -- putting him in a prime position with his clients now that she has been selected. (Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito Got Help From Top Lobbying Firm * The New York Daily News)

Prior to the backroom deals that selected Melisa Mark-Viverito as the new Council speaker, she had accepted unpaid assistance from The Advance Group, a prominent lobbying firm headed by Scott Levenson, the news Web site Politicker reported. (The Advance Group Helping Melissa Mark-Viverito in Speaker’s Race * Politicker) After controversy erupted over Ms. Mark-Viverito's receipt of unpaid assistance from The Advance Group (City Council Speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules * The New York Daily News), Ms. Mark-Viverito deceptively announced that she fired the The Advance Group. (Melissa Mark-Viverito Drops Advance Group for Speaker Bid * Politicker) However, Jonathan Yedin, an operative with The Advance Group, has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Frank Seddio’s political club. Mr. Yedin was a crucial player in brokering the backroom deal with Mr. Seddio to give Ms. Mark-Viverito the win in her bid to become the next Council speaker, sources said. (Inside Melissa Mark-Viverito’s Road to Victory * Politicker) But The Advance Group was never paid for their work, according to New York State Board of Elections campaign finance disclosure records, raising the specter anew that Ms. Mark-Viverito was in violation of prohibitions on publicly-elected officials from accepting a “valuable gift” from a firm that intends to do business with the city, according to an analysis by The New York Daily News of the City Charter regulations, which include prohibitions on lobbyists from giving valuable gifts to publicly-elected officials.

"Under city election rules, Ms. Mark-Viverito was not allowed to spend money from her 2013 campaign account for the speaker race. She was also not allowed to spend money from a 'transition committee' meant to pay only for inauguration activities. And she was likewise not allowed to yet set up a new 2017 campaign committee with the city Campaign Finance Board. ¶ Instead, on Nov. 5, she set up a 2017 campaign committee for an as-to-be-determined city office, according to the state Board of Elections, and then spent on the speaker race," reported Crain's.

When will good government groups and the media finally admit that the impotent New York City Campaign Finance Board turns it head away from the way campaign consultants and lobbyists have made Swiss cheese of campaign finance regulations ?

To add insult to injury, several lobbyists, who helped Ms. Mark-Viverito in her successful bid to become Council Speaker, are now aiding her in deciding committee assignments and who the Council should hire. (Lobbyists aid Mark-Viverito transition * Crain's)

Alison Hirsh, the political director of the building service workers union 32BJ, Brooklyn Councilman Brad Lander, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and Jon Del Giorno, a founding member of the lobbying firm Pitta Bishop Del Giorno and Giblin, are exerting behind-the-scenes influence in backroom meetings to determine the makeup of the Council leadership positions that will report to Speaker Mark-Viverito. Left unmentioned was Scott Levenson, whose lobbying firm, The Advance Group, kept working behind-the-scenes for Ms. Mark-Viverito, in spite of some press reports that his firm had been fired. A controversial political operative, Mr. Levenson gave contradictory statements to the press last year about his campaign consulting work to defeat LGBT political candidates.

Mayor Bill de Blasio established the political culture of allowing lobbyists to have a say in how the municipal government would work since his election. Mayor de Blasio named "Carl Weisbrod, a registered lobbyist, as co-chair of the mayor's transition committee," Crain's reported.

The role of lobbyists, big business, and special interests will likely continue unchecked by good government groups, co-opted reformers, and the lazy media when Mayor de Blasio and several of his top administration officials are expected to attend the Real Estate Board of New York’s annual gala. (Mayor de Blasio to party with real estate * Crain's)

"In addition to the mayor, Police Commissioner William Bratton is expected to attend, along with other top de Blasio appointees, including Tony Shorris, de Blasio's first deputy mayor; Emma Wolf, the director of intergovernmental affairs; and Alicia Glen, the deputy mayor for housing and economic development. Kyle Kimball, president of the Economic Development Corp., who Mr. de Blasio recently renamed to that position, is also likely to be at the event, sources said. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer will likely attend as well," Crain's reported.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Escalating Corruptive Influence of Money in NYC Politics, But No Public Advocacy (Updated)

On the same day when Bronx Assemblyman Eric Stevenson was convicted on federal corruption charges of trading his office for money come new reports that public officials flout campaign finance and ethics regulations. The question everybody keeps asking : where are the good government groups and the public advocate ?

Susan-Lerner-Tish-James-Government-Watchogs-Asleep-At-The-Switch photo Susan-Lerner-Tish-James_zps0be2be4d.jpg

Common Cause/NY, a "good government" group dedicated to fighting the "excessive influence of money on government policy and elections" is silent on the campaign finance questions engulfing Mayor Bill de Blasio, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and Councilmember Margaret Chin

Susan Lerner, who heads Common Cause/NY, has been missing in action (MIA) as the press increasingly report serious questions about the political fundraising and electioneering payments in the recent past municipal election cycle.

Some of Mayor de Blasio's campaign contributors exploited loopholes, allowing them to make donations that were double or triple the legal limit, The New York Daily News reported. Last week, muckraking reporter Jill Colvin of Politicker reported that many of Mayor de Blasio's transition campaign donors have business before the city, creating a potential conflict of interest.

During her controversial post-election campaigning for the Council speakership, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito openly flouted campaign finance and city ethics regulations. Indeed, her primary speakership campaign consulting firm, The Advance Group, had triggered its own campaign finance investigation. Further, both the mayor and the Council speaker both benefitted from their relationship to Scott Levenson, the head of The Advance Group, even though he was tied to fundraising controversy when he administered a $1 million Super PAC. Left unexplained is how Speaker Mark-Viverito, a leader of the Council's Progressive Caucus, can reconcile her close association with The Advance Group in spite of its scandalous anti-LGBT campaign work.

Another member of the Progressive Caucus is Councilmember Margaret Chin, who exploited campaign finance laws to pay some campaign workers bonuses in contravention to regulations.

Though all these, and other violations of campaign finance and city ethics regulations are playing out publicly in the press, not once has Ms. Lerner challenged the new city officials.

Public Advocate Tish James, who is a publicly-elected government watchdog, is also eerily silent, even though she promised to hold the de Blasio administration accountable to ethics.

Joining Ms. Lerner in MIA status is the city's public advocate, Tish James. Both share similar motivations to bring transparency and accountability to government, but both are asleep at the switch.

We most recently heard from Ms. Lerner, when she was opposing Speaker Mark-Viverito's challenger, Councilmember Daniel Garodnick. Perhaps Ms. Lerner only plays favorites ?

As for the new public advocate, at a debate last September she said that although she supported Mayor de Blasio, she would remain an independent watchdog. But what explains why Ms. James has been silent on all these campaign finance and ethics violations ?

The problem of the outsized influence of money and lobbyists in politics is, of course, larger than just the corruption it introduces into municipal elections. The corruptive influence of money has been shown to exist on the state level with Assemblyman Stevenson's conviction, and on the federal level, too, with, for example, the arrest of Diana Durand on election fraud charges for "using straw donors to exceed campaign contribution limits" to Rep. Michael Grimm’s 2010 campaign, The New York Post reported.

The questionable role of an Obama administration official, leading to a complaint of ethics violations.

Patrick Gaspard, the United States Ambassador to South Africa, allegedly violated federal law, according to a report in The New York Post. The law forbids government workers from "engaging in partisan activity by promoting pal Bill de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, an ethics complaint claims," The NYPost reported, adding, "The complaint, filed by Republican activist O’Brien Murray, cited media reports that Gaspard, President Obama’s former political director, helped pull strings from South Africa to aid de Blasio’s campaign." The report also includes references to actions taken by Mr. Gaspard to electioneer the successful speakership campaign of Mayor de Blasio's chief Council ally, Ms. Mark-Viverito. See, also, Patrick Gaspard, ambassador to South Africa, helped de Blasio campaign: Joe Lhota aide : Republican operative O’Brien Murray complains that the envoy violated the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that bans most government officials from partisan political activity (The New York Daily News)

The complaint against Mr. Gaspard will be reviewed by federal authorites. "Complaints about possible violations of the Hatch Act are handled by the federal Office of Special Counsel," The New York Daily News reported. It's uncertain how truly independent the Office of Special Counsel will be in reviewing allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Gaspard, who is the former White House political director. Locally, the complaints about violations of municipal campaign finance and ethics violations may prove to invoke conflicts of interests. A major concern raised about the illicit campaign finance activities of Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-Viverito, and Councilmember Chin is that the mayor and the speaker both oversee the Campaign Finance Board, the municipal body responsible for investigating allegations of campaign corruption. Separately, the mayor himself oversees the Department of Investigation, the city agency that would investigate allegations of ethics violations. The Conflicts of Interests Board also answers to the mayor. The way the government is set up, there is no way for city officials to hold the mayor, the Council speaker, and other councilmembers accountable if good government groups and the public advocate abdicate their government watchdog role, which appears to be what they have already decided to do.

That only leaves the press and possibly federal corruption prosecutors to keep City Hall and City Council accountable.

Monday, January 6, 2014

The Losing New York City Council Speaker Candidate Is Less Corrupt Than The Winner

About 36 hours remain before the next class of New York City Councilmembers file into City Hall to vote for the next Council speaker. Supporters for both candidates are freaking out. I just got flamed on Facebook by an animal rights activist. I get it. People want their candidate to win ; consequently, they mistakenly think that by attacking me they will help their candidate win -- as if I have that much influence, as if I ever did ? I just want to point out that I'm in this for reform. It doesn't matter who wins anymore, it never did. The Council speaker race is all about how desperate the candidates can get to out broker the sleaziest backroom deals to win. The political coverage so far in this year's speaker race has exceeded the scrutiny former Council Speaker Christine Quinn got in 2005. By that measurement, we've already won, because some of the true extent of backroom dealing has been described by a couple of bloggers and a handful of mainstream media reporters. Meanwhile, some activists still contact me with questions about where the corruption exists ? After a series of YouTube videos, blog postings, links to other blogs and other news reports, tweets, and newsletters, all this information is available on Google. Now, let's see which Council speaker candidate dares to go for bust. Word is that every corrupt favour is being called in from every political hack in town. The fight has stopped being one to win, but a race to the bottom, because, technically, the winner only wins after putting together the most corrupt backroom deals to round up support. The winner readily risks flouting campaign finance laws and ethics regulations. If the desperation to win reaches new highs, let's hope that whatever remaining scrutiny on the Council speaker race will report that escalated corruption. Only in the Council speaker race will the candidate that comes in second actually be the one that is less corrupt than the winner.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Melissa Mark-Viverito Lobbyist Firm Never Quit, Continued Lobbying Despite Investigations

Mission Accomplished : Mark-Viverito Defeats Garodnick ; Checks And Balances Are For Stooges

New York City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito self-delcared herself the winner in the race to be the next City Council Speaker, saying she had defeated Daniel Garodnick and replacing Christine Quinn, who leaves office on Dec. 31, 2013 ; although, the vote to actually select the next Council speaker won't actually take place until Jan. 8, 2014, leading Jim Dwyer of The New York Times to write, "And you do wonder if former President George W. Bush has phoned City Hall to offer the loan of his Mission Accomplished banner."

Mission Accomplished Melissa Mark-Viverito MMV

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio violated separation of powers by championing Mark-Viverito's speakership. His support for her flies in the face of a possible ethics violations during her speakership race and a campaign finance investigation into the shady dealings of one of her lobbyists. If Mark-Viverito does become speaker, she and the mayor-elect will have authority over the Campaign Finance Board and the Conflicts of Interest Board to make these investigations go away. How convenient.

The County Boss system has been surpassed by the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics. While neither system is free from corruption, it is incumbent upon good government groups to address the fact that if Mark-Viverito does cinch the speakership, then it will be because of the role of lobbyists and the pay-to-play promises of Council chair appointments, payments of lulus, and distribution of Council slush funds.

These progressives-in-name-only are seizing power through machinations that violate the very anti-corruption principles of progressivism.

What is more, violating separation of powers, campaign finance laws, ethics, and flouting anti-corruption ideals are coming from the "Left." These kinds of actions are typically ascribed to the sleazy, corporate-controlled "Right" in American politics. What a disgrace that all this is playing out in the progressive capital city of New York -- and it's coming from the "Left !"

The Advance Group Flouts Campaign Finance, Ethics Regulations

The Advance Group Never Quit Mark-Viverito Speakership Campaigning, Other Lies Told To The Media

"As controversy simmers around the Advance Group, Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito revealed tonight she is no longer taking free advice from the leading consulting firm in her bid for City Council speaker," Ross Barkan reported on Dec. 2, adding that Ms. Mark-Viverito said that, "we will not be receiving any additional advice from The Advance Group."

After Ms. Mark-Viverito's association with Mr. Levenson and The Advance Group was at risk of derailing her speakership campaign, she misrepresented the role of The Advance Group just long enough to take the heat off her campaign, and let one of the lobbying group's consultants continue to provide "crucial" support.

Seventeen days later, it was confirmed that Ms. Mark-Viverito never completely stopped receiving advice from The Advance Group. The very same reporter, Mr. Barkan, to whom she had said, "we will not be receiving any additional advice from The Advance Group," now reported that Mr. Levenson's chief deputy, Jonathan Yedin, kept lobbying on behalf of Ms. Mark-Viverito.

"Ms. Mark-Viverito’s team was Brooklyn-infused for this purpose and included a paid operative, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz’s chief of staff John Paul Lupo, and an operative with the controversial Advance Group, Jonathan Yedin, who has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Mr. Seddio’s political club."

It's unclear how Ms. Mark-Viverito can fire The Advance Group but keep receiving advice from one of their chief consultants ? Was Mr. Yedin's involvement just a backdoor way for Scott Levenson to each of keep tabs on the negotiations and feed instructions to Mr. Yedin in a smoke and mirrors attempt to confuse the editorial board of The New York Daily News ?

These are not the only misrepresentations that have been told to the media by those connected with The Advance Group. Representatives from The Advance Group were caught telling two different stories about the firm's work to defeat LGBT candidates for the City Council.

In a Nov. 21 report in The New York Daily News, a spokesperson for the lobbying firm said that the anti-LGBT work that the firm did was as a result of a "favor for a political operative." Four days later, Mr. Levenson told Michael Powell of The New York Times that, "I didn’t do my due diligence."

But Mr. Levenson has a calculating reputation and "tends to hedge his bets" on clients. At the time he was advancing Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign, it was reported that he had previously attended a function promoting another Council speaker candidate, Inez Dickens. Mr. Levenson also worked for opposing candidates in the same political race.

It may be too soon to find out if all these misrepresentations will have any impact on the investigations, before Ms. Mark-Viverito has them dismissed against her and her lobbyist firm, or if prosecutors will look into this mess.

Conflict between the old County Boss system of Big Business and the Super PAC's and Lobbyists of Special Interests

The aggressive and deliberate flouting of campaign finance laws and ethics regulations pushed the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News to denounce Ms. Mark-Viverito's Council speakership candidacy last month. Relatively speaking, all the backroom machinations of the mayor-elect and the Council speaker-select are making the old County Boss system, never transparent and always shady, look like reformers. As Sal Albanese wrote, "You can't make this up."

Monday, December 9, 2013

Exploiting NYC, NYS Campaign Finance Law Loopholes

PUBLISHED : MON, 09 DEC 2013, 10:21 AM
UPDATED : SUN, 06 APR 2014, 12:00 PM

Melissa Mark-Viverito and Carl Kruger exploit campaign finance loopholes

Former New York State Sen. Carl Kruger, who is currently imprisoned after having been convicted on federal bribery charges, is still receiving contributions to his New York State campaign finance account, reports The New York Daily News, adding, "Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat, is one of dozens of former - and even deceased - lawmakers who still maintain active campaign accounts. He has spent more than $200,000 from his account since heading off to prison, most of which was used to pay his lawyers. His account still had a $415,753 balance as of his most recent filing in July."

A series of editorials by the Editorial Board of the same newspaper slammed City Council speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito for first circumventing city campaign finance laws and then for exploiting loopholes in the state's campaign finance laws.

"Mark-Viverito has opened a campaign account under state regulations. She is apparently accepting contributions and apparently paying different consultants to advance her cause. Who’s giving her money and who’s getting her money will not be disclosed until after the speaker’s contest is settled," the Editorial Board wrote in the second editorial, noting, "At the same time, hopefuls Dan Garodnick of Manhattan and Mark Weprin of Queens are dipping into campaign accounts to give tens of thousands of dollars to fellow councilmembers and party organizations," before concluding, "None of this is acceptable."

Eleanor Randolph is disappointed that the Moreland Commission didn't do more to report on the pay-to-play corruption in New York politics.

Eleanor Randolph, appearing on The New York Times Close-Up on NY1 photo Eleanor-Randolph-The-New-York-Times-IMG_5319_zps42b52e22.jpg

Last week-end, Eleanor Randolph appeared in the roundtable segment of The New York Times Close-up on NY1, and she expressed annoyance that the Moreland Commission didn't do the kind of investigation typically reserved for journalists. Forgetting that she is an editor of the newspaper of record, namely, The New York Times, Ms. Randolph overlooked her own role in being able to expose pay-to-play corruption and corralling public opinion to demand campaign finance reforms. Instead, Ms. Randolph expected the Moreland Commission to do her job for her, for example, she complained that the commission didn't "name any names." Ms. Randolph, as an editor of The NYTimes, can assign investigative reporters to examine, for example, the corruptive influence of money in politics playing out right now in the New York City Council speaker's race. But she has not.

One of the main concerns over the conditions of the current Council speaker's race, where lobbyists are seemingly allowed to provide free or discounted campaign services to politicians, is that politicians become indebted to these same lobbyists, creating a conflict of interest where politicians then must return favors to these lobbyists. Campaign reform activists complain that favor-trading like this is a form of pay-to-play politics, because politicians are receiving campaign and lobbying services that they either cannot afford or that exceed or violate campaign finance caps or regulations.

Thus far, only one article has been published by The NYTimes, namely "In Campaign, Cash Flowed Circuitously" by Michael Powell, even though The New York Observer, Crains Insider, Capital New York, The New York Daily News, and most notably True News From Change NYC have been examining in depth the role of one influence-peddler, Scott Levenson, in some shady backroom machinations, including his role in selecting the next Council speaker.

Two weeks prior on The New York Times Close-up, Ms. Randolph acknowledged that the campaign to determine the next Council speaker was an "insider race" where the public had no role, but The NYTimes has not reported to what degree that "insider race" is creating the same pay-to-play culture of corruption, which Ms. Randolph takes to television to denounce. She herself is enabling the lack of transparency, untimely public disclosure, and exploitation of campaign finance loopholes.

Federal prosecutors are depending on investigative journalism to help expose corruption, but journalists are relying on the government to police itself.

Preet Bharara - The Only Policeman In New York State photo Preet-Bharara-dbpix-henning-tmagArticle-NYTimes_zpsaf6e1719.jpg

Preet Bharara : New Media Will End NYC's Journalism of Sheep. In testimony before the Moreland Commission, Mr. Bharara lamented the loss of investigative journalists, but he put high hopes on new outlets and revived old media. * U.S. Attorney To Commission : Political Corruption Is Out Of Hand In New York State (CBS New York) :

To repeat a longstanding lament, investigative journalists have become a dying breed, although there are still a few extraordinary practitioners, some of whom are here tonight. With each press outlet that closes or downsizes, opportunities to ferret out fraud and waste and abuse are lost.

And that is too bad because, as Edward R. Murrow once observed, 'A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.'

But maybe the thinning ranks of investigative journalists will be fortified :

Maybe Politico’s purchase of Capital New York and its planned infusion of staff and resources will mean more Albany muckraking.

Maybe Jeff Bezos’s purchase of the Washington Post and his reported interest in rejuvenating a storied history of eye-popping investigations will prove contagious.

And maybe fresh news outlets like BuzzFeed whose editors are said to be bent on doubling down on political investigations will provide grist for Commissions like this one.

We shall see.

See Also : Preet Bharara hopes for more muckraking in Albany


One week after our original post, Eleanor Randolph announced her resignation from the Editorial Board of The New York Times.

(Updated : Tuesday 17 Dec 2013 16:06)

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Quinn Flip Flops On Outside Campaign Finance Corruption

With State Senator Brad Hoylman at her side, New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said that she was changing her mind about accepting the corruptive influence of outside campaign money to help boost her sagging bid in this year's mayoral race.

In April, Speaker Quinn denounced the use of outside campaign money, sometimes called "independent expenditures" to soften the sound of corruption. That was back when Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign was ahead in the polls. But then in late June, once Speaker Quinn's campaign began a sharp nose-dive, she welcomed the assistance of outside campaign money.

Meanwhile, it was Speaker Quinn who supported loosening restrictions on the role of corporations in being able to spend money to influence municipal elections when she watered down the city's campaign finance laws.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Quinn Weakens Campaign Finance Laws For Corporations

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn thinks that corporations are people, too, and that they deserve to be counted as member organizations in order to allow corporations to use corporate money to influence the outcome of elections.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn achieved a life-long dream to weaken campaign finance laws yesterday. A new bill, which was passed with almost unanimous support through the New York City Council, was nominally promised to help unions, but the dark side of the bill is a backdoor loophole that exempts corporations from disclosing election-related communications with their employees, stockholders, directors, and other stakeholders about activities that corporations undertake to endorse and support corrupt candidates.

Read also :

"City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, facing accusations that legislation she championed opened a 'gaping loophole' in New York City's campaign-finance system, backed off her proposal and oversaw the passage of a watered-down bill Wednesday that reduced the reporting requirements for unions, corporations and advocacy groups." (Council Eases Finance Rules * The Wall Street Journal)