Will NYPD Commish Bratton be forced to resign over Eric Garner's violent, choking death ?

Community anger escalating over NYPD's continued obsession with "broken windows theory" of policing that appears to justify police brutality, and even violent deaths, for low-level crimes.

Five months before Eric Garner was choked to death by police on Staten Island, ex-Marine Jerome Murdough died while being incarcerated at Riker's Island.

Eric Garner died in a chokehold by NYPD on Staten Island on July 17. Do the officers of the New York Police Department get to decide if the suspects of low-level crimes deserve a death sentence on the spot ? That's the question many political bloggers are asking this week-end, as Mayor Bill de Blasio heads for the isle of Capri in the aftermath of the NYPD's choking death of married Staten Island dad, Eric Garner, 43. During last year's mayoral election, then candidate Bill de Blasio campaigned on promises to end policing tactics that unfairly targeted the poor and people of color. But then after he won the mayoral election, mayor-elect de Blasio swiftly made clear that he was appointing William Bratton as his new police commissioner, a signal of coming broken campaign promises on police reform. Mr. Bratton has a long history of stoking racial tensions by championing a controversial approach to policing known by the moniker, "broken windows." Under this policing theory, the cops target very low-level crimes before larger crimes are committed. But such an approach has been extremely controversial with civil rights activists, communities of color, and political bloggers, because the NYPD's obsession with combatting crime is focusing all of its resources on people suspected of committing very low-level offenses, like privately selling single cigarettes, as Mr. Garner was accused of doing, instead of major criminals. For example, former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has been accused of using millions of dollars of confiscated criminal assets to pay for a campaign spokesman, Mortimer Matz. Yet, Mr. Hynes remains free, even those these accusations have been reported and repeated through valid media outlets through out New York state. While government reform activists wait for the NYPD to arrest former D.A. Hynes for the larceny of over $1 million, Mr. Garner is imposed an immediate death sentence for trying to sell single cigarettes for 50¢. Jerome Murdough died on Feb. 15 while being incarcerated at Riker's Island. But Mr. Garner's death is not the first time when the city's law enforcement has been accused of causing the death of an innocent person under the de Blasio-Bratton administration. Last February, a former U.S. Marine died while in law enforcement custody at Riker's Island. Like with Mr. Garner's situation, the former Marine, Jerome Murdough, first attracted police attention because of Commissioner Bratton's obsession with "broken windows" policing. Mr. Murdough's only crime was that he was homeless, and when police took him into custody, he had been huddling in the stairwell of a New York City public housing development, seeking warmth from the frigid, polar-express winter experienced by the Northeast. The frail, the poor, people in crisis, and people of color are the targets of Police Commissioner Bratton's insistence on terrorizing those with the least. And all of this sadness and drama is approved by Mayor de Blasio, a blatant contradiction to his campaign promises to reform the NYPD. The calls for NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton to be fired, or to resign, are beginning to grow. On last night's edition of NY1 The Call with Emmy Award-winning journalist John Schiumo, the nearly universal sentiment was that the NYPD were out of control. It appears that Mayor de Blasio's promises to reform the NYPD have gone unfulfilled. Thus far, though, the mainstream media has been giving Mayor de Blasio a free pass for having to failed to reform the NYPD, but already political bloggers, such as Suzannah B. Troy, and grass roots groups, like New Yorkers Against Bratton, have not let up on demanding reforms. Ms. Troy was assaulted last year in a case that the NYPD refused to investigate, Ms. Troy alleges, in order to manipulate crime statistics in New York. And New Yorkers Against Bratton has been the sole group to take a hard line position against the new mayor over his broken promises to overhaul the corrupt NYPD. Indeed, at last spring's Left Form 2014, various activists collaborated on an open forum to draw attention to how many nonprofit reform groups have deescalated calls for police reform out of deference to the new mayor. This is Commissioner Bratton's second service as head of the city's police department. He had previously served under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's first term, but resigned in 1996 amid a probe into 21 out-of-town trips he had taken and other sources of friction with former Mayor Giuliani. During his brief first stint as commissioner, NYPD were involved in the choking death of Anthony Baez, a controversy that critics of Commissioner Bratton readily point to, in demonstration of his callous disregard of police brutality and police murder. Now that two deaths of innocent people have occurred in Mayor de Blasio's young administration, political bloggers, activists, and minority communities wonder how many more deaths, incidences of police brutality on senior citizens, incidences of people of color being refused peaceful accommodation on public transportation, and military-style police raids will it take before the nonprofit "veal pen" reform groups remobilize to renew their demands for a complete overhaul of the NYPD, beginning with the Commissioner Bratton's removal from office.

RELATED Staten Island man dies after NYPD cop puts him in chokehold — SEE THE VIDEO (The New York Daily News) Homeless veteran 'basically baked to death' at Rikers Island while being held on trespassing charge (The New York Daily News) 7 million $lush fund reasons why VOCAL-NY, CPR community groups no longer pressing for NYPD reforms (Bill de Blasio Sold Out) Michael Hayes, LMT, has practiced massage for more than 20 years as a licensed massage therapist in New York City. Flatiron Massage is located in the Flatiron District of Manhattan.

When Cuomo closed the Moreland Commission, he was hoping to shut down all efforts to investigate political corruption

PUBLISHED : FRI, 18 JUL 2014, 08:27 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 20 JUL 2014, 01:45 PM

The Governor's interference with the Moreland Commission's efforting to combat corruption has prompted federal prosecutors to seek grand jury testimony in an inquiry into Gov. Andrew Cuomo's closure of the Moreland Commission Ever since the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) agreed to close the Moreland Commission as part of an unseemly budget negotiation with corrupt state lawmakers at the end of March, the sordid gossip amongst political bloggers has been whether any prosecutors would dare investigate whether allegations that Gov. Cuomo interfered with the Moreland Commission's investigations would rise to the level of obstruction of justice. When it was reported that members of the Moreland Commission were contemplating issuing subpoenas to real estate developers, including the Extell Corporation, which had made contributions to Gov. Cuomo's campaign committee account, the Cuomo administration was said to have become involved in managing those subpoenas. To the consternation of the control-obsesses Cuomo administration, the Moreland Commission was reported to have issued a subpoena to the corrupt state Democratic Party, that subpoena was later downsized and redirected under the specter of possible influence by the Cuomo administration, according to political bloggers. Finally, when the Moreland Commission dared to poke around in how the state's corrupt legislators earn outside income, that is when the state legislature brokered a backroom deal with the Cuomo administration to finally shut down the politically dangerous Moreland Commission, triggering a backlash that portrayed Gov. Cuomo as being a power-hungry megalomaniac. At one point, Gov. Cuomo publicly declared that he controlled the independent functions of the Moreland Commission in a Gollum-like "My Precious" tirade, saying, "The Moreland Commission was my commission," adding, “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.” At each turn, whenever the Moreland Commission's investigations into political or campaign corruption threatened to splish-splash onto Cuomo administration officials, the governor or his staff appeared to be protecting their own political interests as they overlapped with the investigations by the Moreland Commission. Political bloggers wondered whether the Cuomo administration was trying to protect wealthy campaign contributors from the possibility of investigation or having the activities of wealthy campaign contributions come under review by Moreland Commission investigators. Actions reportedly by Cuomo administration officials or political operatives loyal to the Cuomo administration to downsize, redirect, or otherwise alter the investigative work by the Moreland Commission cast questions over the independence needed by investigative bodies, such as the Moreland Commission, conducting politically-unpopular but wholly-necessary criminal investigations into government and campaign corruption in New York state. That the Cuomo administration appeared to be heading off the possibility of investigations -- before the Moreland Commission could announce actual investigations or substantiated suspicions of wrong-doing -- created a sense of unease amongst political bloggers, because political bloggers wondered what activities were the Cuomo administration trying to conceal or hide from investigators. The culture of pay-to-play : Billionaire real estate development corporations make big money campaign donations, and then developers receive tax breaks, insider access to politicians During the period of time when the mainstream media was reporting that the Moreland Commission might investigate the culture of pay-to-play between campaign contributions made by wealthy real estate developers and the development of government policies that favored these developers, political bloggers cheered at the prospect that finally state investigators would look into corrupt real estate developers and their lobbyists. One of those lobbyists is the one-man power house, George Arzt. Mr. Arzt is a political adviser, lobbyist, spokesman, public relations consultant, and a very generous campaign contributor. Over the years, it is said that he made over $90,000 in traceable campaign contributions to various politicians in New York State. Critics of Mr. Arzt assert that Mr. Arzt buys access to top politicians with these sizable campaign contributions, and that that, plus his campaign consulting work and lobbying work, help to give his real estate developer clients an unfair advantage in gaming government policy for his clients. In this culture, where the right amount of campaign contributions, lobbying retainers, or the exchange of other funds, can give real estate developers an inside track to getting planning approvals for zone-busting real estate projects or tax breaks for billion-dollar skyscrapers, is what leads to so much corruption in government. The corrupt pay-to-play culture plays out like this : Mr. Arzt was a consultant for Extell Corporation, the developer of the billionaire luxury condo skyscraper on West 57th Street. Extell Corporation made sizable campaign contributions to Gov. Cuomo just before Gov. Cuomo signed into law multi-millions in tax breaks for Extell. All this money changing hands, and the local prosecutor for Manhattan, Cy Vance, abdicates his responsibility to investigate for bribes and corruption, leaving this matter for the Moreland Commission to investigate, except Gov. Cuomo shut the Moreland Commission down before any investigation could get off the ground. Last summer, Mr. Arzt was quoted by the mainstream media as an impartial observer during last year's mayoral race. However, political bloggers discovered that he had been part of a group of politicos having weekly meetings, strategizing how to install former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn as Michael Bloomberg's successor. Closing the loop on Mr. Arzt is that he was a campaign manager for former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' doomed reelection campaign. Questions of public ethics violations and even possible embezzlement were raised when it was discovered that former D.A. Hynes had been using an official slush fund of money proceeds from seized cash from drug deals gone bad to pay for another campaign advisor, Mortimer Matz. While Mr. Arzt wasn't implicated in that campaign controversy, when D.A. Hynes used proceeds from seized criminal activities from the office accounts of the Brooklyn District Attorney's office to pay Mr. Matz millions for his consulting services, by some estimates, that left more money in D.A. Hynes campaign committee accounts to pay other campaign consultants. Besides Mr. Arzt, another consultant who worked for D.A. Hynes and was paid through D.A. Hynes' campaign committee account was the lobbying firm, The Advance Group. All corrupt legislative deals passed through Albany are marked with the same fingerprints. Whenever corrupt big business interests and their lobbyists need legislative help, the go-to-man is New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Several sources, who were involved in the tax break for wealthy real estate developers, including Extell Corporation, told The New York Daily News that Speaker Silver was the "creator of the lucrative tax relief." Over the years, Speaker Silver has been involved in so many corruption controversies that he has learned how to survive investigations into corruption by facilitating the corruption of other politicians. In the case of the tax breaks for wealthy developers, if Speaker Silver was ever fully challenged in a criminal corruption investigation, he could possibly expose the role of Gov. Cuomo's apparent pay-to-play deal to sign the tax breaks into law in exchange for large campaign contributions from the real estate developers, which stood to benefit from the tax law amendment. Many government reform activists and political bloggers estimate that Speaker Silver has been involved in so many self-serving or insider-serving deals that, if he were fully investigated by prosecutors, a take-down of Speaker Silver could potentially implicate over three-quarters of the entire state legislature. Indeed, one outcome of the low-level prosecution of former State Senator Shirley Huntley was her revelation that she would see “bags of cash" brought into the State Senate building. From whom was all that and other money coming from ? Who, in a leadership position, having received that money, got to divide that money up ? None of these, and other activities, ever get investigated by state law enforcement, whether that be the local district attorneys, who roll up to the state attorney general, or, as witnessed by the fate of investigative corruption panels under the Cuomo administration, by the Moreland Commission. Corrupt officials and political operatives have learned to game the weak-willed district attorneys and timid attorney general. Politicians and lobbyist know that the corruption in New York state runs so deep that, collectively, the size of some investigations would involve the prosecution of significant political or government individuals, which may pose special problems for the local prosecutor, making federal prosecutors, like U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the only hope that political bloggers and government reform activists have at overhauling the corrupt political system running local and state governments across New York. It was Mr. Bharara's office, which issued a subpoena this week, seeking grand jury testimony from the assistant to the former executive director of the now shuttered Moreland Commission. Mr. Bharara took possession of the investigation files and correspondence of the former commissioners serving on the Moreland Commission, along with other records, to try to reconstruct the activities and involvements of various elected officials, lobbyists, and other political operatives. To complete his due diligence and review of all these potential criminal investigations, Mr. Bharara's office recently recruited the help of super lawyer Daniel Stein, a former top prosecutor with years of corruption prosecution experience, giving political bloggers hope that we are about to witness a once-in-a-century renewal of government integrity.

RELATED Is Gov. Andrew Cuomo under investigation for obstruction of justice ? (The New York Times)

Speaker Mark-Viverito's campaign paid a lobbying firm, which also lobbied back at her on behalf of clients

How much corruption has to happen, before progressive activists protest against City Council, demanding reforms to end the corruptive role of money and lobbyists in New York politics ?

How many Mark-Viverito-lobbyist exposés in The New York Daily News will it take before the Mark-Viverito administration and all of her teams of lobbyists come under federal investigation ? On the heels of yesterday's blog post about campaign finance questions pertaining to New York City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito's successful Council speakership campaign, an article in today's The New York Daily News revisits on-going questions over the role of lobbyists in the Speaker Mark-Viverito's administration of the City Council. In the first few months of this year, Speaker Mark-Viverito has been paying approximately $28,000 to the lobbying firm of Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin -- at the same time when Pitta Bishop was lobbying Speaker Mark-Viverito on behalf of the lobbying firm's clients. The lobbying firm of Pitta Bishop essentially rescued Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign last year when it appeared that Pitta Bishop took control over Councilmember Mark-Viverito's sagging speakership campaign after she became engulfed in a series of mainstream media exposés in connection with the lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which had been managing her lobbying campaign for the Council speakership. Various political campaigns managed by The Advance Group have since become the subject of a series of recent punitive findings and fines assessed by the city's Campaign Finance Board. Nevertheless, The Advance Group remained involved in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign at the time until she won her lobbying campaign. Since Speaker Mark-Viverito became indebted to her lobbyists, government reform activists question how could municipal ethics and campaign finance regulatory authorities condone her close relationship with these lobbyists. Not only can lobbyists close to the new Council speaker leverage her political indebtedness, but some of these same lobbying firms have also played a role in determining secondary and tertiary City Council leadership assignments, extending the control that lobbyists exert over the municipal legislative body. If you look the media, the City Hall press corps keeps looking the other way when it comes to concerns about illegality. "Simultaneously paying and being lobbied by the same firm is legal, but the practice has been criticized by good-government groups worried that such a cozy relationship can give lobbyists special access to a politician," reported The New York Daily News. For years, government reform activists have complained that the culture of corruption in government is allowed to get worse under the enabling eyes of do-nothing regulators, do-less good government groups, and non-plussed mainstream media reporters, who claim that some forms of government and campaign corruption are "perfectly legal." The situational ethics of political hacks acting in regulatory capacities is what undermines the public's confidence in government and in elected officials, but yet for every scandalous conflict of interest between elected officials, like Council Speaker Mark-Viverito, and lobbyists, like those at the firm of Pitta Bishop, is that good government groups and government reform activists rarely propose reforms that effectively render illegal the corruptive role of money and lobbyists in government. In the time leading up to the City Council vote to determine the next Council speaker, some political bloggers suggested a suite of proposed reforms to overhaul the role of lobbyists in determining leadership posts in the City Council. Some of those reforms, first published on November 24, 2013, in a YouTube video, included : reform the do-nothing Campaign Finance Board ; pressure progressives to enforce transparency ; improve Speakership electioneering reporting ; end subcontractor loopholes ; and end the provision of free campaign services, including for the Speakership. These recommendations, in addition to revoking the cloaking rule that allows lobbyists to avoid disclosure when they lobby the City Council for leadership or administrative appointments and banning campaign consultants who receive payments from the Campaign Finance Board's matching dollar program from acting as municipal lobbyists, can strengthen voter confidence in the integrity of government and in elected officials. Other reforms can be suggested by voters, government reform activists, and by good government groups. But the media neither invites voters to make recommendations for reforms, nor does the media launch government reform campaigns to support the recommendations of government reform activists working to overhaul this broken political system.

RELATED City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito paid $28G to lobbying firm for consulting, while they lobbied her on behalf of clients (The New York Daily News) Media reports show that Melissa Mark-Viverito evaded campaign finance caps by opening second account to fund Council speaker race (NYC : News & Analysis) More questions about Melissa Mark-Viverito's campaign finances and her lobbyists (NYC : News & Analysis)

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)

de Blasio's lobbying group, the Campaign for One New York, finally drawing heavier scrutiny from mainstream media

Was the mayor's ''nonprofit'' lobbying group, the Campaign for One New York, designed to be the political arm of City Hall, even before the new mayor was sworn in ?

501(c)(4) Nonprofit Group That Appears To Be Coordinating Political Activities For de Blasio Spent $1.7 Million In First Half Of 2014 The lobbying group formerly known as UPKNYC, largely responsible for pushing the mayor's policy of expanding pre-kinder to more New Yorkers (but which notably stopped short of being truly universal), transformed itself into a blank-check nonprofit group that now serves as the political arm of City Hall. The group, rebranded as the Campaign for One New York, has raised nearly $2 million to coordinate political activities outside City Hall in advancing Mayor Bill de Blasio's political agenda. Within six or seven weeks into Mayor de Blasio's new administration, the press began to raise questions about the shift of lobbyists and political operatives from the mayor's former campaign to the new nonprofit group. Shortly thereafter, political bloggers noticed the pattern of cycling political activities through various structures, which are sometimes just sufficiently distant from the new mayor -- and sometimes not. The nonprofit group was organized in December, even before the new mayor was sworn in, in anticipation of needing a well-funded astroturf group to keep activists and lobbyists alike occupied with the mayor's agenda. Some good government groups raise questions about government ethics in how the mayor fundraises for his political nonprofit. For example, the pro-business publication, Crain's New York Business, published a report showing that before the mayor signed a favorable labor contract with the municipal teachers' union, the national teachers' union made a sizable contribution to the mayor's political nonprofit. Is the mayor selling official acts in exchange for political donations to the Campaign for New York ? At least two of the largest donors to the Campaign for One New York were donors to the Anybody But Quinn effort last year, which acted to help elect Mayor de Blasio by defeating former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's mayoral campaign. Those donors were the businesswoman Wendy Neu and the union UNITE HERE!, according to an analysis of donation records performed by The New York Times. The union UNITE HERE! was once led by Mayor de Blasio's cousin, John Wilhelm. A third donor, Edison Properties, was formerly headed by Steve Nislick, who founded the animal rights group NY-CLASS, another nonprofit that was behind the Super PAC that, unbeknownst to voters, was acting to help elect Mayor de Blasio. The Super PAC was advised by the lobbying firm, The Advance Group. The same pattern of lobbyists and donors showing up over and over again across different 501(c)(4) groups and Super PAC's raises the question at to whether political activities are being coordinated between the mayor's supporters. Political operatives at 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East funneled $250,000 in contributions to the mayor's lobbying group, even though the mayor turned his back on his campaign promise to save LICH. One of the most controversial interactions between the mayor's lobbying group and New York voters has been the role of Long Island College Hospital, or LICH, as the Brooklyn hospital was known. The mayor appealed to voters to elect him as mayor after he made a series of campaign promises that would, in effect, turn the page to the 1% enabling Bloomberg-Quinn administration. In his promises to break with the Bloomberg-Quinn policies, then candidate de Blasio promised to fight for "hospitals, not condos" and he pledged to end the stop-and-frisk era. The role of lobbyists connected to the Campaign for One New York figure prominently in how the mayor has betrayed those promises central to his successful mayoral campaign. Political operatives from the large healthcare union, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, drove the union to contribute $250,000 to the nonprofit acting as the mayor's political arm even as the mayor was turning his back on the slow-motion shuttering of LICH. Helping to deflect the mayor's refusal to save LICH were operatives from the lobbying firm, Berlin Rosen. The PR spin doctor Dan Levitan handles issues for Mayor de Blasio where Berlin Rosen must score political points in the face of de Blasio administration failures, and Mr. Levitan was tasked with justifying the mayor's refusal to save LICH. The work Mr. Levitan did included overseeing the mailing of controversial printed literature that praised Mayor de Blasio. The closure of LICH has triggered a resounding backlash in Brooklyn, the supposed center of Mayor de Blasio's political support, proving that the Campaign for One New York isn't necessarily doing advocacy work to benefit the community so much as it's also doing damage control as the mayor sells out to big money real estate developers, as the case with the LICH closure has proved. Berlin Rosen operative Dan Levitan sends deceptive mailers to Brooklyn residents, justifying the mayor's betrayal of the campaign promise to save Long Island College Hospital. He is also the spokesman for the police reform umbrella group, Communities United for Police Reform. Besides confusing voters to deflect blame away from Mayor de Blasio, Mr. Levitan also oversees communication from the largest umbrella group of police reform organizations in New York City, Communities United for Police Reform, or CPR, as the umbrella group is known. Mr. Levitan stops-and-frisks all reform communication from these groups to subjugate the community's demands for police reform to the mayor's need to appease Big Businesses, who demand that Police Commissioner Bill Bratton enforce a "broken windows theory" of policing, to jail the poor, people of color, and other troublesome minorities as part of real estate developers' campaign to further gentrify New York City to support higher and higher, forever escalating real estate prices. Even though the mayor campaigned on a promise to end policing tactics that unconstitutionally targeted minorities, the mayor installs lobbyists and de Blasiobots to block reforms, turning a deaf ear to demands from minority communities that the New York Police Department be reformed. The mayor's lobbyists, campaign consultants, and Big Money donors turn to 501(c)(3) charity groups, 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups, Super PAC's, campaign committee accounts, and possibly even political party committee accounts to fund coordinated political activities. A few weeks ago, the mayor's close political ally, Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, authorized the distribution of about $50 million in taxpayer monies to some of the city's largest charity groups. For years, these budget allocations have been being made under allegations of political favoritism, and this year was no different. Politically-connected groups, like the Hispanic Federation, received outsized distributions from the speaker's slush fund. The Hispanic Federation is a project of a political insider, who has worked as a chief campaign consultant to the Council speaker, according to NPQ, the journal of the Nonprofit Information Networking Association. City grants to the Hispanic Federation comprise over 30 per cent. of the annual budget of the nonprofit, according to some statistics, and the Hispanic Federation pays the Council speaker's campaign consultant for his lobbying work out of its annual budget. Having lobbyists get paid through a pass-through entity helps keep politically-motivated budget allocations funneling in a circuitous pattern. When the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration isn't funneling money to politically-connected 501(c)(3) groups, like the Hispanic Federation, they use 501(c)(4) groups, like the Campaign For One New York, to coordinate their political activities, or funding for CPR member groups to block police reforms. As a fallback, the mayor opened his 2017 reelection campaign committee account just weeks into his first mayoral term. Campaign committee accounts are subject to caps and higher scrutiny ; therefore, the most minimal but most visible expenses get charged back to campaign committee accounts. For example, approximately $10,000 that Mr. de Blasio spent on the annual Inner Circle charity show was charged back to his reelection campaign committee account, The Wall Street Journal reported. For her part, Council Speaker Mark-Viverito updated her own 2017 campaign committee account, a phantom account for which nobody knows its true purpose, since the Council speaker is term limited in the City Council, and she has said that she will not run for mayor against her political patron. Her updated filing with the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, the state Board of Elections, still shows no expenditure to The Advance Group, in spite of its pivotal role in selecting Councilmember Mark-Viverito as this year's new Council speaker. No word yet on whether any party committee accounts of the Democratic Party or the Working Families Party have had to make any disclosures of politically-motivated expenditures that tie back to the coordinated political activities of the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration.

RELATED Campaign For One New York Lobbying Group Adopts de Blasio’s Agenda (The New York Times) Lobbying Group Aiding de Blasio Spent $1.7 Million in First Half of 2014 (The New York Times) Alarm raised about ‘‘dark money’’ behind de Blasio’s LICH - Fortis letter (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle) The Campaign for One New York has received a total of $1.7 million in less than seven months - and about three-quarters of that, $1.2 million, came from just five donors (The New York Daily News) Campaign for One New York Raised Nearly $1.8 Million to Coordinate Political Activities In Support of de Blasio's Agenda (The Wall Street Journal)

Before Departure, Turbulence Greets Mayor's Italian Vacation

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's summer vacation to Italy has triggered an avalanche of skepticism and resentment from the media and from New Yorkers sympathetic with each of LIRR union workers and commuters, who ride the LIRR. If the pace of the disappointment keeps up on social media, the mayor's advisors may force him to postpone or to even cancel his Italian vacation.

De Blasio demurs on LIRR strike impact on Italy trip http://t.co/Xtt9Cvld6F via @capitalnewyork

— Dana Rubinstein (@danarubinstein) July 14, 2014

De Blasio says he won't cut his vacation short in the event of an LIRR strike http://t.co/Q6077dYhu1

— Newsday (@Newsday) July 14, 2014

.@BilldeBlasio would not commit to cutting short his vacation if @LIRR workers strike, @SallyGold reports http://t.co/epdhtRVELd

— Capital New York (@capitalnewyork) July 14, 2014

Bill de Blasio Won’t Commit to Cutting Italy Trip Short if There’s an LIRR Strike http://t.co/GMNROzY3vt

— Politicker (@Politicker) July 14, 2014

De Blasio: LIRR strike may not derail my European vacation http://t.co/hBodIRDX79

— Joel Siegel (@joelmsiegel) July 14, 2014

De Blasio not ruling out Italy trip during possible LIRR strike http://t.co/73ABHvvOL2

— WSJ Greater New York (@WSJNY) July 14, 2014

... And de Blasio says it's unlikely he'll change plans to go on vacation even if the LIRR strikes http://t.co/FPrh99cP13

— amNewYork (@amNewYork) July 14, 2014

Mayor De Blasio Keeps Vacation Plans As Possible LIRR Strike Looms - http://t.co/U9Kk9wURPY

— David Schantz (@DavidSchantz) July 14, 2014

De Blasio won't say if LIRR strike would impact his Italy vacation http://t.co/wlzL4njGNU via @capitalnewyork @SallyGold

— Dan Goldberg (@DanGoldbergCNY) July 14, 2014

"It's a technicality." —Bill de Blasio on a provision in the City Charter http://t.co/xLdP5rDP1h

— Conor Skelding (@conorskelding) July 14, 2014

Will it really? http://t.co/MkoGkiudRt

— Courtney Williams (@CourtFWilliams) July 15, 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

"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)

There's More Left, If You're Hungry (For Change)

PUBLISHED : SAT, 12 JUL 2014, 06:25 PM
UPDATED : MON, 14 JUL 2014, 07:45 PM

Response to "Nothing Left" by Adolph Reed, Jr.

There's a way forward, to break through the stranglehold that neoliberals have over the Democratic Party, but, to do it, leftists need to leave the Democratic Party. In "Nothing Left," an essay by Adolph Reed, Jr., in the March issue of Harper's, Mr. Reed, described how the Democratic Party fails leftists in American politics. More or less, he described a Democratic Party that believed in working within a broken political system that affirms neoliberalism over the party's former New Deal politics. There are too many payoffs in the current broken political system for the Democrats to want reforms. Following is a response and commentary to Mr. Reed's essay. For years, activists in New York City have been trying to fight back against the influences of Big Business interests in local politics, but activists are stopped by party politics that want to see the correct Democrat elected into public office. Activists play a greater role in trying to bring about reforms, precisely because most voters do not participate in government, much less vote. In the mayoral election won by Bill de Blasio, only 24 percent of registered voters turned out to cast ballots, a rate of participation described as a record low by The New York Times. This compares with a 25 percent voter turnout in Detroit, a city in bankruptcy. A sense of voter powerlessness to fight back against the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics is succeeding in suppressing voter turnout. "Three other cities showed an even deeper level of apathy. Atlanta had 17.2 percent turnout, Houston only 13.2 percent and Miami just 11 percent,” according to one report. This compares with an incredible recent peak in voter turnout of 93 percent in the 1953 New York City mayoral election. Voters have come to believe that their participation doesn’t make a difference, and in the age of the corrupt Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, they are almost right. The lack of voter participation means that activists play a larger than normal role in how political, legal, and economic issues get put on the social agenda. We know that activists are passionate, because they are driven by motivations to change the system when they take up causes. One consequence to how how we compensate for the lack of voter participation is that the same activists keep showing up over and over again for a variety of issues. In the face of such great voter apathy, some activists speak of inactive voters as uneducated, because if voters truly appreciated what was at stake in the broken political system, voters would get involved. Voters need to become activated, so that they can claim their rightful role in overhauling the broken political system. Otherwise, going forward, as in for the past decades, some activists (or, some political operatives is more like it) will take for granted that only activists or political operatives will know what reforms are needed, because only activists and political operatives know the lay of the corrupt political landscape. A huge contributing factor that keeps such super-majority percentages of voters inactive is the failure of mainstream media to fully report the truth about the depths of corruption in how elected officials run the business of government. And activists and political operatives know the truth about how corrupt the system is, but they don't do much of anything to challenge the press to fully report the truth about corruption. Somehow, the same small numbers of activists and political operatives have yet to overcome the limitations imposed by the failed mainstream media, and this keeps inactive voters in the dark. Compounding this dysfunction is the fact that some activists readily accept some aspects of the corrupt political landscape, and these activists adjust themselves accordingly to the corruption, as opposed to fighting it. Once they play by the rules of the broken political system, some activists adopt downsized scopes of reforms to make nice-nice with the power players of the broken political system. To varying degrees, Mr. Reed and others have previously described this phenomenon. Where is the Democratic Party in all this ? Democrats only care about winning elections, not rolling out fundamental reforms to overhaul the broken political system. Brining back online the inactive voters doesn't matter to Democrats, because elections can be still be won without the participation of inactive voters. Making matters worse, the Democratic Party uses what Jane Hamsher describes as "veal pens" to proverbially lock-up activists and nonprofit organizations in a state of atrophy to deescalate demands for political reforms from the political left. Except for a few brave souls, the mainstream media buys into these and other deceptions of the Democratic Party for several reasons. Some politicians, their political operatives, and their lobbyists employ teams of people to feed the media only approved talking points. Some reporters make the mistake of thinking that they have become "friends" with politicians and their enablers, losing their objectivity in the process. The influence of of corporate owners and editors slant reporting coverage according to suitable idealogical packaging. The media has often been describe to move with a pack mentality, they themselves not wanting to appear to be dissenting from their peers. And sometimes, the few brave souls, who do report the truth about government and political corruption, face a loss of access to each of sources, political gossip, or other professional privileges. Many times, this retaliation plays out privately, as the spurned reporter tries to do damage control out of the view and judgement of their peers and possible future employers. Given that Democratic Party insiders and political operatives know this, it is not difficult for Democrats to try to control the media. In respect of the media, several important things have happened in the time leading up to, and since, Mr. de Blasio was elected as mayor that can act as reality checks on the City Hall press corps. First, while LGBT activists were rejecting the "identity politics" of former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in favor of substance, Mr. de Blasio rolled out his family, offering a "biographical narrative" to take center stage in his cornerstone promise to "end the stop-and-frisk era," a promise that was devoid of truth, in turns out, when Mr. de Blasio move the goal posts to "stop the over-use of stop-and-frisk" with the subsequent appointment of William Bratton as police commissioner, a move which the media largely did not challenge as being incongruent with Mr. de Blasio's campaign promises. At a lengthy public forum of some of the city's top political reporters held after last year's Democratic mayoral primary election, some reporters openly disavowed any duty to vet candidates for public office. As a consequence of this attitude, many reporters admitted that they had failed to scrutinize Mr. de Blasio before last year's Democratic primary race. For those few New Yorkers planning to vote, relying on the press for information was a dangerous proposition, because the city's top political reporters were saying that voters were on their own to make sense of the broken political system. Resistance to reforms that borders on needing to keep the system corruptible Who can forget Rep. Nancy Pelosi's three-part interview (Part 1 ; Part 2 ; Part 3) revealing interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in which Rep. Pelosi refused to come clean about the Democratic Party's reliance on Big Money campaign contributions, amongst other controversies. Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised to clean up Albany of corruption, but he refused to close a gaping loophole through which Big Money campaign donors funnel campaign contributions to elected officials as a way to control the government's agenda. One of Mayor de Blasio's closest political operatives, Scott Levenson, faces what has been described as multiple possible investigations due to allegations of campaign finance violations, but the mayor refuses to update the city's campaign finance laws, as he promised he would during last year's mayoral campaign. Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito hired lobbyists in a shady campaign to become the City Council speaker, pledging to turn the page from the corrupt record of her predecessor, but, now that she's in power, she's waging an effort to take control over the city's Board of Elections, "giving her power and control of a host of patronage jobs," according to The New York Daily News. Other issues, like how Gov. Cuomo was carrying out a state-sponsored plan to close hospitals across New York City, were never reported in the mainstream media with the full truth about what was truly happening. Even when Mr. de Blasio was reportedly described as trying to save Long Island College Hospital when he was only a candidate for mayor, he never fully tied the wave of hospital closings back to Gov. Cuomo's Medicaid Redesign Team. When the media did work itself up into a frenzy, like when one of the mayor's political supporters, Bishop Orlando Findlayter, was let out of jail on account of alleged intervention from City Hall, the mayor blocked the release of possibly damaging (or incriminating) evidence. At the conclusion of last year, The New York Times opined that no matter the real reason former Council Speaker Quinn lost the mayoral race, it wasn't because of any "major ethical lapses," contrary to the multiple examples of ethical lapses chronicled in Roots of Betrayal : The Ethics of Christine Quinn. One way or another, the corrupt system finds a way to keep the truth from being reported. Whenever the media is interested in covering a story, like with Bishop Findlayter's arrest, the government denies requests made under freedom of information laws. Some political bloggers and government reform advocates believe that Mayor de Blasio's denial of freedom of information law requests for Bishop Findlayter's arrest report, for example, is in keeping with the Obama administration's pattern of denying requests made under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Amongst the many outstanding FOIA requests pending before the Obama administration is a request for records about the government's vindictive prosecution of activists, including the prosecution of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal hero, Lt. Daniel Choi. It's easier for the press to politically report that the Obama administration is denying FOIA requests than it is to show how the Obama administration has been targeting activists for vindictive prosecution. The political climate facing government reform activists within the Democratic Party is so severe, that pressuring the Democratic Party for reforms routinely involves backlash, sometimes in the form of political retaliation. This environment of hostility is indicative that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for reforms. That is why you see political operatives, a/k/a "Yes Men," ring fence Democratic Party politicians from criticism. When grassroots activists make demands for reforms, the Yes Men deceptively water-down those demands for reform into downsized requests that can be easily met with empty rhetoric. Given this reality, how can voters mobilize to overhaul the broken political system, if some political operatives downsize their demands for reform -- at the same time when the press refuses to report the whole truth about corrupt elected officials ? The fairytale life of elected officials Part of the never-ending election strategy for the Democratic Party, indeed for any political party, is to establish and then maintain their leaders as likable characters. And so begins the requirement that followers can never question leaders, for, if one makes this irreconcilable error of questing a leader, then one gets shown the door. The Democratic Party spends millions on campaign consultants, lobbyists, focus groups, opinion polls, other messaging, and public relations that the party will not tolerate insiders, who undo these expensive media machinations. This is why voters get duped into buying the party line. Activists, who think they can operate an inside strategy, must first pledge to operate from a place of compromise -- there can be no criticisms of elected officials. This is why there is no room for dissent in expensive modern-day politics. Even when most progressives support immigration reform, for example, the Democrats, under Mayor de Blasio, go to such extremes as only allowing supporters of the city's new identification cards speak at official City Council hearings. Free speech and open debate go out the window. Regrettably, whole classes of nonprofit executives and activists sell-out their communities in exchange for insider access privileges. Even before Mayor de Blasio took office, former Council Speaker Quinn had established new norms of what it meant to be a neoliberal Democrat in New York City. Her relationship with real estate developers, chambers of commerce-like groups like the Partnership for New York City, and big money campaign donors like Rudin Management Company, have served as a pattern for Mayor de Blasio to follow as he seeks constant approval from Big Business interests. Moving in the same Big Business interest circles of former Speaker Quinn, Mayor de Blasio perpetuates the corrupt nexus of insider access and and a culture of backroom power deals for which activists once criticized former Speaker Quinn for having embraced, but the press doesn’t report things this way. Having made his Black family the core of Mayor de Blasio's identity prevents critics from raising race as an issue, even as some of Mayor de Blasio's policies have unfair racial overtones. Look at how easily Mayor de Blasio sold out on his pledge to reform policing in New York City when he authorized the police to undertake military-style invasions of public housing projects -- public housing projects -- and blaming some of the poor for the desperate lives that some of them live on account of the broken political system that never addresses the underlying conditions, which cause that desperation, a broken political system which Mayor de Blasio so very well represents. Police raids are sinister forms of behavior modification that blames victims for being poor, and that the targets of these policing actions are largely people of color goes unexamined by the media and by long-time activists, who have, by now, adapted to the new political realities of no expectations of reforms under the Democratic mayor. That the new police commissioner has promised to keep using the racist and classist "broken windows theory" of policing means that the mayor was all talk about police reform. Now that race is not a safe subject for examination, the media fails to look at how political operatives undertook efforts last year to manufacture a spike in voter turn-out in Black voting districts as a way to help elect the next mayor. Whenever the mayor does find himself under criticism from his political left, he relieves the pressure by spouting the right buzzwords, talking points about how he's a "progressive." Mayor de Blasio likes to tout his record of having signed new labor contracts with the municipal unions. NEWSFLASH : Any Democratic mayor had to give the unions new contracts. It's not rocket science to do what the unions, which elected you, tell you to do. The left, whom Mayor de Blasio will not accommodate, gets "trashed" the way activists in other social movements were once rolled over for not adapting to the corrupt status quo. Seeing the political landscape for what it is, first ; and then organizing for reforms, second One can most visibly see this dysfunctional dynamic play out between the Democratic Party, the mayor, nonprofit groups, political operatives, lobbyists, and activists in the police reform movement. Inside this dysfunction, nonprofit organizations and their executives play by the rules of the broken political system. They lock themselves -- and others -- up in "veal pens," where the goal of the broken political system goal is for activists to atrophy and waste away. If one tries to expose how some nonprofit groups are duplicitous in this dysfunction, then it is as if one has kicked a proverbial hornets' next -- one is going to get stung for pulling back the curtain on this political charade. And the veal pens and the stingings are very effective to condition activists to obey the rules of the broken political system. The totality of this dysfunctional political dynamic is given to us by a broken political system in which Democrats fully participate, that goes to great lengths -- indeed, any length -- to avoid reforms. Besides Big Business interests, the Democratic Party has become beholden to a class of "professional" political operatives, campaign consultants, and lobbyists, such as Patrick Gaspard, Scott Levenson, George Arzt, Jonathan Rosen, Dan Levitan, and others, making it impossible to enact reforms within the Democratic Party given these co-opting political gatekeepers. Matters are so corrupt that this class of consultants and lobbyists become entrenched and form a permanent, unaccountable form of backroom government insiders. Helping these permanent government insiders stay in power is the fact that that they have learned to exploit the campaign regulations that are meant to make electoral contests open and fair. When one accounts for the added role of fundraising and bundling of campaign donations by these permanent government insiders, one can see how figures with significant political power operate in backrooms, with no accountability to voters. These permanent government insiders are also largely responsible for removing the ethic of public service from those serving in public office. And those activists, who blog or write about these truths, are labeled fringe activists as a way to marginalize and disenfranchise muckraking bloggers. At every point, the broken political system tries to discredit critics, who are only calling for an overhaul to end government and political corruption. One of the major reasons why leftists cannot reform the broken political system is that the Democratic Party has instituted a culture that prevents leftists from holding Democratic officials accountable for reforms. Activists are marginalized by the Democratic Party, a viewpoint more or less shared by Mr. Reed, forced into the political fringes, then accused of running outside pressure political tactics against corrupt or inept Democrats -- when an outside pressure politics strategy is the only approach that the broken political system leaves activists. The system blames activists for exhibiting disenfranchised behavior when it is the broken political system that causes this disenfranchisement in the first place ! The only hope for overhauling the broken political system, in my opinion, is for all of the inactive voters to become activated. The current system, where the same small pool of activists, some of whom organize from a place of privilege, move from one issue to another, in "solidarity," after each "crisis moment," as Mr. Reed pointed out, isn't enough to overhaul this system. It's not just the numbers that a successful overhaul needs, but new ideas, new voices, and enough of them -- so that the people represent themselves in the process to bring about necessary reforms. If activists need to come in out of the fringes, then voters, too, need to come in out of dormancy. People need to dial-up their civic engagement. Contrary to what Democrats, Big Business interests, and permanent government insiders would have voters believe, it will be O.K. if voters participate in their own reform movement. And there's more to civic engagement than just voting, as it should be. People need to find more and more ways to have a say in how the government conducts business on our behalf. Voters need to create new groups, new organizations, through which they can exert new pressures on the system for reform. These groups must be new, in order to circumvent the stranglehold that Democrats have on unions, nonprofit organizations, and other political clubs or groups. The first step to start organizing is to vote out the highest figurehead neoliberal Democrat, which would be New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and vote in a Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins, who can break the corrupt two-party hegemony in American politics. Voting in a Green Party governor would demonstrate that the government can survive the loss of a center-right Democrat to a true leftist. Considering the corrupt political landscape, this is actually the only way our government can survive. The second step to start organizing is for voters to establish a new relationship with how they get the real truth about government and political corruption. This either means challenging reporters to fully report the truth, or else it means supporting new platforms or structures of muckraking-reporting that can come in out of the fringes and fully go mainstream.

RELATED Nothing Left : The long, slow surrender of American liberals By : Adolph Reed, Jr. (Harper's)