The parallel but opposite universe in the media's recounting of Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership (thus far)

New York City Political Reporting Twilight Zone

RELATED No. 2 and Trying Harder : The Unlikely Rise of City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito (The New York Observer) The Advance Group Kept Working on Melissa Mark-Viverito's Speakership Campaign Until the Very End (NYC : News & Analysis) The Growing, Corruptive Role of Money and Lobbyists In NYC Politics Contravenes Progressive Values (NYC : News & Analysis)

A profile of New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito published on The New York Observer Web site whitewashes her controversial bid for the Council speakership, noting that "a lack of controversy has characterized her tenure so far," even though Councilmember Mark-Viverito's acceptance of free lobbying services, which is against the rules, played an important role in her selection as the Council speaker. Does mainstream media reporting of New York City politics operate in The Twilight Zone ? How could The New York Observer write that, "In the final weeks before she was voted speaker, no newspaper endorsed Ms. Mark-Viverito," but leave out the reasons that explain this situation ? While The New York Observer did make room in its profile to mention tabloid-like articles about voodoo hexes, a charge made by rivals, who absurdley implied that Councilmember Mark-Viverito commissioned Satanic murals with mixed motivations, but, somehow, The New York Observer conveniently left out the series of exposés in various newspapers, sometimes involving editorials by various boards of editors, ranging from The New York Daily News, amNewYork, Newsday, and The New York Times, each raising concerns about Councilmember Mark-Viverito's failure to declare any in-kind contributions in exchange for the valuable lobbying services that were provided to her speakership campaign all the way up until the very end ? Other ethics allegations, much minor in comparison, about Councilmember Mark-Viverito's failure to disclose rental income, were raised by various newspapers about Councilmember Mark-Viverito in the time leading up to her speakership selection, as well, yet those minor ethics violations were mentioned by The New York Observer, but the more serious allegations about undeclared in-kind campaign contributions and possible ethics violations regarding lobbyists, were not mentioned at all. It's not an unimportant occurance when many of the city's leading newspapers organically agree by raising questions about a speakership candidate's ethics. One single news outlet being an outlier might be a sign that a lobbyist planted a story. Howevr, when many news outlets (joined by several political bloggers) would agree about more serious campaign finance and ethics questions, that points to a serious issue, and it is fishy that The New York Observer would choose to leave that out. The lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which played a large role in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's selection to become the City Council speaker, has been beseiged by investigations by the city's campaign finance regulatory authority and, reportedly, by the FBI over allegations of wrong-doing. Several of The Advance Group's clients have been fined by the city's campaign finance regulatory authority over inappropriate activities connected with last year's municipal elections, which marked the first time when the corrupt Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the floodgates to corrupt Super PAC spending in the corrupt American election system. Another question about The New York Observer's profile of Speaker Mark-Viverito include the assertion that she "represents the hard and relentless left of the City Council," but that is at odds with the Council speaker's support of William Bratton as NYPD commissioner, an appointment made by the mayor that is certainly not supported by activists in the city's "hard and relentless left."

Is Council Speaker Mark-Viverito Caught In A Corrupt Pay-to-Play Fix ?

"Lobbysists are brazen. Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito is smug. They make an ugly couple." -- The New York Daily News

Campaigning for selection as the City Council’s speaker, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito accepted free services from the lobbying firm The Advance Group until she and her lobbying firm faced allegations of possible electioneering corruption. Then she used a controversial second electioneering account to hire a different lobbying firm, Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin, to further her speakership campaign. Councilmember Mark-Viverito relied on Pitta Bishop during her her speakership campaign, and later to raise money for her inauguration and transition committee. Her lobbying firm "reciprocated" by raising a substantial amount of the money towards her speakership campaign, "as well as most of the $27,000 tab for her bash," the editorial board of The New York Daily News writes in its house opinion piece. In the wake of having ingratiated itself, now Pitta Bishop has "lobbied Mark-Viverito on behalf of four clients," The New York Daily News adds. Because of the blatant conflicts of interest and appearance of pay-to-play politics, the editorial board of The New York Daily News calls on Councilmember Mark-Viverito to either recuse herself from voting on matters involving Pitta Bishop clients or bar Pitta Bishop representatives from her office.

• RELATED : Melissa Mark-Viverito has brought pay-to-play into bloom in the City Council. She must either sever ties with the corrupt lobbying firm Pitta Bishop or its clients. (Pay-to-play speaker : Melissa Mark-Viverito has to stay clear of too-close lobbyist * The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : A federal complaint has been filed against The Advance Group, which charges that the consulting firm broke laws through the way it supported and allowed its employees to support candidates during the last election season, Politicker writes. (Complaint Filed Against The Advance Group for Election Work * Politicker)

NYC Political Reporters Admit They Didn't Scrutinize Bill de Blasio, Still Give Themselves High Journalistic Marks

You believe that there's nothing wrong, because that's what the media tells you in the newspapers. But watch them in this frank panel discussion, to hear some backchannel realness.

CUNY journalism director Greg David moderated a panel discussion on Nov. 19, 2013, amongst several reporters about the quality of the journalism coverage during the 2013 New York City mayoral campaign. The reporters, who took part on the panel, were Brian Lehrer of WNYC, Errol Louis of NY1, Joel Siegel of The New York Daily News, Kate Taylor of The New York Times, and Maggie Haberman of Politico. They were joined by two political insiders : Stu Loesser, the former spokesman for outgoing Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Scott Levenson, a lobbyist who administered a controversial $1 million Super PAC.

The self-congratulatory media panel, embedded with two political operatives to keep reporters in check, tell you that the media did a good job of reporting the truth during the mayoral campaign, even though the consensus that night was that the media failed at scrutinising Bill de Blasio's candidacy.

These major political reporters were asked to grade their own coverage of the 2013 NYC mayoral election, and their shocking answers will give you an idea about why voters are kept in the dark about serious problems with the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics, as well as the growing problem of public corruption in city government. The reality is that voters are kept in the dark about these issues, and the media admits it doesn't scrutinize politicians. They even hate the word "vet."

Watch as Mr. Siegel says, "I think, collectively, the media saw 20 years of Republican and Republican/Independent rule and thought that was the norm -- where the norm really is this is a city that voted 80% for Barack Obama. It's a very liberal city, and we all sort of -- I believe -- misread how serious a contender Bill de Blasio really was from the very beginning. I don't think he got the scrutiny from the beginning that Chris Quinn got or Bill Thompson got."

Here are now the reporters scored their own political journalism :

REPORTER (OR POLITICAL OPERATIVE)	SCORE OF JOURNALISM PERFORMANCE (10 BEING THE HIGHEST)
Brian Lehrer, WNYC	7.0
Errol Louis, NY1	8.0
Joel Siegel, The New York Daily News	5.5
Kate Taylor, The New York Times	8.0
Maggie Haberman, Politico	7.0
Sue Loesser, former spokesman to      Mayor Michael Bloomberg	9.0
Scott Levenson, political operative	9.0

Daniel Garodnick concedes ; Melissa Mark-Viverito Expected To Become Council Speaker

Or else, @BilldeBlasio offered sooooooo many perks and privileges that @DanGarodnick couldn't match ? @MichaelHwrdSaul

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) January 8, 2014

• RELATED : Were possible coordination of independent expenditures and free gifts of lobbying services between The Advance Group, NYCLASS, the de Blasio mayoral campaign, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race violations of federal laws ? Will the Moreland Commission investigate possible campaign corruption ? (The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission * NYC : News & Analysis)

The not-so “different realities” between de Blasio-Mark-Viverito and Bloomberg-Quinn in Council speaker race

Read more : On Eve of Speaker Vote, de Blasio Evasive On Mark-Viverito and Quinn Comparison (City & State)

Do private Council speaker lobbying meetings violate open meetings law ?

Do private mtgs. between Bill de Blasio and Bronx @NYCCouncil delegation violate open meetings law ? http://t.co/Fy2AgzNpG7 @AGSchneiderman

— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) January 7, 2014

In a Council speaker race already beset by campaign finance violations and issues of possible ethics violations, now comes word that the mayor planned and scheduled private lobbying meetings between publicly-elected officials with neither any notice for the public to witness or participate nor any full recording of the official business transacted during these meetings for the public to be able to examine.

Do private council speaker lobbying meetings violate the open meetings law of New York State ?

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

The Losing Council Speaker Candidate #constantcontact http://t.co/tmpGyWojvJ

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) January 7, 2014

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.

New Yorkers Continue To Be Deceived About Council Speaker Race

The NYTimes reports that the Council speaker race gets decided in "back rooms," but fails to report the back room deals.

After having been shut down last week-end, The NYTimes City Hall reporter Kate Taylor describes the Council speaker race with this one truth : the speakership "tends to be decided in back rooms." It's the process that is corrupt, and The NYTimes stops short of describing what back room deals are taking place, and that should be cause enough to once again sound the loud alarum bell to announce to the people the approach of corruption, but sadly the people have no say in the Council speaker race. Until the people demand a say, no alarum bell will ever be loud enough to drown out the backroom dealings. It doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because the winner can only win after brokering back room deals that only serve the winner. And the biggest loser in all this is not the speaker candidate who fails, but the public, who gets shut out of having any say -- and who gets deceived by media, like The NYTimes, who fail to report the true extent of the back room dealings.

Sam Roberts Stops City Hall Reporter Kate Taylor From Fully Discussing Council Speaker Backroom Deals

This Week In Self-Censoring, Corporate Newspaper Editors

On this week-end's edition of The New York Times Close-Up on NY1, the editor Sam Roberts asked City Hall reporter Kate Taylor to give a report back on the Council speaker race. Mr. Roberts only tolerated the most brief of report backs ever provided in the show's history. The instant that Ms. Taylor reported that leading Council speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may not have the votes needed to win the speakership, Mr. Roberts said, "We'll leave it right there," or something similar to that. Mr. Roberts had to cut off Ms. Taylor, before she could give the public a report back on all the corrupt backroom deals being wagered in the desperate power grab waged by Ms. Mark-Viverito's camp.

Even though very little scrutiny is being put on Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, Ms. Mark-Viverito's challenger for the speakership, both candidates have "manned up" with teams of real estate lobbyists/enablers. The Council speaker will be selected on Wednesday, when the next session of the municipal legislature will first convene in the new year. It remains to be seen if, before then, either side really becomes so disconsolate that they may actually break the kinds of laws that will trigger a federal corruption investigation. In the fight for the speakership, Ms. Mark-Viverito's team of lobbyists have thus far flouted campaign finance regulations, one of her lobbyists faces a Campaign Finance Board investigation, and Ms. Mark-Viverito has been engulfed in allegations of ethics violations.

Ethan Geto defends corrupt real estate dealing by Melissa Mark-Viverito

It doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because lobbyists are always the winners.

Ethan Geto is another corrupt real estate lobbyist enabling Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership. This is the same Ethan Geto, whose firm once represented Forest City Ratner. It's important to note that both camps fighting for the speakership are playing by the same broken "rules" of the corrupt political system. And nobody from the Left calls any of this out, because, according to situational ethics, you game the system when it's in your favor, and you denounce it when the other side does it. Am I saying that if Mayor Michael Bloomberg were still in office, would people be taking to streets over this ? Maybe, but to this bunch of "progressives," real reform is dependent on who's reaching for greater power. It doesn't matter if Ms. Mark-Viverito or if Councilmember Daniel Garodnick becomes speaker, because the real winners are the lobbyists, who will still get paid by developers. Let me repeat, it doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because whoever does become speaker will take the same coins it takes to pay off the speaker in campaign donations to ram through community crushing development.

Patrick Gaspard Lobbying for Melissa Mark-Viverito in Council Speaker Race

In desperation, Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign turns to Ambassador of South Africa for a lifeline. Is she unable to close the deals on her own speakership ?

Patrick Gaspard, one of the main political operatives from the Obama administration, is now pushing Melissa Mark-Viverito, like the Obama administration should be a guidepost for reform ? President Obama's political operatives are the people responsible for NSA-expanding, the messed-up Obamacare rolling-out, and drone-killing enabling. What does the new de Blasio administration think of the public, when the new mayor rolls out folks like Mr. Gaspard to be do backroom lobbying like this ?

Read more : "Sources tell NY1 that Patrick Gaspard, the current ambassador to South Africa and close friend of the mayor, was making calls pushing Mark-Viverito's candidacy last week." (NY1)

Furthermore, Mr. Gaspard comes with a complicated history of making controversial political deals. Under the first Berger Commission to close hospitals across New York State, Mr. Gaspard agreed to allowing Republican New York Gov. George Pataki to appointing Wall Street investment banker Stephen Berger to make the hospital closings, a decision that not only was in contravention to his union 1199's mission of securing healthcare for people, but that would also lead to the loss of jobs to his union's membership. What kind of backroom favor-trading or political deal-making did Mr. Gaspard agree to with Gov. Pataki and Mr. Berger to let the hospital closings take place ?

With this kind of situational, mixed-motivated leadership, what kind of credibility should progressive-minded City Councilmembers give Mr. Gaspard's lobbying ?

Progressives Make Pay-to-Play Deals In Council Speaker Race

Pay-to-Play in Council Speaker Race

"According to sources close to the situation, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has promised a number of committee leadership posts to City Council members in order to guarantee that Melissa Mark-Viverito is named Speaker come Jan. 8," The Queens Tribune reported today.

See : Committee Chairs Found Under The Christmas Tree (The Queens Tribune)

Three original members of the City Council Progressive Caucus, Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst), Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Woodside), and Daniel Dromm (D-Jackson Heights), were reportedly offered leadership posts in exchange for supporting Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership.

Ms. Ferreras would be named the Majority Leader, whilst Mr. Van Bramer would be named as chair of the Finance Committee, and Mr. Dromm would head the Education Committee.

The backroom deals that reportedly secured Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership also included an offer to David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn) to head the Land Use Committee "as a means of swaying Brooklyn," The Queens Tribune report added. Committee chair assignments in the City Council come with annual bonuses called a payment in-lieu-of expenses, more commonly referred to as "lulus." Lulus can range from $4,000 to over $20,000.

See : Corrupt Lulu Payments (The New York Daily News)

---

What Makes The Committee Assignment Offers An Example Of Pay-to-Play ?

It’s the votes that the City Council members must “pay” to select Ms. Mark-Viverito as the next speaker in exchange for receiving the lulus that come with the committee chair assignments.

The quid pro quo is revealed in the threat that was reported in The Queens Tribune, namely, that "If you're not with them, you're not getting a committee" assignment and the lulu that comes with it. This is what makes it pay-to-play.

Granted, we don't normally think that the inducements involved in securing the votes of City Council members as pay-to-play, but when players are told that the "price of admission" is framed as a vote for a Council speaker candidate, that's another way to examine the speaker candidate votes in order to receive plum Council committee assignments and lulus.

---

That these Council leadership posts, and the valuable lulus that come with them, are being doled out in backroom deals proves that some amongst the next class of powerful Council leaders will owe their allegiance directly to the mayor, betraying democratic principles of separation of powers and checks-and-balances between the mayor's office and the municipal legislature.

In years past, it was widely reported that the out-going Council speaker, Christine Quinn, awarded (or withheld) Council leadership posts as a way to recompense her allies (or to punish her critics). Speaker Quinn defended this practise as a way to bring "discipline" to the City Council, which was code for being able to exert the power to single-handedly control the Council's legislative agenda. The use of committee assignments and lulus as inducements to support a Council speaker candidate would appear to be a continuation of corruptive coercion over City Council members. Speaker Quinn's own ascension to power was clouded by the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups, including County Democratic bosses, compounded by the distribution of Council leadership posts and lulus.

See : The Outsider Comes In (The Village Voice)

See also : Filling Committee Leadership Posts (The New York Times)

Much of this was documented in Chapter 8 of Roots of Betrayal : The Ethics of Christine Quinn.

The political ethic of progressivism is supposed to be about delivering reforms, not exploiting the possibility of pay-to-play. Indeed, The Queens Tribune report indicated that City Council members were being pressured into supporting Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership. "If you're not with them, you're not getting a committee," one source told The Queens Tribune. The campaign promises by this bunch of progressives to administer the city differently from the outgoing administration are about as credible at this point as Speaker Quinn's recent protestations that she had remained faithful to her progressive roots. If there is any difference, it is that the next class of elected officials is already selling out, before they even take their oaths of office.

Left unsaid is whether these latest allegations of pay-to-play will lend urgency to other investigations into possible violations of campaign finance and ethics regulations connected to Ms. Mark-Viverito and to the lobbyists working on her speakership campaign.

Conflicts of Interests, Violations of Ethics : Clash of the Titans in the Fight to Select the Next Council Speaker

The ''Clash of the Titans'' to select the next speaker between the Democratic County bosses and their lobbyists vs. the new ''progressives'' and their lobbyists is escalating. Ms. Mark-Viverito is now threatening to fire all central Council staff that have loyalties to the Democratic County Bosses. Isn't this a violation of civil service regulations ?

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

See Also : Exploiting NYC, NYS Campaign Finance Law Loopholes

Will LGBT Groups Protest Scott Levenson Over Anti-Gay Attack Ads ?

The Advance Group, providing political consulting services for "free" to Melissa Mark-Viverito, was paid to defeat LGBT City Council Candidates

Sign our Change.org Petition : Bill de Blasio : Do not attend NYCLASS fundraiser to benefit Scott Levenson

WATCH : Will LGBT Groups Protest Scott Levenson for Anti-Gay Attack Ads ? (YouTube)

@boldprogressnyc @HRC @maslowsneeds Are you asking if Democrats overlook behavior in Democrats for which they'd pillory Republicans? Yes : (

— Charmian Neary (@CharmianNeary) November 21, 2013

The Advance Group, which is providing unpaid consultants to Mark-Viverito, worked for the City Action Coalition PAC, which lists 'traditional marriage' as its platform and supported opponents of gay City Council candidates. (The New York Daily News)

Did Scott Levenson sabotage LGBT civil rights attorney Yetta Kurland's political campaign ? (Scott Levenson : Biggest Loser Of The Week * NY Pop Culture & Politics)

E-mail me if you would like to plan a protest against Scott Levenson : louisflores (at) louisflores (dot) com

… the Advance Group's work on behalf of City Action Coalition-backed candidates conflicted with its work for two of its own council clients. And the outside work for the teachers union raises another potential conflict: the Advance Group not only produced mailers promoting Manhattan council candidate Yetta Kurland for the NYCLASS independent expenditure, but Strategic Consultants produced mailers touting her opponent, Corey Johnson, that were paid for by the teachers union. Mr. Johnson won the primary. (Teachers union paid $370K to fake consultant * Crain's Insider)

Why aren't the LGBT civil rights activists protesting against Scott Levenson and his "anti-gay agenda" ? And how can LGBT civil rights activists stay quiet while Ms. Mark-Viverito uses a political consulting operation that hires itself out to work against candidates specifically based on their identity ? This is discrimination and prejudice. How can Mr. Levenson and Ms. Mark-Viverito call themselves "progressives," yet enable bigotry ?