Do real estate developers control New York City's land use in the de Blasio administration ?

view this map on LittleSis

A lack of democracy in New York City's land use process

"It's a lie anyway." To some progressive activists, seeing Mayor Bill de Blasio’s land-lease proposal to construct buildings on the property of the New York City Housing Authority following so closely on the sale of several NYCHA Section 8 buildings, with plans for further expansion of land-lease opportunities on NYCHA lands, amounts to a full-throttle assault to privatize large parts of NYCHA, essentially opening the floodgates for private real estate developers to stampede toward a land rush of city real property in exchange for the administration receiving credit for the construction a miniscule number of new affordable housing units. It seems like a huge price to pay for perhaps constructing an initial 500 new affordable housing units within a larger goal of creating 80,000 units over a ten-year span. These and other major city land use decisions are not being made with prior public input, much less without a specific mandate from voters. Although more and more tenants and activists are recognizing Mayor de Blasio’s pro-real estate agenda, what is missing is tenant and activist consensus about what to do about this. Some activists have been fighting the sale of public library branches to real estate developers, thinking that each sale is a singular transaction, independent onto itself, and not part of a larger, pro-real estate agenda by the de Blasio administration. Activists think that if they can just defeat the sale of one library, then the larger cause can be won. Efforts by developers and city planning officials to subject small fights to the arduous ULURP process, while sidestepping larger projects, has the impact of narrowing activists’ focus at the same time that they can be worn down. About the role of Community Boards in allowing the public to participate in New York City's land use process, the Brooklyn tenant activist Alicia Boyd said, “It’s a lie, anyway, but we know politically that the political machine needs that lie .... They need the lie. They need the lie, so that the people will not stand up and say, ‘Hey, wait a minute ! That means that we have no power ? There’s no democracy here ?’ They need the lie.” As activists look to hold the administration accountable to activists’ expectations for a course for a post-Occupy Wall Street city that was not aligned with big business, there are many issues to consider. Firstly, how do activists plan to educate each other on a complete and accurate picture of how much of the political landscape in the de Blasio administration has been influenced by the real estate industry ? Secondly, will activists reject Mayor de Blasio’s incremental and inadequate remedy to the affordable housing crisis, and, if so, what can the community demand in its place ? And thirdly, what should be done about the veal pen nonprofit groups, which willingly deëscalate calls for political, social, and economic reform, based on the messaging emanating from City Hall ? Other issues undoubtedly also exist, but organizing cannot take shape about where we want to go as a city until everybody first agrees on what is actually happening now.

RELATED A Special Investigation : A lack of democracy in New York City's land use process (Progress Queens) Michael Hayes, LMT, has practiced massage for more than 20 years as a licensed massage therapist in New York City.

Voters have more choices than to just vote Gov. Cuomo out of office after he corrupted the Moreland Commission [UPDATED]

PUBLISHED : THURS, 24 JUL 2014, 11:31 PM
UPDATED : SAT, 26 JUL 2014, 08:30 PM

The demise of the Moreland Commission : The high price of avoiding a fundamental overhaul of the broken political system

In the lengthy The New York Times report about the Cuomo administration's relentless obstruction of the independent investigations once being conducted by the now-defunct Moreland Commission, the newspaper of record finally named names : that Gov. Andrew Cuomo was apparently serving the best interests of large campaign contributors -- amongst them, the Real Estate Board of New York ; the Extell Development Company, developer of the $2 billion luxury condominium tower on West 57th Street in Midtown Manhattan ; and the donors to the Committee to Save New York, a controversial 501(c)(4) charity group that acted as Gov. Cuomo's political arm -- instead of the best interests of voters.

As federal prosecutors piece together the pattern of activities over a period of time that may have broken state or federal laws, which form the corrupt political machinations that thwarted subpoenas, concealed political activities, and altered reports -- leading to the politically-motivated, premature closure of the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, voters are left having to examine the high price society pays to keep corrupt politicians, like Gov. Cuomo, in office. What keeps the broken political system so corrupt and corruptible ?

With the media fallout from the lengthy article in The New York Times and a possible federal investigation threatening to end Gov. Cuomo's political career, voters will probably not be shocked, once they learn the answer.

view this map on LittleSis

Intimidating, retaliating, and controlling officials or witnesses Gov. Cuomo's power, it is now being revealed, stems from his control-freak nature, his need to badger his opponents into submission, his need to stack the political deck in his favor from the outset. One way he does that is by relying on help from powerful lobbying groups, like the Real Estate Board of New York, or REBNY as it is known for short. REBNY is a powerful lobbying group of extremely wealthy real estate developers. They are also a source of large campaign contributions at both the city and state levels. The lengthy article in The New York Times was perhaps the second time over the course of a decade when REBNY got singled out for scrutiny for its role in packaging large campaign contributions to political candidates in apparent exchange for special, insider access to government officials, who determine government policy or shape laws that impact the real estate industry. The last noteworthy time when The New York Times came close to outing REBNY was when reporters identified real estate developers as amongst the largest campaign contributors to the early-identified New York City mayoral candidates in the 2009 election cycle. Real estate developers were rushing to donate maximum amounts of campaign contributions before new restrictions were set to take place, which would limit the amount of money that business interests seeking business before the city could donate to candidates for public office. That previous article was a reflection of the realities in New York City politics, namely, that when real estate developers seek municipal approval for zone-busting real estate projects -- from the controversial, tax-payer assisted Hundson Yards project, to the $1 billion luxury condo conversion of St. Vincent's Hospital -- the city's politicians always acquiesce to developers' demands. Money not only buys insider access, but it apparently buys approvals of the city's development permitting process, a fact that The New York Times doesn't always make clear. Obfuscation is the trick that keeps voters in the dark to the pattern in political corruption. Some of the same corrupt developers, who donate to Gov. Cuomo, also make campaign contributions to municipal politicians, all in an effort to game the broken political system. Two members of the Rudin family, owners of Rudin Management Company, made campaign contributions to Gov. Cuomo's campaign committee in the sum of $35,000. Other contributions, totaling $50,000, originated from a limited partnership in the name of the address of a Rudin office building on Park Avenue. The leader of the Rudin family is William Rudin, a board of director of both REBNY and a powerful Chamber of Commerce-like group known as the Partnership for New York City, or PFNYC for short. In the 2009 New York City mayoral election cycle alone, owners of Rudin Management Company made contributions nearly totaling $30,000 to the campaign committee of former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. These campaign contributions were made in the lead-up to Rudin's application for what eventually became a $1 billion luxury condo conversion of St. Vincent's Hospital. The hospital, in Speaker Quinn's Council district, needed her approval in order for the rest of the City Council to act in nearly unanimous lockset to rubber-stamp Rudin's zone-busting permit application. Tens and tens of thousand dollars in campaign contributions explains why healthcare activists heard, "We'll see you after the election," from the Cuomo camp in 2010, and heard nothing from former Speaker Quinn after her troubled reelection in 2009. A decade ago, when the wealthy landlords of several of the city's Mitchell-Lama buildings were contemplating exiting the affordable housing program, REBNY lobbied the New York City Council -- and won -- a package of low-cost loans for the wealthy landlords that did nothing to expand affordable housing to New Yorkers. Instead, the financial benefit of such packages, on top of existing Mitchell-Lama subsidies and tax breaks, was to pad the bottom line of the city's wealthy Mitchell-Lama landlords, and that decade-old, low-cost loan package was spun as a way to incentivize wealthy Mitchell-Lama landlords to voluntarily remain in the affordable housing program without any newly-won guaranteed rent caps, much less rent reductions, for low- and moderate-income tenants. Whatever REBNY wants, REBNY gets. To the corrupt enablers of the broken political system, reforms, of any kind, need to be blocked Overseeing REBNY for almost three decades now has been Steven Spinola. In the lengthy report in The New York Times, Mr. Spinola was singled out for having written a controversial memo to REBNY members, asking the membership to make campaign contributions to Democrats in the State Assembly, a move that the Moreland Commission's chief of investigations, E. Danya Perry, found to be indicative that large campaign contributors believed that making political donations could determine legislative outcomes. The wealthy landlords and developers, who comprise REBNY, invest tens of thousands of dollars in political candidates over the course of their careers, amounts that can sometimes reach six figures for a single politician. Like all bean counters, real estate interests expect a return for this investment. That's why no major zone-busting real estate development has ever been turned down in New York City over the last decade or so, with the possible exception of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan for a West Side stadium. That project was doomed from the start, because it would have competed with the wealthy Dolan family's interests in Madison Square Garden. In New York real estate circles, wealthy interests rarely want to create conflict between competing interests, because any conflict would draw scrutiny to the unseemly lobbying process that developers would rather keep below the public's radar. Fixing the outcome of zone-busting real estate permit applications depends on keeping the broken political system in place, where large campaign contributions can have an influence in legislative or zoning application processes -- outcomes upon which big business interests can rely. According to the lengthy report in The New York Times about the demise of the Moreland Commission, Gov. Cuomo was trying to avoid any scrutiny of his real estate supporters, for example, the REBNY lobbying group or Extell, the real estate developer. Like Rudin, Extell is another wealthy real estate development company that has made sizable campaign contributions on both the municipal and state levels. A partial listing of campaign contributions by individuals with connections to Extell shows that over $16,000 in campaign contributions were made to former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign committee and that a partial listing of still yet other donations were made to Mayor de Blasio's winning mayoral campaign committee of at least $6,000. More on the role of Extell on influencing building policy under the de Blasio administration later. On top of trying to avoid scrutiny of developers, Gov. Cuomo and his enablers, including Regina Calcaterra, manipulated the workings or censored the work product of the Moreland Commission. Even though the Moreland Commission has been shut for several months, some media reports indicate that Gov. Cuomo continues to pay Ms. Calcaterra her full executive director salary, even though the commission is now disbanded, raising questions amongst political bloggers as to what exactly Gov. Cuomo is paying Ms. Calcaterra to do, i.e., remain quiet about the background political machinations that drove the Moreland Commission into the ground ? But the corruptive influence that appears to drive the political machinations for the Cuomo administration is not limited to the real estate industry. Another group, the PFNYC, has also exerted great influence in the Cuomo administration, according to government reform activists. The PFNYC is a powerful group of business executives from some of the nation's largest corporations, which operate out of New York City. Together, REBNY and the PFNYC were heavily involved in the Committee to Save New York, or CSNY for short, a pro-Cuomo charity group that raised over $16 million in contributions to advocate in support of several political issues. CSNY disbanded before the group was required to disclose the sources of its contributions. The PFNYC, a member group of CSNY, is headed by Kathryn Wylde, the media's go-to-person for pro-business talking points. Ms. Wylde was a chief advisor to former Speaker Quinn, according to one political blogger, and her influence can be felt across the political spectrum in New York government. Although Gov. Cuomo vehemently denied that he was a shill for the PFNYC, there's no realistic way possible that pro-business groups would raise over $16 million and spend most of it on TV commercials supporting the Cuomo administration's agenda if the pro-business groups weren't expecting something in return. When Gov. Cuomo denies a quid pro quo on a scale of this magnitude, he is not being fully forthcoming with voters. That Mr. Spinola at REBNY and Ms. Wylde at the PFNYC can raise these amounts of contributions without public scrutiny is tantamount to government, but yet nobody calls for an end to the loopholes that allow lobbying groups to game the political system in their favour. No elected official, not even those whose campaign planks purportedly represent "progressive" values, dare to close the loopholes and champion for campaign finance reforms. No politician on the take from wealthy landlords or real estate developers dares to overhaul the corrupt municipal process that reviews billion-dollar zone-busting real estate development deals known as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP for short. Here's why. Millions of dollars in 501(c)(4) money and hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions are meant to block reforms The only way that big business interests can keep fixing the outcome of permit applications and legislative processes is keep in place a system where only big money campaign contributors get insider access to elected officials. This is the roadblock to a complete overhaul of the broken political system, and it is this roadblock that very few media outlets fully expose. The lengthy article about Gov. Cuomo's backroom machinations to sabotage the Moreland Commission named a few names, like Mr. Spinola, REBNY, Extell, and the CSNY. But notice how Ms. Wylde and the PFNYC were left out. Also left out were the possible corrupting influence of $17,500 in campaign contributions made to Gov. Cuomo's campaign committee from the wealthy Kestenbaum family, founders of the Fortis Property Group, which eventually won the zone-busting development rights to convert Long Island College Hospital, or LICH, into what could amount to a billion dollar luxury condo complex in the fancy Cobble Hill section of Brooklyn. Official government policy outcomes always match the relentless pattern of campaign donations. The fix is in. For years, thousands of healthcare activist from across New York City have been frustrated by newspaper articles by the hospital beat reporter, Anemona Hartocollis, who has never -- not even once -- mentioned how big real estate developers are corruptive influences that secretly cheer for the early closure of community hospitals across the city in order to bid pennies on the dollar for redevelopment rights to real estate sites that can gross revenues of several hundred millions to perhaps into the billions. Behind the media bias in articles like these, many healthcare activists and political bloggers believe, are the powerful business interests of REBNY and the PFNYC. It isn't just big business interests, which try to influence the media to disconnect the dots back to big business interests ; elected officials don't want that kind of scrutiny, either, because of the paper trail that large campaign donations link elected officials back to big business interests. If in respect of the Moreland Commission, the governor was able to successfully steer the Moreland Commission members away from troublesome links to the CSNY, then it wouldn't be that much more difficult for big business interests and elected officials to team up to steer the media away from troublesome links between former Speaker Quinn and Rudin Management Company in respect of the $1 billion luxury condo conversion of St. Vincent's. Behind why voters can be deceived is the unshakeable public perception that the media does not fully report the whole truth about political corruption. The voter anger at former Speaker Quinn in her own Council district in 2011 was a harbinger that her political career was over. This voter anger was never fully reflected in media reports at the time. A close parallel to today is the growing political anger in Brooklyn, which is now directed at Mayor Bill de Blasio, over the closure of LICH in his very own borough. After the lessons learned from the spectacular failure of former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, some media outlets have woken up to the voter dissatisfaction that hospital closures create amongst voters, meaning the sense of Mayor de Blasio's betrayal of the LICH community is slowly emanating from Brooklyn to the rest of the city, but still no thanks to key reporters at The New York Times, like Ms. Hartocollis. The larger story about hospital closings, which the media fails to report, is that Gov. Cuomo exacerbated these hospital closings under his controversial Medicaid Redesign Team, a panel that was steered to recommend draconian cuts to Medicaid, so much so that some of the Medicaid cuts are now being challenged in court. The hospital closings made under the Medicaid Redesign Team were spearheaded by Gov. Cuomo's hatchet man and Wall Street banker, Stephen Berger, but this fact is not widely reported by the media, misleading voters into thinking that hospitals are failing for business or commercial reasons, instead of the fact that hospital closures are actually central to Gov. Cuomo's austerity program. It's not that former Speaker Quinn or Mayor de Blasio are excused for their failed efforts to save St. Vincent's or LICH, for example, but that former Speaker Quinn and Mayor de Blasio have refused to fully educate voters about the power play dynamics playing out in political back rooms, decisions they make no doubt under the influence of big money contributions by real estate interests vying for lucrative luxury condo conversions of the real estate assets of failed hospitals. Voters don't fully see the truth about the corrupt decisions government makes, and one lengthy article in The New York Times about Gov. Cuomo's corrupt machinations to undermine the Moreland Commission isn't enough and doesn't repeat facts enough times, for the necessary messages to permeate throughout the electorate. Indeed, voters found out too late how Gov. Cuomo's office had managed to intimidate the former Albany Bureau Chief and the former political editor of The New York Times, a political machination, which may explain why some government reform activists rightly perceived a bias from former metropolitan editor Carolyn Ryan, who espoused a bias in support of the political marionettes of the PFNYC, like former Speaker Quinn. Meet some of the victims targeted by the broken political system enabled by Gov. Cuomo and his supporters : Whistleblowers, activists, voters, and even some government officials On the same day when Seema Kalia was set to testify before the Moreland Commission in 2013, at the invitation of Ms. Calcaterra, Ms. Kalia says, she was arrested and hauled to Rikers Island, where she was locked up for almost six months. Ms. Kalia's arrest prevented her from testifying before the Moreland Commission about financial improprieties, which, she says, involved institutions, such as Trinity School and the law firm Wachtel Lipton Rosen & Katz, with political ties that could be traced back to Gov. Cuomo. Prior to her arrest and incarceration, Ms. Kalia provided a summary of her expected testimony to Ms. Calcaterra during a telephone conversation that they had shared. The issues of corruption, which Ms. Kalia expected to bring before the Moreland Commission involved potential tax improprieties, amongst other issues. Ms. Kalia had attempted to reach out to the Moreland Commission with her information after the district attorney for Manhattan, Cyrus Vance, refused to investigate, Ms. Kalia said. Like with other whistleblowers, who had separately tried to directly contact Moreland Commission members about corruption after local authorities refused to investigate, the Moreland Commission never formally promised to investigate Ms. Kalia's referral. Part of the retribution Ms. Kalia has had to endure since blowing the whistle on corruption has been the loss of custody of her children, some political activists believe. Under normal circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the Cuomo administration or the institutions implicated in Ms. Kalia's testimony would go to great lengths to retaliate against a witness, but the Cuomo administration has a definite pattern of hostility toward whistleblowers. In 2013, Gov. Cuomo's director of state operations, Howard Glaser, publicly excoriated a state engineer, Mike Fayette, in an act of public retaliation for Mr. Fayette's unauthorized communication with the press. The year before, the Cuomo administration objected to a critic of the state’s Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, Jeffrey Monsour, being appointed to serve on a panel discussion on developmental disabilities. The Cuomo administration reversed its objection after criticisms of the administration's backlack were published by The New York Times. Also in 2012, Gov. Cuomo himself publicly retaliated against Ravi Batra, a founding member of the state's Joint Commission on Public Ethics, or JCOPE for short, creating a hostile environment for Mr. Batra, who resigned in protest over allegations that Gov. Cuomo attempted to steer control over JCOPE. From compromising the investigations of the Moreland Commission or JCOPE to retaliating against whistleblowers, these are examples of a pattern of corrupting political activities relating to Gov. Cuomo's obsession with keeping his official acts in alignment with the expectations of big business donors to his campaign committee. The unmistakable pattern of political activities points to how the Cuomo administration seeks to manipulate or restrict the communication by whistleblowers or state employees set to speak before panels or with the media. Retaliation is commonplace. Like each of Mr. Monsour, Mr. Fayette, and Mr. Batra, Ms. Kalia has been excoriated in the media. As federal prosecutors reportedly investigate the political machinations of the Cuomo administration to thwart the investigations of the Moreland Commission, left unreported is how are each of these whistleblowers going to receive justice. Will Ms. Kalia see her charges investigated and her children returned ? Will Mr. Monsour and Mr. Fayette be guaranteed workplaces that are free of hostility and retaliation ? Can the other commissioners serving on JCOPE be assured of independence from the Cuomo administration ? And can the Cuomo administration amend its public statements about Mr. Batra, to restore public confidence in the integrity of whistleblowers like him ? The Cuomo administration's apparent political backlash directed at critics isn't isolated to a few, vocal activists. The broken political system overseen by Gov. Cuomo and enabled by his generous campaign contributors also runs rough shod over large sections of the general public. Residents of low income housing, for example, become ensnared, too. Extell, the real estate developer, was founded and is headed by Gary Barnett, a member of REBNY's executive committee and board of governors. Mr. Barnett through his company, Extell, is represented in the media by the lobbyist and campaign consultant, George Arzt. Mr. Arzt is a controversial figure in New York politics, because, over the last several years, he has made over $90,000 in campaign contributions to various politicians, knowing that money is the corrupt grease the spins the squeaky wheels of government. Recently, Extell won approval from the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development to segregate tenants of affordable housing units to through separate entrances of apartment buildings. The separate entrances approved for low- and moderate-income tenants is colloquially referred to as the "poor door." How could the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration, one which likes to advertise its "progressive" aspirations, approve such a regressive and discriminatory practise ? It all comes down to the influence that large campaign contributions by donors, like Extell, and the corrupting influence of lobbyists, such as Mr. Arzt, exert over the political process. Since Gov. Cuomo is owned by Extell, the Democratic governor is in no position to check the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito's new "poor door" policy, effectively leaving unchallenged Extell's discriminatory new entrance policy. The announcement of Extell's controversial new policy came as Mayor de Blasio was departing for a 10-day vacation that includes stops along the Italian Riviera. Real estate developers get exactly what they want. Left unchecked, the broken political system that allows even corruption-fighting investigation panels, like the Moreland Commission and JCOPE, to become corrupted, works to further undermine the public's faith in the democratic process and in the judicial system. Who will volunteer to serve on future Moreland Commissions if high-ranking state officials can obstruct the commissioners' independent investigations ? Ms. Perry, the Moreland Commission's former chief of investigations, fought back against the meddling by the Cuomo administration. Now, Ms. Perry, as well as other Moreland Commission members, such as Kathleen Rice and William Fitzpatrick, may very well have to account for their actions before federal prosecutors, a task that will no doubt clear the names of some, based on the reporting of the Cuomo administration's serial acts of obstruction. However, this is an undue burden that should not have to accompany public service, and it will act to deter future public servants from coming forward to accept similar government appointments. Also left unexamined is why Gov. Cuomo chose the vehicle of a Moreland Commission to conduct his investigation into corruption in Albany. Why a Moreland Commission, and why not task the state's attorney general's office with this task ? Again, the public is left in the dark about the political machinations that touch upon the state's judicial system. The state attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, holds an elected office. To run for office, Mr. Schneiderman seeks the endorsement of the same corrupt political operatives that are responsible for enabling government and campaign corruption. Mr. Schneiderman seeks endorsements from the county chairs of the Democratic Party, political clubs, and other politically-active nonprofit groups. Mr. Schneiderman relies up campaign consultants and political lobbyists for electioneering work, and Mr. Schneiderman must raise campaign contributions to fund an expensive state-wide election campaign. Two readily-identifiable limited liability companies related to the real estate developer Tishman Speyer bundled at least $70,000 in campaign contributions to Mr. Schniederman's 2014 campaign committee. Rob Speyer is Co-Chief Executive Officer of Tishman Speyer, and he also serves as Chairman of REBNY. Anytime an office holder must rely upon contributions to a campaign committee, that generally opens the door to that elected official being potentially owned by his or her campaign contributors or other political operatives. Indeed, as the political scandal of the demise of the Moreland Commission has befallen upon the Cuomo administration, Mr. Schneiderman, who himself appointed some of the commissioners, has made the politically-calculated move to remain silent, to the detriment of voters' interests. The same criticisms apply to the various local district attorneys around New York State. Any of these local district attorneys could have opened up investigations into the various examples of government or campaign corruption across New York state, but the district attorneys don't, for the very same reasons that the state's attorney general is conflicted about investigating and prosecuting cases of government or campaign corruption : cases consisting of violations of local or state law that involve the potential for the prosecution of significant political or government individuals pose special problems for local and state prosecutors, precisely because local and state prosecutors belong to the same corrupt political system that breeds government and campaign corruption, leaving only federal prosecutors relatively independent enough to mount such investigations and to bring such cases, if warranted. Given how the Obama administration has politicized the Department of Justice, government reform activists and political bloggers are gambling that Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, has the fortitude to see through a massive investigation into government and campaign corruption that could potentially yield a once-in-a-century renewal in government integrity. The false choice proposed by The New York Times On the day the lengthy report was published in The New York Times, the media worked itself into a stampede, hopping on the bandwagon to report about the Cuomo administration's apparent obstruction of justice in the proceedings of the Moreland Commission. The day after, the editorial board of The New York Times published an editorial, presenting voters with a choice : keeping their elected representatives in office, or voting them out. This is a false choice. Voters don't just have a choice to vote out corrupt elected officials. They also have a choice to demand an overhaul of this broken political system. The continued short-sightedness by The New York Times points to how voters are not fully informed about the true depths of corruption in government. In last year's mayoral election, the voter backlash against the perceptions of community betrayal and public corruption during the 15 years of former Speaker Quinn's political career became co-opted by a Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale. The voter backlash and the Super PAC's co-opting measures played out for the public and the media to see. However, the media was limited in its ability to fully scrutinize the behind-the-scenese political activities and finances of the Super PAC, which were apparently being coordinated with official campaign committees and which involved controversial sources of funding and the sharing of other resources that cast questions about impropriety and possible illegality over the activities of the Super PAC. But these questions were largely raised after it was too late -- either after Mayor de Blasio had taken the lead in opinion polls or after he had won the Democratic mayoral primary. The deliberate lack of media scrutiny of Mayor de Blasio's campaign resulted in voters getting another neoliberal hack Democrat for mayor, who espouses the racist broken windows theory of policing and whose administration approves separate-but-equal poor doors for residents of affordable housing units. Similarly, just voting Gov. Cuomo out of office based on voter backlash to his record of corruption and neoliberalism isn't enough. Voters must elect a change agent outside of the corrupt two-party system. Leftists need to leave the Democratic Party. As advocated by this blog, voters are encouraged to look at the record of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins' campaign platform calls for ideas that would overhaul the broken political system by ending opportunities for corruption. His proposals for reform include a Clean Money bill that would fund full public campaign financing, meaning, a ban would have to be instituted on all private campaign donations. This radical step is the only way to cut out the undue influence of Mr. Spinola, REBNY, 501(c)(4) charity groups like the CSNY and the mayor's corrupt Campaign for One New York, Ms. Wylde, the PFNYC, Extell, Rudin Management Company, and other big money campaign contributors that enable corrupt politicians, like Gov. Cuomo, therefore keeping the political system broken and corruptible to big money donors. Even in the face of one week's worth of intense media scrutiny and even a possible federal investigation, big money real estate interests have cavalierly denounced any intention to stop funding big money donations to politicians, like Mr. Cuomo. REBNY is unapologetic for apparently fixing the legislative outcomes based on their large campaign contributions. While you check out Mr. Hawkins' platform, look up other issues you care about. You might find his untethered approach to overhauling the corrupt political system refreshing. If Mr. Hawkins campaign is not for you, then please support a campaign with idea that match his for boldness. Voters have more options than just voting Gov. Cuomo out of office.

RELATED Cuomo’s Office Hobbled Ethics Inquiries by Moreland Commission (The New York Times) Gov. Cuomo’s Broken Promises (The New York Times)

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)

Lobbyists Plan to Fix the 2013 Election For New York City Council Speaker

The Shifting Balance of Power in the NYC Council Speaker Race ; On One Side Are County Party Bosses and Big Business, On Other Side Are Lobbyists And Special Interests

The issues discussed at the docile City Council Speaker candidate forums have nothing to do with the backroom deals and the lobbyists jockeying to pick the next Council Speaker. The flood of money into politics from Citizens United is creating a "clash of the titans" between the County Political Bosses and Big Business, on one side, and Lobbyists and Special Interest Money, on the other. With campaign finance law failing to keep up with the changes in money in politics, the voters are being kept in the dark about the true way that the speaker is selected.

New York City Council Speaker Race : Clash of the Titans

• RELATED : Melissa Mark-Viverito Lobbyist Firm Never Quit, Continued Lobbying Despite Investigations (NYC : News & Analsyis)
• RELATED : Proposed NYS public matching dollars at risk of being gamed, just like with ''model'' NYC campaign finance system (NYC : News & Analsyis)

The Shifting Balance of Power in NYC Municipal Politics ; On One Side Are County Party Bosses and Big Business, On Other Side Are Lobbyists And Special Interests

Backroom Deals Update : Despite Denials, De Blasio Team Met With Weprin and Mark-Viverito About Speakership http://t.co/EG6unJLyuE

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) November 26, 2013

The issues discussed at the docile City Council Speaker candidate forums have nothing to do with the closed-door interviews, back room deals, and the lobbyists jockeying to pick the next Council Speaker. The flood of money into politics from Citizens United is creating a "clash of the titans" between the County Political Bosses and Big Business, on one side, and Lobbyists and Special Interest Money, on the other. With campaign finance law failing to keep up with the changes in money in politics, the voters are being kept in the dark about the true way that the speaker is selected. (NYC Council Speaker 2013 - Citizens United and Lobbyists * YouTube)

Both Sides Play By The Same Playbook Of The Broken Political System : Flouting or Even Breaking The Rules : Both Sides Exploit Citizens United ; The Kraken Bears Down On Democracy

A veritable ''Clash Of The Titans'' is playing itself out in this year's race to become City Council speaker.

Big business groups and labor unions are exploiting a loophole in New York City campaign finance regulations to pour money and influence into the determining who will replace Christine Quinn as the next City Council speaker.

Big Business Interests/County Party Bosses. For example, because the preferred candidate, Christine Quinn, who was supported by Partnership For New York City, failed in the Democratic primary, big business interests are in a panic. Since they lost the mayoralty, they are now trying to influence the Council speakership. (Pro-Business Group Tried to Push Ferreras Into Speaker’s Race * Politicker)(Election Big Loser Kathy Wylde * NY Pop Culture & Politics) Other entrenched political operatives and lobbyists are trying to form a coalition with some of the county party bosses, to hold off the insurgency being waged by the Working Families Party and labor unions. (The Parkside Group's Citizen's United Invisible Campaign Consultant/Lobbyist Operates in Dark Pools * NY Pop Culture & Politics)

WFP/Unions. Challenging the big business interests are the Working Families Party and labor unions. Bill Lipton, Bill de Blasio, and Scott Levenson anchor the opposition to big business interests and the permanent government, but the problem is that the WFP and labor union coalition is playing by the same playbook of the broken political system, which activists say needs to be reformed. (Big player in her corner : The Advance Group is pushing Melissa Mark-Viverito's speaker candidacy * Politicker)(1199 Leads Effort Boosting Mark-Viverito * Politicker)

Both groups are pushing their own candidates, spending their own money, coordinating their campaign efforts, and exploiting loopholes in reporting their activities, disbursements, and fundraising.

When contacted about the loophole in oversight, reporting, and regulations in post-Election Day political campaigning for City Council leadership posts, representatives of the Campaign Finance Board have been accommodating of the flow of money and the use of lobbyists.

Meanwhile, in the press, a few journalists have been reporting bits and pieces of the post-Election Day politicking, and the analysis that is emerging of the City Council speakership race points to a new era of political bossism in New York City : where campaign consultants have been able to overcome the traditional political party county bosses as power brokers.

Where are all the "good government groups," the "get money out of politics groups," the "reform activists," and "investigative journalists" ?

Read also : ''A Possible Changing of the Guard On Who Picks the Council Speaker, Sunday Update'' (True News From Change NYC)

• For the First Time, There is A Real Fight to Influence the Press, Public and Councilmembers in the Speaker's Race
• On One Side, You Progressives, Unions, and the Working Families Party ; On the Other Side, You Have County Party Bosses, Big Business Groups Like The Partnership For New York City, and Lobbyists and Operatives From the Permanent Government
• The Death of the Party Machine ?

The Progressive Caucus Distraction

Some press reports indicate that some of the County Bosses, for example Brooklyn's Frank Seddio, are losing power to the Progressive Caucus of Councilmembers, but that is an incomplete portraiture of what is behind the growing influence of the Progressive Caucus in this year's Council speaker race. Another press report shows that the Queens County Political Boss, Rep. Joe Crowley, is "warming to the idea of backing Mark-Viverito." Is the power of County Bosses collapsing ?

In City & State, Seth Barron again repeats that the Progressive Caucus is responsible for undermining the County Boss system.

Historically, the election of the Speaker, arguably the second most powerful political office in the city, has been even less democratic than it might appear, because more than half of the members of the Council essentially do not have free will over their votes. The county political organizations of the Queens, Brooklyn and Bronx Democratic parties have traditionally directed the votes of its members, and thus the Speaker and the key committee chairmanships have been divvied up through a series of negotiations and compromises among the party bosses.

With the advent of the council’s Progressive Caucus, some have argued that the heyday of the bosses is over and that a new bloc of reform-minded Council members will dominate the legislature of the city. The members of the caucus have vowed to vote as a unit in order to leverage the votes of their roughly 20 members into a powerful counterforce to the dominance of the county organizations. (Council Watch : Twilight Of The Bosses ? * City & State)

But this narrative doesn't tell the whole story of the Progressive Caucus.

The Progressive Caucus has also hired its own lobbyist, to hold closed-door meetings and to broker backroom deals in an effort to rival the County Bosses. Look at how Crains Insider has described some of the tensions causes by the competing forces to hold closed-door meetings :

A recent negotiating snafu demonstrates the conflict between the city's old and new political forces. About three weeks ago, council members from Queens who are part of the Progressive Caucus scheduled a meeting at the Queens office of law firm Sweeney Gallo Reich & Bolz. The firm's partners run the day-to-day operations of the borough's Democratic Party, and the progressives hoped to persuade them to partner in lining up the 26 votes needed to elect a speaker.

Just hours before the meeting, the leaders of the Queens Democratic machine learned that Ms. Hirsh of 32BJ would attend in her capacity as lead negotiator, according to multiple sources. The Democratic leadership, whose executive director declined to comment, demanded that only elected officials be allowed in the room.

The Progressive Caucus refused, and the meeting was canceled, sparking tensions between the two most powerful forces in this year's speaker race. A flurry of phone calls seeking to mend the rift has ensued, according to sources.

Indeed, even some "progressives" are critical of the Progressive Caucus's use of a lobbyist to lobby for the next year's Council speaker. "Ms. Hirsh is a well-connected operative who helped hammer out the deal to elect Ms. Quinn in 2005 on behalf of then-Brooklyn Democratic leader Vito Lopez. Still, her role this time as lead negotiator struck a number of lawmakers as highly unusual because of her dual role as a powerful lobbyist," Capital New York reported.

If there was ever an anti-labor speaker, it was Christine Quinn, who watered down two important labor-backed bills : the living wage bill and the paid sick leave bill. How could the Progressive Caucus turn to a Quinn-supporter to pick the next supposedly-"progressive" speaker ?

Other progressives have other criticism of the Progressive Caucus. City Councilmember Rosie Mendez has "declined to join the Progressive Caucus, the growing group of left-leaning Council members who are hoping to sway the speaker's race, because she said she found the process 'not to be transparent or inclusive,' " reported Sally Goldenberg for Capital New York.

The media's fear of confronting lobbyists

"Council speakers have historically been selected by leaders of borough political machines lining up votes and getting patronage jobs and plum committee chairmanships for friends and allies. But as their power to elect or unelect council members has waned, unions have filled the vacuum, with the labor-backed Working Families Party playing a part in electing much of the council," reported Chris Bragg for Crains Insider.

But few dare to confront the army of lobbyists working for the Working Families Party, the Progressive Caucus, and other special interests in the recent past municipal elections. And few are daring to look at the corruptive role of money these lobbyists are having on democracy.

Time was, party bosses decided @NYCCouncil leadership. Now, consultants do. But @NYCCFB laws have not kept up. @ChrisBragg1

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) November 15, 2013

Big player in her corner : The Advance Group is pushing Melissa Mark-Viverito's speaker candidacy. (Politicker)	Who is paying Advance Group for helping Melissa Mark-Viverito ? (Bill de Blasio Sold Out)
Union power play in council speaker race (The New York Post)	In race for City Council speaker, Labor's influence is on the rise. (Crains)
Examining the role of consultants in the speaker race, and more (Crains)	Political consultants, who work to elect lawmakers, are turning around and lobbying them on behalf of private clients. (The New York Daily News)

There's no enforcement of Campaign Finance Board Regulations

Bonny Tsang, a public affairs officer with the CFB, responding to my inquiries by stating that, "The Council speaker race is not considered a separate election that needs to be reported to the CFB. If a candidate makes political expenditures, or accepts in-kind contributions, they should be reported in a future filing," adding, "We would have to review all facts or documentation regarding any candidate’s expenditures before we may make any kind of determination."

Separately, Matthew Sollars, the press secretary for the CFB, shared a link to the agency's November 2013 "Tip of the Month," which is a very relaxed form of "guidance." The note on post-election spending stated, "If your campaign received public funds, you are permitted to make only very limited post-election expenditures for nominal costs associated with the winding down of a campaign and responding to the Campaign Finance Board’s post-election audit. The longer it takes to wind down your campaign, the longer you continue to make expenditures, or the more you spend post-election, the more scrutiny those expenditures will receive."

Ms. Tsang says that there is basically no oversight of post-Election Day spending, whilst guidance provided by Mr. Sollars states that campaigning that benefitted from matching funds must wind down. There is no consistency in regulations, and thus this begets a gaping loophole that allows campaign consultants, unions, big business interests, and lobbyists to exploit the lack of supervision and regulation. Indeed, in his e-mail to me, Mr. Sollars wrote, "Disclosure of candidate campaign committee activities for the 2017 cycle through the CFB will begin in July 2014. However, committees making political expenditures should disclose that spending through the state Board of Elections by January 15, 2014," adding that, "The city’s independent spending disclosure rules require groups or individuals to disclose when they pay for public communications with voters."

Another possible loophole in the post-Election Day loophole in Council speaker campaigning is that the new incoming speaker oversees appointments with the next mayor over the CFB. How rigorous will the CFB be in investigating their next supervisors ?

2013-November-XX New York City Campaign Finance Board - Post Election Spending Guidance

Even though there are questions about double-dipping, possible two-timing on the part of The Advance Group, what we get from the mainstream media are essentially stories about the rise of the next Camelot : a fictitious narrative of the ascendancy of "progressives," who made the upward climb exploiting the same broken rules that reform activists claim need to be fixed ?

Political Insider Corruption In a Different Media World

According to True News From Change NYC, the City Source-Parking Violations scandal led to the imposition of real reforms, namely, the drafting and enactment of campaign finance laws and public money matching system. Perhaps by letting big business interests, lobbyists, and unions fully exploit every rule and flout every law in desperation, voters will again be able to benefit from the coming political scandals from this year's election cycle ? Let's wait and see how desperate the political campaign consultants and lobbyists become ....

What's a Campaign Debt Between Friends ? http://t.co/wrNMEzB84N @RobHalperin @nycgov @NYCCouncil @BKcolin @commoncauseny @NYCCFB

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) November 13, 2013

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

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)

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

… 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 ?