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

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

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

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

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

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

Not even former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was accused of being each of shady, unethical, and a political boss in the old-fashioned corrupt sense by many New York political bloggers, ever dared to be this blatantly egregious Updated information about campaign committee fundraising and expenditures were made this week by elected officials serving in New York State to the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, the New York State Board of Elections. The filing by New York Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito showed some activity since her January filing, but the latest disclosures of her 2017 campaign committee still showed no expenditures to pay for the lobbying services provided to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign that began in earnest following her successful reelection to the City Council. It was publicly reported that The Advance Group was providing lobbying services to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign. Those services were described as being provided for free, even though municipal campaign finance regulations require that in-kind contributions be declared. The Council speakership is a leadership post of the city's legislative body that is secondary to the leader's Council seat. The speakership is served concurrently for the term of the leadership post with the elected official's service of the underlying Council seat. Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's use of The Advance Group triggered extensive media scrutiny, notably by political bloggers and several mainstream media outlets. Further criticism were made when it was shown that many of the political operatives, who worked on Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign were later given high-ranking patronage jobs with the City Council. Other lobbyists were reported to have been helping Speaker Mark-Viverito determine the assignments of secondary and tertiary leadership posts at the City Council. Candidates, who run for the City Council and who participate in the matching contribution program of the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board, as was the case with Councilmember Mark-Viverito, are subject to fundraising caps and spending limits. However, Councilmember Mark-Viverito opened a second campaign committee account with the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, and her campaign committee designated that second account for the 2017 election cycle. If the state Board of Elections had done its due diligence, it would have relatively easily discovered that Councilmember Mark-Viverito had just participated in the Campaign Finance Board's matching campaign contribution program, and that the leadership post she was very publicly seeking would be won through a lobbying campaign of her fellow City Councilmembers, who vote to select the Council speaker, rendering that second state campaign committee account to be a vehicle to fund the leadership post that would be served concurrently with her elected office. Until now, nobody knows the rationale for why the state's Board of Election continues to approve the fundraising and expenditures through Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's sham 2017 campaign committee account, when that account has been and is being used for a leadership post with dual mandate implications. A dual mandate is a controversial loophole that allows a person to serve more than one elected office at the same time, meaning, that an elected official would have competing interests as the office holder carries out his or her duties to the public. An elected official serving a dual mandate would be beholden to teams of lobbyists, campaign consultants, and big money donors that would trash the spirit of campaign finance laws and would open the door to appearances of conflicts of interest, steering patronage jobs to political operatives, allowing lobbyists a greater say over government business, and other questionable dealings. There is no known municipal precedent for dual campaign committee accounts to be authorized for the concurrent service of a publicly elected municipal office and a municipal leadership post that is secondary to the elected office. Furthermore, no other City Councilmember was allowed the unfair advantage of staying within the fundraising and expenditure caps of the Campaign Finance Board and still circumvent those caps with a state Board of Elections campaign committee account that is subject to no restrictions. When contacted last March, representatives of the state Board of Elections turned down a Freedom of Information Law request for the rationale for approving Councilmember Mark-Viverito's second campaign committee account, and, after negotiation, agreed to provide the account opening documents for her sham 2017 campaign committee.

RELATED Melissa Mark-Viverito spent big bucks on speaker's race, campaign filings show (The New York Daily News) Council speaker puts connected lobbyist on payroll (Crain's New York Business) Lobbyists aid Mark-Viverito transition (Crain's New York Business)

More questions about Melissa Mark-Viverito's campaign finances and her lobbyists

Undeclared campaign finance expenses tied to a fundraising trip to Chicago and the growing role of Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito's campaign consultants increases concerns that Speaker Mark-Viverito may be further flouting campaign finance regulations and ethics rules.

Five months into her Council speakership, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito continues to be dogged by questions about her campaign finances and her compliance with city ethics rules.

The latest campaign finance issue centers around a fundraising trip Speaker Mark-Viverito made to Chicago in the time leading up to last year's municipal elections. Although the trip included fundraising activities, Speaker Mark-Viverito's campaign committee neither incurred nor declared any expenses for that trip. If her campaign committee benefited from in-kind contributions from others, those contributions must be declared, according to campaign finance regulations. In a press report in The Wall Street Journal about this latest campaign finance question, it was shown that Speaker Mark-Viverito's trip was paid for by the Participatory Budgeting Project. But a review of her contribution records available online with the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the names of Speaker Mark-Viverito's contributors do not include the Participatory Budgeting Project, not even in an in-kind capacity.

The campaign consulting firm, Pitta Bishiop Del Giorno, which managed Speaker Mark-Viverito's City Council reelection and speakership campaigns last year, has seen its influence increase in city government since last year's municipal elections. Pitta Bishop Del Giorno has even begun to lobby Speaker Mark-Viverito, a worrisome sign to good government reform activists, who fret about the growing corruptive role of money and lobbyists in the conduct of government business.

The on-going questions about how Speaker Mark-Viverito and her lobbyists managed her campaign finances, and the growing role of those lobbyists in the conduct of the city's business, raise concerns as to whether her management style leans toward a predisposition of flouting compliance with campaign finance and ethics rules. Last year, Speaker Mark-Viverito accepted unpaid and undeclared campaign consulting services from a controversial lobbying firm that has since become the subject of possible federal and municipal corruption investigations, according to several press reports. In respect of those free campaign consultant services, provided by The Advance Group, Speaker Mark-Viverito's campaign committee never declared the fair market value of the intensive lobbying efforts involved in the heated speakership campaign as in-kind contributions, either.

Public servants are prohibited from accepting valuable gifts from firms that intend to do business with the city, and lobbyists, in turn, are prohibited from giving those gifts, according to an analysis of city ethics rules by The New York Daily News.

• RELATED : New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito held a fundraiser last year in Chicago on a trip paid for by a nonprofit organization, city records show, raising questions from government watchdogs about whether her re-election campaign skirted campaign-finance laws. (New York City Council Speaker's Trip for Fundraiser Is Questioned * The Wall Street Journal)
• RELATED : During her Council speakership race, Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules by accepting unpaid and undeclared assistance from a controversial lobbying firm, The Advance Group, working to further her speakership selection. (City Council Speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules * The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : Pitta Bishiop Del Giorno, the firm that helped Mark-Viverito win her races for City Council and Council speaker, has now lobbied her on behalf of several clients. (Pitta Bishop, the consulting firm that aided Melissa Mark-Viverito's campaigns, now lobbies to her * The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : New revelations show that Mayor Bill de Blasio has had official meetings to discuss city business with the top lobbyist Vincent Pitta, who was also a campaign supporter and a paid consultant for Melissa Mark-Viverito. (Pitta Bishop and other lobbyists, who backed Bill de Blasio for mayor, have access * The New York Post)

But Speaker Mark-Viverito is not alone in stirring controversy with her close alliance with the lobbying firm of Pitta Bishop Del Giorno.

Mayor Bill de Blasio's office has released records of his meetings with lobbyists during the first three months of his term in office, and those records show that he met with Vincent Pitta, a name partner in the lobbying firm of Pitta Bishop Del Giorno that is closely allied with the mayor and with Council Speaker Mark-Viverito.

A press report about Mayor de Blasio's early meetings with lobbyists make no mention of lobbying meetings with James Capalino, a shady real estate lobbyist, who supported the mayor's successful political campaign last year. Mr. Capalino was one of the top lobbyists, who orchestrated a corrupting million-dollar, lobbyist-fuled fundraiser for the mayor's campaign last year at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Mr. Capalino also worked as a real estate lobbyist on the controversial conversion of St. Vincent's Hospital into a billion-dollar luxury condo and townhouse complex in the West Village. Activists shilling for Mayor de Blasio claimed that he was going to offer the voters a clean break from the lobbyist-enabler that was his main rival in last year's mayoral race, former Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Former Speaker Quinn had a reputation for working closely with lobbyists and campaign donors, including having meetings with former donors to discuss legislative proposals. But judging by how both the mayor and his new Council speaker have incorporated their lobbyists into the conduct of city business, there may be no detectable difference at all in the way Mayor de Blasio runs the city from how former Council Speaker Quinn would have administered the city.

Another controversial, politically-connected firm that was left out of early disclosures of the mayor's meetings with lobbyists was Berlin Rosen. Berlin Rosen was installed by Mayor de Blasio to run his outside lobbying effort to campaign for a universal pre-kinder program in New York City. Berlin Rosen was also placed in charge with assisting with the media communication of the controversial coalition of police reform groups known as Communities United for Police Reform, or CPR. Ever since Mayor de Blasio appointed William Bratton as police commissioner, the mayor has needed to have loyalists control the messaging for police reform groups, in order to demobilize calls for radical reforms to city's law enforcement agencies. It's unclear why the mayor failed to classify his administration's meeting with Berlin Rosen as not rising to the level of lobbying, when that's exactly Berlin Rosen's role.

Separately, The Wall Street Journal's report included an update from the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, namely, that the Campaign Finance Board had not yet completed its campaign audit for former Council Speaker Quinn's unsuccessful mayoral campaign.

Mark-Viverito Fires The Advance Group ; Has Scott Levenson Become Radioactive ?

• 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)

Efforts to distance Mark-Viverito from The Advance Group are seen to thwart the Campaign Finance Board and the Conflicts of Interest Board, says source

Proponents of campaign finance reform have faced difficulty in trying to restrict the corruptive influence of money in politics. Look at what is happening right here, right now.

Where are in-kind contributions from consultants/lobbyists for speaker's race ? @NYCCFB @MMViverito @ChrisBragg1 @TMannWSJ @BKcolin #Preet

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) December 3, 2013

Yesterday, the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) made public several disclosures of contributions and expenditures for the period including immediately following Election Day. However, those reports were immediately shown to be inaccurate, because at least one report does not capture the financial activities involving the Council speaker race. How can the Campaign Finance Board accept and produce reports of Council speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito when the CFB knows full well that her reports are incomplete, disingenuous, and misrepresentative of the actual contributions to her political campaigning ?

After allegations of campaign finance controversies in this year's Council speaker race and anti-LGBT discrimination by prominent political consultant/lobbyist Scott Levenson, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito informed Politicker reporter Ross Barkan that she has ceased receiving any political advice and lobbying services from Mr. Levenson and his firm, The Advance Group. But simply firing Mr. Levenson doesn't cure Ms. Mark-Viverito's misrepresentative CFB reporting.

Mr. Levenson's controversial provision of undeclared in-kind campaign contributions to Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign is coming under heavy scrutiny, now that the Campaign Finance Board is said to be investigating this shady arrangement.

But Mr. Levenson is not alone in providing undeclared contributions to several political candidates. Ealier this summer, it was reported that the political consultant/lobbyist Stanley Schlein has been providing free services to political candidates. Lobbyists can curry favor with politicians for themselves and for their clients when they provide "free services," and political candidates gain unfair advantages of receiving valuable consulting and lobbying services that are unavailable to other candidates, who do stupid things, like naively observe the caps on regulated campaign contributions. (What's a campaign debt between friends ? * The New York Times)

Nor is Mr. Levenson the sole lobbyist doing work on behalf of Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign, where there remains no transparency about lobbyist payments, campaign contributions, or applicable campaign finance, conflict of interest, and lobbyist regulations or restrictions. Ms. Mark-Viverito is or has also been represented by the consulting/lobbying firms of Pitta Bishop Del Giorno and the Mirram Group, according to Crains Insider. And since Ms. Mark-Viverito has reportedly fired Mr. Levenson, in his place she has retained two more political operatives : Jon Paul Lupo and Amelia Adams, again according to Crains Insider.

No improvements in disclosure or reporting in the age of Citizens United and run-away lobbyists : Show me the money !

How are all these consultants being paid, and where is the money coming from that is paying these consultants ?

Stanley Schlein works for free for Arroyos. How widespread are undeclared in-kinds? http://t.co/E3u9CwNkCh @NYCCFB @arroyowatch @RossBarkan

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) December 3, 2013

Meanwhile, the growing scandal and controversy engulfing the speakership race, which includes the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News openly calling for Ms. Mark-Viverito's disqualification over the questionable ethics and campaign finance violations, has thus far led to no deeper examination of the corruptive role of campaign consultants, who double as lobbyists, in our democracy.

At each step of the way, no good-government groups are willing to come forward to demand real reforms from all of these supposedly "progressive" politicians, nor is the media looking at the role of big business or special interest lobbyists in the campaigns of other Council speaker candidates, Mark Weprin and Daniel Garodnick. Democracy's been derailed, and the media's been found to be asleep at the switch as the speeding train of money in politics is about to take the dangerous curve in the tracks caused by Citizens United and out-of-control lobbyists. What happened to voters' rights to not be deceived by the corruptive influence of money in politics ?

Love this section of Moreland report on a lobbyist listing campaign contributions as "projected expense" to client pic.twitter.com/PtvdZeZlbp

— Adam Smith (@asmith83) December 3, 2013

Still left unanswered is whether Mr. Levenson has become so radioactive that Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio will skip the NYCLASS fundraiser set for tomorrow.

What happened to all those activists, who protested against Christine Quinn's troubled and corrupt mayoral campaign under the guise of demanding reforms ? Judging by how those activists are keeping silent while scandal and controversy engulf this year's speakership race, those activists must be wearing blinders.

The Need For Full Public Campaign Financing, Not The NYC Model http://t.co/rBcVncZju6 @greenpartynyc @HowieHawkins @JoeLeverone

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) December 3, 2013

When reform activists demand campaign finance reform and call for the corruptive influence of money in politics be ended, exactly who do reform activists believe will deliver these reforms, progressives or conservatives ? Realistically, it would be our allies on the left, who should deliver these reforms. Hence, when will liberal, progressive, or leftist politicians deliver these reforms ? Or do we put on blinders while the new progressive-in-name-only ("PINO") administration in-waiting exploits campaign finance loopholes in a power grab that differs none from what we would naturally expect that conservatives would orchestrate ?