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)

Cy Vance Power Bottom

PUBLISHED : TUES, 01 JUL 2014, 02:11 PM
UPDATED : TUES, 01 JUL 2014, 04:35 PM
Corrupt Politicians and Lobbyists Get Most of Their Power From the Bottom in Charge of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office

 

RELATED Charity tied to Council Speaker Mark-Viverito quadruples its slush funding (Crains New York Business) VIDEO : Cy Vance Dirty D.A. (Dropbox)

POLITICAL BLOGGERS and government reform activists today expressed frustration that another corrupt New York City Council speaker was going to use her control over a large multi-million slush fund to reward her lobbyists and campaign consultants, and there was nothing that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance was going to do about it. The Hispanic Federation, a nonprofit organization founded and represented by Luis Miranda, a chief political consultant of Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, saw its pork-barrel funding quadruple in the speaker's first budget, through a slush fund system that critics say remains politicized despite some obligatory lip service to reforms. Press reports from The New York Post and Crains New York Business show that the Hispanic Federation consistently funnels money back to Mr. Miranda's campaign consulting and lobbying firm, the MirRam Group. Steering flush fund money to charities that then act as a "pass through entity" back to favored lobbyists and campaign consultants is business as usual in the City Council. Political bloggers and government reform activists alleged that Speaker Mark-Viverito's predecessor, Christine Quinn, did the same thing, reportedly using the High Line park as the "pass-through" to ultimately benefit Bolton-St. Johns, the lobbying firm headed by former Speaker Quinn's best friend, Emily Giske. The political, campaign, and slush fund corruption in New York City comes from learned behavior about how to rig the broken political system to keep enabling still yet more and more corruption. The possibility that Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's allocation of large, six-figure sums to charities that pay some of their money back to Speaker Mark-Viverito's political operatives is a blatant conflict of interest. Is this part of the way that the Council speaker "compensates" her campaign consultants through transactions that circumvent the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board ? The optics of these kinds of financial arrangements merit investigation, possible charges of corruption, and at the very least the issuance of new ethics rules of recusal and oversight. But we live in a city, where District Attorney Cy Vance is Mr. Fix It. Corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and other permanent government insiders know that D.A. Vance won't prosecute anybody, meaning, "the fix is in." Former Council Speaker Quinn and Ms. Giske got away with it, and Speaker Mark-Viverito and Mr. Miranda are gambling that they will, too. So, the crooked politicians keep exploiting the system. Does that mean D.A. Vance is a power bottom for every crooked politician in this city ? (No offense to power bottoms.) Corrupt politicians know that the prosecution of significant political or government individuals pose special problems for local and state prosecutors. Voters can tell how the clients of lobbyists and campaign consultants get preferential treatment over other schmucks, who lack the political connections with prosecutorial insiders. When Crains New York Business requested the e-mail correspondence between the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his ex-wife, political consultant powerhouse Jennifer Cunningham, the attorney general denied the Freedom of Information Law request. Similar to how the attorney general appears to be protecting his ex-wife from media scrutiny, some political bloggers and government reform activists charge that the attorney general protected politician clients of Ms. Cunningham from scrutiny. Ms. Cunningham worked on former Council Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign at a time when activists were demanding investigations into allegations of corruption during former Council Speaker Quinn's administration of the City Council, investigations which never came to pass.

Another campaign consultant tied to Council Speaker Mark-Viverito in still yet another controversy

The Hispanic Federation received more than $830,000 in FY2015 City Council Slush Funds. The charity was founded and is represented by a partner of the MirRam Group political consultanting firm, which is close to Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.

RELATED Charity tied to New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito quadruples its funding (Crains New York Business) More questions about Melissa Mark-Viverito's campaign finances and her lobbyists (NYC : News & Analysis)

IN THE NEW CITY BUDGET, the New York City Council, headed by Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, has steered over $830,000 to a charity with close ties to one of her chief campaign consultants, Crains New York Business reported. The charity, the Hispanic Federation, was founded and is represented by Luis Miranda, a partner of the MirRam Group. The MirRam Group advised Councilmember Mark-Viverito's reelection race for her City Council seat, and it "quietly provided assistance in the midst" of Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race, according to the Crains New York Business report. The disclosure of expenditures of Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race fails to show that the speakership campaign committee ever paid the MirRam Group for their services, an apparently similar arrangement that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign had with The Advance Group. A potential conflict of interest comes to the fore with respect to the City Council allocation of slush funds to the Hispanic Federation in that the MirRam Group lobbied the City Council, including Speaker Mark-Viverito, for the funding. Moreover, the large allocation to the Hispanic Federation may invoke "veal pen" concerns. The Hispanic Federation is a fund of funds-type structure, which means it uses its resources to fund other Hispanic charities. Will the Hispanic Federation only fund groups that express their loyalty to Speaker Mark-Viverito ? Furthermore, the slush fund allocation to the Hispanic Federation has a potential to move circuitously back to the MirRam Group, according to the Crains New York Business article. The Hispanic Federation retains the MirRam Group on an $8,500 monthly arrangement. Over the years, the Hispanic Federation has paid over $600,000 to the MirRam Group and to another firm "registered to Mr. Miranda and his wife," according to a 2012 report by The New York Post. The circuitous flow of slush funds that "pass through" charities and into the pockets of lobbyists with close ties to the Council Speaker. Former Speaker Christine Quinn began earmarking slush funds to the High Line park before she became Council Speaker, and those and other budget allocations overlapped with the High Line park retaining the lobbying services of Bolton-St. Johns, a firm headed by former Speaker Quinn's best friend, Emily Giske. To close the circuitous loop of money, real estate developers, who stood to make tens of millions of dollars, if not more, from the gentrification that the High Line park ushered in, turned around and made large campaign contributions to Speaker Quinn's campaign committee accounts. For years, good government groups have asked that the City Council slush funds either be eliminated entirely or to be reformed to prevent the politicization of the controversial budget allocations, so that there are no pay-to-play, conflicts of interest, or quid pro quo aspects to how the slush funds are divided up by the Council Speaker. Now that Crains New York Business has brought the role of campaign consultants to the fore, the city's Campaign Finance Board and the Department of Investigation must investigate the appearances of corruption. If the potential established pattern of criminality in these cases consist of violations of local or state law but involve the investigation and prosecution of significant political or government individuals, who may pose special problems for the local prosecutor, then federal prosecutors must lead the charge.

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 ?