Barfing into bags, voters face a moment of truth about Democratic Party incumbents

Democratic Party bouncers give voters no choice but to re-elect Gov. Cuomo

"Every place is not Greenwich Village," said Assemblyman Keith Wright, who is also chair of the state's Democratic Party, referring to a lack of support in the rest of New York State as an excuse for why Gov. Andrew Cuomo has failed to roll out any liberal reforms.

• PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT A : Get out your barf bags : Assemblyman Keith Wright pitches Gov. Cuomo to Manhattan progressives (Capital New York)
• PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT B : Don't put your barf bags away, yet : Former Council Speaker Christine Quinn returns, to help Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Cuomo (Capital New York)
• PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT C : Time for fresh barf bags : Gov. Cuomo huddles with Eric Cantor, Working Families Party, veal pen reformers on watered-down campaign finance machinations (Capital New York)
• PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT D : Forget bags, we need barf barrels : Queens residents fed up with constant corrupt lawmakers (The New York Post)

The ironic thing is that everybody knows where there are concentrations of liberal thought. Gentrification does a very good job of corroding these neighborhoods to disperse like-minded individuals. Dissent almost doesn't exist anymore, and nobody respects autonomy. The last few hold-outs are haggard, and true solidarity has all but shriveled up. After the number that real estate developers have done to the Village, especially the harvesting of St. Vincent's Hospital before the poor corpse had even died, isn't it more true that Mr. Wright's quote should be, "Greenwich Village has become like every place ?"

The hopeful thought would be that activists would realize that going back to fighting for single issues is the fastest way for everybody to lose. Thinking small is a losing way to think. Caring about our own pet issues makes us unprincipled, because it means we are only in this for ourselves and not for all of us. This pressure is real. After all the evidence of corruption coinciding with the Cuomo administration, look at how the only ones practising discipline are Democratic Party "leaders," who want your votes in exchange for more cheap-ass talk. Somebody complained yesterday that there is nobody, who can run against Gov. Cuomo, but that is a lie, because there are other people running against Gov. Cuomo. But people seem to be more impressed with the celebrity of a candidate than with casting a vote for an alternative that involves the slightest bit of taking a chance on a new face. Keeping voters in this place of fear works nicely for incumbents.

If people fail to achieve solidarity and fail to take a chance on someone new, then the only winners here will be Gov. Cuomo, Democratic Party bouncers, and their permanent government operative insiders, who double as big business lobbyists. It's enough to make one barf.

Michael Petrelis Exposes Misuse Of San Francisco Taxpayer Money In Promotion of Inaccurate Marriage Equality Book

Revisionist book by The New York Times reporter Jo Becker raises questions about possible ethics violations in San Francisco City Attorney's Office

Activist and muckraking blogger Michael Petrelis has obtained public records from San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office, showing how San Francisco city employees on the City "clock" were coordinating with The New York Times reporter Jo Becker and her various publicists to promote her controversial new book about the marriage equality movement, "Forcing the Spring." The 110-pages of public records is available on Google Drive.

• RELATED : Becker Had SF City Attorney Ask Judge Walker to be at Photo Op (The Petrelis Files)

In an e-mail Mr. Petrelis sent to Ms. Becker, to top editors of The New York Times, and to Mr. Herrera, Mr. Petrelis forwarded a link to his latest blog post and asked, "Will the San Francisco media continue to ignore these serious ethical lapses at the City Attorney's office ?"

Mr. Petrelis, like many LGBT activists, bloggers, and leaders, have been outraged by the inaccuracies of the modern social movement for marriage equality in the United States, as presented in Ms. Becker's book. Many reviewers of Ms. Becker's book believe that she gives too much credit to the recent progress of marriage equality across the United States to, amongst others, Chad Griffin, who was one of many individuals involved in the litigation to overturn California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages when the ballot initiative was passed in 2008. Incredulous as it may seem, Ms. Becker called Mr. Griffin the gay "Rosa Parks."

• RELATED : Jo Becker’s revisionist history on marriage (The Washington Blade)

For his part, Mr. Petrelis has been blogging about Ms. Becker's scandalous book, reporting about how the San Francisco City Attorney's office has been using city infrastructure, city employees' time, and other city resources to promote Ms. Becker's inaccurate book.

• RELATED : KQED Gay Reporter Rims Jo Becker, SF City Atty Herrera's Butts (The Petrelis Files)
• RELATED : How NYT's Jo Becker Made SF City Attorney's Office Her PR Firm (The Petrelis Files)
• RELATED : SF City Attorney Paid Griffin How Much as His Prop 8 Adviser ? (The Petrelis Files)

One wonders whether city investigators in San Francisco will question the use of taxpayer resources for Ms. Becker's private profit.

In the aftermath of the Stonewall riots of 1969, political activism by gays, lesbians, and trans* New Yorkers took off. In 1971, members of the Gay Activist Alliance in New York City "zapped" the city's marriage office, occupying it with the radical demand gays and lesbians be allowed to get married. The activists threw an "engagement party for two male couples," complete with "wedding cake decorated with two grooms and two brides," according to a YouTube video of the protest. In this emboldened new era, demands to end marriage discrimination crossed over into the mainstream. According to Mr. Petrelis' blog :

… On May 2, 1974, a one-hour debate organized as a mock trial and aired on a show called "The Advocates, The PBS Debate of the Week", and the subject was "Should Marriage Between Homosexuals Be Permitted ?" and the event was held on the University of California at Irvine campus. Leading the charge for the gays was longtime gay pioneer Frank Kameny who was masterful in his presentation and how he framed his arguments. …

Joining Kameny were out lesbian Elaine Noble who was a professor at Emerson College at the time, a year before she was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Dr. Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA, and quite the bear but I don't what his sexual orientation is.

The opposing side was led by Florida civil rights attorney Tobias Simon, who was joined by Robin Smith at Occidental College, and Dr. Charles Socarides, listed as an Associate Clinical Professor at Albert Einstein Medical School.

Socarides was the father two blights upon the LGBT community, the first being the now-discredited bogus "conversion therapy" that held a person with same-sex attractions could be changed to desire the opposite sex, and the second was his son Richard Socarides, a Democratic political strategist who holds the dubious distinction of having written talking points for President Bill Clinton deflecting LGBT advocates' anger over the signing of the Defense of Marriage Act when he was the White House gay liaison. … (Frank Kameny v. Charles Socarides: 1974 PBS Gay Marriage Debate * The Petrelis Files)

In the intervening years, as the cumulative effect of LGBT political organizing grew grew, the arc of legal treatment towards the community grew from one viewing us based on our "sexual preferences" to one being based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," the difference being that we were stopped seeing as making a choice about our sexuality and instead being born this way, an easier argument to make for being born with natural rights and liberties, making the community's demands for equality easier to make. (The way that our community identified itself also change, from being termed "homosexuals" to "gays" to "gays and lesbians" to GLBT to LGBT, etc.) However, the inevitable backlash against LGBT organizing against discrimination, including against the state-sanctioned discrimination that denied LGBT couples the right to get married, was codified on the federal level by none other than President Bill Clinton, when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. As alluded to by Mr. Petrelis, President Clinton's treacherous enactment of the law was made possible by the shady help of Richard Socarides, a gay political operative, who many New York City activists view with disdain for having enabled President Clinton to codify federal discrimination against civil marriage rights for LGBT couples. President Clinton later changed his mind about DOMA, but only after it became politically advantageous for him and for his wife, Mrs. Clinton.

Then, in 1999, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruling in Baehr v. Lewin helped to spark the modern marriage equality movement. Activists were further emboldened by the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which finally invalidated all state laws against sodomy, a backhanded way that governments had traditionally used to oppressed the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and trans* Americans. A year later, in a nod to how progressive social movements have historically been shown to grow in the United States, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, added fuel to the fire in the drive for marriage equality by authorizing the city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His sole act helped to give hope to a broad spectrum of LGBT activists and allies by showing that a progressive reform made in one municipality could be replicated in other municipalities. The mayor of New Paltz, New York, copied Mayor Newsom's move, but the New Paltz effort was stopped by legal action. Legal action also put a stop to the San Francisco effort, triggering legal action, the whole Prop 8 ballot initiative, and subsequent litigation over Prop 8. When the traditionally conservative state of Iowa instituted same sex marriage rights in 2009 following its own Supreme Court ruling, LGBT activists in New York state where shamed about their inability to make progress on marriage equality in the shadow of leadership in other states, despite New York's reputation for being the nation's undisputed liberal and progressive leader. Marriage equality advocates had always been pressing their cause in New York state, but local politicians, such as former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn never wanted to gamble any of her political capital on risky new government policy proposals, especially after she had spent years distancing herself from the radical activism that runs the liberal and progressive politics of New York City. Indeed, as the most visible LGBT official in New York City at the time, Ms. Quinn failed to organize the LGBT community in New York to block former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's successful effort to quash marriage equality in New York when he appealed, in 2005, a favourable court ruling supporting equal civil marriage rights. After the unrelenting direct action campaign, begun in 2010, by one group, Queer Rising, put marriage equality back on the social agenda, the big money LGBT groups felt more comfortable in deploying resources to support a renewed push for marriage equality in New York state. After marriage equality became law in New York state, activists across the world were inspired by the ability to pass legislation to extend civil marriage rights to LGBT New Yorkers. In the wake of success in New York, marriage equality activists were emboldened to organize and change the laws in such far away nations as France.

LGBT is the most common acronym to describe the minority community oppressed by state-sponsored laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but a more inclusive term is QUILTBAG, which stands for Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender/Transsexual, Bisexual, Allied/Asexual, Gay/Genderqueer. Although more memorable, QUILTBAG has not gained wider use.

Too bad HHC didn't backstop LICH's restructuring plan

From the Demand a Hospital Listserv :

Begin forwarded message:

From: Demand A Hospital
Subject: Too bad HHC didn't backstop LICH's restructuring plan
Date: 7 mai 2014 11:42:47 UTC-04:00
To: Demand A Hospital
Bcc: lflores22@gmail.com
Reply-To: demandahospital@gmail.com

Dear All :

The latest in-depth news about the end of full-service hospital care at Long Island College Hospital comes from Capital New York :

Officials from the de Blasio administration, including Emma Wolfe, were concerned that the winning bid to buy LICH from SUNY was not commercially feasible. Brooklyn Health Partners was the sole bidder for LICH to submit a plan to continue full-service hospital care at LICH, said to be a major concern to the community and to Mayor Bill de Blasio, but Brooklyn Health Partners has lacked a state license to operate a hospital, an area where the city's network of hospitals, the Health and Hospitals Corporation, could have provided valuable, non-financial assistance by proposing an HHC affiliation with Brooklyn Health Partners. However, the city never proposed any such affiliation, in spite of it being in the best interest to public health. Meanwhile, time may have run out on Brooklyn Health Partners's bid for LICH, even as Brooklyn Health Partners continues its search for a partnering hospital system, which could, amongst other things, sponsor an operating license.

City and state officials expressed outrage after it was revealed that Brooklyn Health Partners had planned to use a secret plan for massive real estate development on LICH's footprint to subsidize full-service hospital care at LICH, somewhat reminiscent of Rudin Management Company's original plan for St. Vincent's Hospital. The community's painful experience with what Rudin's reckless plans did to St. Vincent's still weighs heavily on the minds of New Yorkers, and that experience may have influenced the city's sudden opposition to Brooklyn Health Partners' plans for LICH. But government officials never sought to provide a combination of restrictions and assistance to the winning bidder for LICH to prevent such drastic real estate speculation in the first place.

Recall how the city rejected the community's demand to "land-lock" the zoning on the property of St. Vincent's Hospital after its final bankruptcy filing. Community activists even organized a sit-in protest over this very issue.

Watch : 4 Community Activists arrested In HANDS OFF ST. VINCENT's protest (YouTube) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcToWCh5VhU

Read more : The end of the full-service hospital in Cobble Hill (Capital New York) : http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544898/end-full-service-hospital-cobble-hill

Adding hospital-only restrictions to the deed(s) of LICH's property, coupled with critical support, like extending HHC's operating license to Brooklyn Health Partners, would have been one way for the city to have responsibly supported its intention to continue full-service hospital care at LICH. Some hold out hope that SUNY will sell LICH to the second-place bidder, Peebles Corporation. But SUNY's governance board, which has been on a months-long scorched earth campaign to sabotage LICH, has no motivation to save the hospital it's been desperately trying to close in a move to appease hospital closing czar Stephen Berger and Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

If by small chance Peebles Corporation is awarded its second-place bid for LICH, it may mark another instance when North Shore-LIJ stands to make financial gains from the closure of another full-service hospital in New York. North Shore-LIJ is a partner in Peebles Corporation' plan to build an urgent care center complex at LICH. As part of the Berger Commission's drive to close St. John's Queens Hospital and Mary Immaculate Hospital, both in Queens, the state Department of Health made a $3.5 million grant to North Shore-LIJ to expand emergency room services at its Forest Hill and Franklin sites. A year later, North Shore-LIJ received another state grant of $5.3 million to open an urgent care center in Rego Park, Queens, following the closures of St. John's and Mary Immaculate. After the closing of St. Vincent's, North Shore-LIJ received yet another $9.4 million grant to open a failed urgent care center in Chelsea. North Shore-LIJ also received for free its use of the old O'Toole Building, which is being redeveloped into a glorified urgent care center in the West Village. Now, North Shore-LIJ may again stand to gain from its venture deal for LICH. The Peebles Corporation plan for LICH involves plans for the development of some luxury housing, providing a financial windfall to the next owners of LICH's valuable real estate. LICH's medical campus sits on land said to be worth as much as $500 million. North Shore-LIJ CEO Michael Dowling served on Gov. Cuomo's Medicaid Redesign Team, which has pushed for further hospital closings on top of the closures made under the previous Berger Commission. There is further appearance of cronyism in ties between Peebles and SUNY. Peebles Corporation is headed by Don Peebles, who has political ties to SUNY chairman H. Carl McCall, Crain's New York Business has reported.

SUNY's disposition of LICH is expected to be made final on May 22.

Read more : SUNY Nixes Deal With Winning Bidder to Run Long Island College Hospital (DNAinfo) : http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140505/cobble-hill/suny-ends-lich-talks-with-brooklyn-health-partners

Read more : Top LICH pitch implodes, leaving luxury developer up next (The Brooklyn Paper) : http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/37/19/dtg-lich-plan-implosion-2014-05-09-bk_37_19.html

Read more : LICH bidder Peebles has ties to SUNY board chair McCall (Crain's New York Business) : http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140402/REAL_ESTATE/140409967/lich-bidder-has-ties-to-suny-board-chair

Thank you for all that you do.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Demand A Hospital
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Subject: Can / Should HHC Save LICH and Interfaith ?
To: Demand A Hospital

Dear All :

Last week, SUNY Board of Trustees chairman Carl McCall offered to hand over Long Island College Hospital (LICH) to New York City once mayor-elect Bill de Blasio takes office, telling The New York Times that “I would love to meet with him and give him the keys to the hospital.” Mr. McCall said of his offer to transfer LICH to the next mayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/nyregion/suny-withdraws-development-plan-for-troubled-brooklyn-hospital.html

In a separate report last week, another SUNY board member was quoted as saying that talks should be explored about possibly transferring LICH to the city's Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303949504579264803802600962

Given recent reports that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the city with a municipal budget surplus of approximately $2.4 billion, should consideration be given to transferring both LICH and Interfaith Medical Center, both located in Brooklyn, to HHC ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio-inherits-2-4b-surplus-challenges-article-1.1553616

Just today, Interfaith won a reprieve of a few more months.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/23/state-steps-in-to-keep-brooklyns-interfaith-medical-center-open/

Perhaps now is the time for the city to consider this stop-gap measure in order to guarantee full-service hospital care for Brooklyn, an option that was never made available for St. Vincent's Hospital by the Bloomberg-Quinn administration ?

If Gov. Andrew Cuomo won't fully fund healthcare in New York State, should we look to municipal resources ? For now, the resources exist at the city level. Since Albany seems intent on abdicating leadership on healthcare, should City Hall take action to finally stabilize city hospitals, so that our hospitals can adequately meet the expanded needs anticipated by new waves of insured patients under Obamacare ? Share your opinions with the mayor-elect at : info@billdeblasio.com

Thank you for all that you do.

P.S. Update on mysterious medical facility. The Lenox Hill urgent care center, which took millions in state money and then closed, was not the medical facility implicated by the Moreland Commission. The questionable facility, which took millions in state funding but failed to provide healthcare, was reportedly revealed to be Relief Resources Inc., and this facility is said to be tied to powerful Albany lobbyists.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/08/brooklyn-agency-fits-description-of-mystery-nonprofit/

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Tell Gov. Andrew Cuomo to stop closing our hospitals : 1 (518) 474-8390

You can also tweet your concerns to Gov. Cuomo at : @NYGovCuomo

A template for jobs growth in France

A new corporate entity type to empower French college graduates

Unemployment in Europe remains stubbornly high. In France, the unemployment rate is 10,4%. The only answer that European central bankers seem to be considering at the moment is rolling-out an American style bond buying-back program known as quantitative easing. Critics of this approach see it as nothing more than a backdoor bailout to large banks by artificially keeping interest rates low, allowing banks to arbitrage their lending as a way to recapitalize their tattered balance sheets. Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank president, is considering whether the ECB should adopt quantitative easing to stimulate banking profits, which he hopes will trickle down into new jobs. What delusion ! The only program that will create jobs is a “jobs creation” program. As it stands, the unemployment picture is only going to get worse. Amongst French youths, aged 15-24, the unemployment rate is 25%, slightly above the European average of 23,5% for that demographic, according to recent statistics. In Greece and Spain, unemployment of youths exceeds 50% ! How can a nation like France attract new investment while at the same time spur employment that is targeted at, let’s say, college-educated youths ?

In France, corporations generally face a high regulatory environment at a very basic level. Small things are over-regulated, like the width of the exterior sidewalks around office buildings, in a culture that resembles to impose a crude version of “broken windows” theory of business regulation that focuses on minutia, but does not focus enough attention at bigger issues, like the systematic way that corporations can exploit workers, for example, like what happened at the Goodyear plant in Amiens-Nord. It’s no wonder that, in this environment, France is losing a gifted young generation of entrepreneurs to other nations. Is there a way, for a period of, say, five to ten years, to incubate new businesses free from some of the most tedious of regulations -- just enough to liberate a creative class of young French citizens -- under a new form of organization to target jobs growth in several cities to jump start a new generation of prosperity ?

Traditional attempts to facilitate foreign investment in France -- the creation of a relatively new type of corporate entity in France, the société par actions simplifiée -- is a vehicle designed to essentially create subsidiaries in France, and this is a recipie for more disasters, where French workers will not achieve autonomy or freedom to create their own successes and instead unfortunately engender hostility. There is room, though, to create a new corporate structure to facilitate responsible investment to create a stronger France. This new structure, which would need to be created by a new law, would work in a new, enthusiastic partnership with the state as a jobs program. The state has a vested interest in seeing to the success of this corporate entity, and as a condition of simplifying some business regulation for a period of duration under this new corporate entity, the state would receive an equity investment in the new structure. Let me explain how this would work.

The state should enact a new law that creates one and only one specialized investment fund similar to a SIF structure with multiple compartments under Luxembourg law. The overall compliance management of the SIF at the umbrella level shall be overseen by a SIF governance committee comprised of, say, government economists and government lawyers, but the French can decide who would be best trusted with this role. Management of each compartment shall be determined by the constitution of each compartment, in accordance with the autonomous arrangement between the collective French workers and the venture capital investor. Each compartment created under the umbrella shall be 20% owned by the state. Forty-percent shall be owned by a venture capitalist, who seeds funding for a respective compartment. The remaining 40% shall be owned by the French workers, who, further organized as a collective for their part, propose a compartment to the SIF governance committee. So long as the workers are organized as a collective, present a business plan, pay a nominal incorporation duty, file a constitution for the compartment, and are sponsored by a venture capitalist willing to invest a minimum of €1 million, the SIF governance committee shall approve the creation of the compartment.

The French workers and the venture capitalist shall have wide latitude to create compartments, but since the social issue that this SIF structure is intended to address is the high unemployment rate of young French adults, the compartments should be geared to the long-term success of business ideas. The constitution of the SIF structure at the umbrella level must commence from its primary purpose : to be an incubation for new businesses. The constitution must also incorporate “public service” as a primary purpose, noting that each compartment formed thereunder shall carry out “socially-responsible business activities.” Since the state is waving some of its regulations to incubate the compartments, each compartment must file yearly financial and governance statements that attest the compliance of business activities to the compartment’s public service purpose. A feature of the SIF constitution must allow for a mechanism for the French public to enforce the “public service” and “socially-responsible business activities” purposes upon each compartment.

Furthermore, restrictions should be put into place in the constitution at the SIF umbrella level governing each underlying compartment : no borrowing of money or assumption of debts will be allowed, neither will be the making of loans. A cap on salaries on the employees set at a prevailing, living wage will be in effect to prevent any high earners to garner more compensation than other workers in the collective. No venture capitalist may be employed as part of the French workers’ collective. The maximum duration that a compartment may exist under this SIF structure shall be, say, five years, after which successful compartments shall exit the SIF structure as a new entity reincorporated as one of the many options then available under French law. No compartment may engage in businesses that may cause direct environmental harm, like industrial manufacturing, oil and gas exploration or production, or other chemical or industrial activities. No compartment may employ lobbyists, nor may any compartment make any politically-related contributions or expenditures. Compartments will be prohibited from influencing government law or policy. Finally, banking, investing, selling or issuing insurance, and development real estate shall be prohibited business activities.

Some will reasonably wonder whether a new corporate structure could facilitate jobs creation with so many restrictions. The immediate answer is that a structure like this could create jobs, because the state is trading less of the over-bearing corporate regulation in exchange for what basically amounts to a silent role as a passive equity investor. The anecdote of Guillaume Santacruz proves that this will be enough. The state gets a financial benefit once a compartment graduates out of the SIF structure. That the state will willingly grant some regulatory waivers to the compartments shows that the state is willing to support the success of the compartments. Others may wonder whether it is wise to give the state a 20% ownership stake in start-up businesses. Can the state be trusted to support start-ups from the inside ? Capped at 20%, the state’s role will solely be passive. The state’s ownership stake will allow the state to recoup any losses that may be incurred by the waiver of regulations. Any gains from successful compartments shall serve to balance any foregone gains from compartments, which do not succeed.

To target job creation, compartments should be formed in urban centers across France, coordinating if possible in priority development zones where there are high concentrations of educated young adults, such as Marseille, Montpellier, Dijon, Lyon, Limoge, Grenoble, Lille, Nantes, Strasbourg, Toulouse, and Paris. Corporate income tax rates would be assessed on each compartment no different than as on a small and medium-sized sociétés anonymes (SME's) under French law. Upon exit from the SIF structure, the state would be paid 20% of the fair market valuation of the compartment. A fair market valuation of the compartment will yield a higher return for the state, especially for Web-based business ventures, given that valuations of such businesses are pegged at their future potential, not on their current profitability. Under normal corporate structures, the public, including the state, miss out on "wealth creation." Under the proposed SIF structure, the state will earn a piece of this wealth, which it can, in turn, use to fund still yet other jobs creation programs or for other public purposes. After exit, the cooperative French workers should own no less than 50% of the surviving entity for a period of five further years. This will prevent the SIF structure from being used as a subsidiary tool by global multi-national corporations and will serve to respect the “cultural exception” of the business activities of the cooperative French workers. After that term, the French collective workers can autonomously decide what to do with their own creation.

Educated young adults, who would naturally find this proposed SIF structure attractive, would be creative types seeking to perhaps start Web-based businesses. These kinds of businesses, which are hot at the moment, tend to attract other young Internet-savvy employees. Who better to spearhead jobs creation for other young adults than creative and ambitious college-educated young adults ? Partnering a new generation of French workers with the state, as this proposed SIF structure contemplates, would reinforce the idea of the state as a valuable partner in the future of the French economy to its next generation of leaders, and it would serve to introduce venture capitalists to the idea that investors can work in collaboration with the French state. Indeed, France has been a magnet for recent foreign investment, making France an ideal candidate to roll-out a program like this.

During the term of the compartments’ existence under the SIF, the role of the state as a 20% owner in each compartment is to monitor the business activities of each compartment solely in respect of major realms of business regulation to prevent fraud, corruption, and other violations of law. The state will have voting rights as an owner of the compartment, but it will not hold a day-to-day management role. It is envisioned that under this proposed SIF structure the state will not interfere with the business activities of the compartments, but the state will, as the SIF’s ultimate regulatory authority, ensure that the compartments are accorded an environment with which to thrive, creating jobs in the process, ultimately serving the wider public service of improving employment and economic conditions in France. Success of this proposed SIF structure and its compartments will contribute to the success of France. By design, if the state can foster an attractive situation to satisfy entrepreneurial French workers to create their own businesses sponsored by venture capitalists, the nation will create a new source of employment for a critical segment of the nation’s population -- it’s next generation of leaders, who will help shape the future of France. The success of this proposed SIF structure will lower unemployment and change corporate culture by focusing investors on their critical role of public service, significant wins for French workers stung by recent corporate culture disasters at Goodyear and elsewhere.

Dalida anniversary remembrance : "Jouez Bouzouki"

Yesterday was the 27th anniversary of famed French singer Dalida's untimely death. At age of , she committed suicide, breaking the hearts of her millions of fans around the world. Here she is in an uplifting dance performance of her 1982 number 1 hit, "Jouez Bouzouki."

• RELATED : Il y a 27 ans, Dalida mettait fin à ses jours (Sud Ouest)

Anne-Marie David sings "Tu te reconnaîtras"

The French singer Anne-Marie David represented Luxembourg in the 1973 Eurovision contest, winning for her performance of what has now become a classic song, "Tu the reconnaîtras." The hit song was composed by Claude Morgan with lyrics from Vline Buggy and conducting by Pierre Cao.

FBI agents seeking to determine if NY-CLASS donors hid Super PAC donations in coordinated effort to influence mayoral election

Federal Investigation Of Campaign Finance Scandal Looks At Coordinated Super PAC Donations

The NYC Is Not for Sale Super PAC TV attack blitz last year against former Council Speaker Christine Quinn brought to the fore years of grassroots discontent and organizing against Speaker Quinn. But FBI agents are investigating whether the hundreds of thousands of Super PAC expenditures were being coordinated behind the scenes by the de Blasio campaign or its surrogates, The New York Daily News reported.

According to federal law, it is illegal for Super PAC's to coordinate their efforts with the official campaigns of political candidates. But on May 21, 2013, the attorney Jay Eisenhofer, who was Mayor de Blasio's largest campaign bundler, gave $50,000 to NY-CLASS, the animal rights group leading the charge to ban horse-drawn carriage. Ten days later, on May 31, NY-CLASS gave an equal amount -- $50,000, to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC. On June 1, NY-CLASS received another large donation, this time for $175,000. It came from UNITE HERE!-- a labor union formerly headed by John Wilhelm, the mayor's cousin. Two days after that, on June 3, NY-CLASS sent the same amount, $175,000, to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, The New York Daily News reported.

If Mr. Eisenhofer and UNITE HERE! contributed directly to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, their involvement would have been made public within weeks because of campaign finance disclosure rules, but because they funneled their contributions through NY-CLASS, Mr. Wilhelm and Mr. Eisenhofer were cloaked in anonymity for months. The trigger for NY-CLASS to disclose their donors did not take place until NY-CLASS began its own campaign expenditures, an event that occurred on Sept. 7, three days before the Sept. 10 mayoral primary, The New York Daily News reported. NY-CLASS finally disclosed the contributions on Sept. 17, 10 days after the primary. The coordinated campaign contributions were first reported by Crain’s New York Business.

• RELATED : FBI investigating donations to NYCLASS from men close to Mayor de Blasio that may have been used toward anti-Christine Quinn campaigners (The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission (NYC : News & Analysis)

Confronted last year about the NYC Is Not For Sale campaign, then candidate de Blasio initially defended NYC Is Not For Sale's attack ads, saying, "People decided to speak out, and that's their legal right. But the fact is in our system, everything can and will be disclosed, and that's what the people require," although, contrary to then candidate de Blasio, the Super PAC got into trouble for failing to fully disclose its activities, as "the people require." At the time, Mr. de Blasio added that he'd be open to later reforming campaign finance laws (presumably after NYC Is Not For Sale sank former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign). "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law. I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system, but so long as the law is the law, people will make choices within it. That is their right, but I will certainly never ask anyone to engage in such behavior." But so far, the mayor has betrayed his campaign promise to reform the loose campaign finance laws that allow Super PAC's to game elections. Furthermore, former Speaker Quinn has appeared to be milking the NY-CLASS scandal to portray herself as a victim of shady campaign finances ; meanwhile, she has a long record of political corruption.

If Mayor de Blasio was a true progressive, he would under take real reforms, like banning all private campaign donations in municipal elections, ending the appointment of municipal campaign finance regulators by politicians, and instituting newer, tougher regulations of campaign consultants/lobbyists. But perhaps Mayor de Blasio needs to protect the status quo of the broken campaign system. Judging by his 2013 campaign strategy, his 2017 reëlection campaign may be predicated on such.

Separate from violating campaign finance laws, the roles of NYC Is Not For Sale, NY-CLASS, and the lobbying firm advising them both -- The Advance Group -- had damaging effects on the opportunity for reform in a post-Quinn municipal government. Because of the independent campaign expenditures that nearly totaled $2 million, the influence of NY-CLASS perverted the ability of other issue reformers from being taken seriously by the media. Witness how the media accepted the controversial appointment of William Bratton as police commissioner, even though he still supports unconstitutional tactics, such as stop-and-frisk and the broken windows theory of policing, which unfairly targets low-income communities and people of color -- but does nothing to combat the white collar crimes by political operatives or by Wall Street. Further, NY-CLASS misappropriated the grassroots work by reform activists, including tenants' rights activists like John Fisher, police reform activists, QUILTBAG civil rights activists, and St. Vincent's Hospital activists, who each had separately and collectively spent years organizing to vote the former Council Speaker Quinn out of office. There was even a serialized book, recounting former Council Speaker Quinn's long record of community and political betrayals.

Casting a further pall on Mayor de Blasio's young administration is the outsized influence of lobbyists in City Hall, coordinating 501(c)(4) political campaign spending by loyal political operatives for his universal pre-kinder initiative with City Hall, his failure to reform the city's campaign finance system, and the reluctance by his administration to answer a FOIL request for records pertaining to possible obstruction of justice in the mayor's efforts to bust one of his campaign supports out of jail.

Outside GLAAD Awards, LGBT activists demand the equal civil rights that ENDA fails to provide

ENDA is NOT equal

At the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, activists from Queer Nation NY held a peaceful "educational leafleting" early Saturday evening, handing out flyers with messaging that demanded equal LGBT civil rights. The flyers, distributed to guests attending a fundraiser to benefit GLAAD, marked a turning point in grassroots LGBT activism in New York City.

GLAAD is a well-funded non-profit group that promotes the positive images of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and trans individuals (LGBT's) in the media, and GLAAD is one of many LGBT organizations that support a Congressional bill, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, that proposes to prohibit employment discrimination based on the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. Some activists, including activists from Queer Nation NY, believe that religious exceptions to the proposed ENDA bill would provide a loophole, enabling any religiously-affiliated employer to legally discriminate against LGBT employees. Furthermore, the ENDA bill fails to prohibit discrimination in the realms of housing, public accommodations, education, and other federal programs.

• RELATED : ENDA is NOT Equal (Queer Nation NY)

Activists from Queer Nation NY estimated that they had distributed 250 flyers to guests of the GLAAD fundraiser, informing GLAAD supporters that grassroots LGBT activists were seeking "comprehensive civil rights legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes" instead of "piecemeal stopgap legislation." Among the GLAAD guests receiving Queer Nation NY's ENDA-themed flyers were author and political operative David Mixner, gossip personality Perez Hilton, and members of The Imperial Court of New York.

While activists were distributing ENDA-educational flyers outside the storied Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, a man with visible health issues pushed a cart up Park Avenue and collected recyclables from a public garbage can near the main entrance to the hotel.

Support for ENDA, with its religious exemption shortcomings, has been a source of controversy amongst LGBT groups. Last year, a leading LGBT grassroots activism group, GetEQUAL, raised concerns about the religious exemptions to ENDA. But big money LGBT groups, like the Human Rights Campaign, support ENDA with its broad religious loopholes. ENDA has been passed by the U.S. Senate, but it has not been able to be passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Since the House is controlled by rightwing Republicans, the likelihood of ENDA passing is remote, leading some activists to press President Barack Obama to adopt ENDA by executive order. In spite of President Obama's support for ending employment discrimination, he has balked from standing by his principles, creating a pause in ENDA-centered organizing that has allowed grassroots LGBT activists to see how imperfect ENDA really is. That activists from Queer Nation NY are now peacefully leafletting outside big money LGBT group fundraisers points to a new expectation amongst grassroots activists.

Instead of settling for imperfect legislation, activists from Queer Nation NY, along with other activists, are making another push for a comprehensive federal LGBT civil rights bill. Prior to Queer Nation NY's recent demonstrations, activists with the grassroots group QueerSOS undertook a more aggressive effort in 2010 when they occupied the public sidewalk outside Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign office, demanding that she express support for a bill to update the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would extend equal civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The 2010 activism, which would later motivate an activist to fast, was insufficient to move Sen. Gillibrand to stand up for full LGBT federal equality. Prior to that, the entrenched big money LGBT groups, sometimes derided as "Gay Inc.," have essentially controlled the LGBT narrative in Washington.

The modern-day idea for a comprehensive LGBT civil rights legislation can be traced back to when U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Edward Koch introduced in 1974 in Congress a "federal bill to ban discrimination against lesbians, gay men, unmarried persons and women in employment, housing and public accommodations," according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. That bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974, originated as a project of the Task Force, but the bill failed to garner enough support to ever pass Congress.

Grassroots LGBT civil rights groups are now trying to raise the consciousness of big money LGBT groups like GLAAD and HRC on the importance of introducing draft Congressional legislation to codify comprehensive equal LGBT civil rights laws.

Preet Bharara Expands Crackdown on Political Corruption, Empanels Grand Jury, Subpoenas JCOPE Complaints [UPDATED]

PUBLISHED : WED, 30 APR 2014, 09:51 PM
UPDATED : TUES, 05 MAY 2014, 10:30 AM

"Bharara’s broadening probe of pay-to-play Albany corruption is sure to send shockwaves through the state capital in an election year."

Weeks after Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, took possession of the investigation files of the now defunct Moreland Commission, the corruption-fighting prosecutor has empaneled a grand jury that has now subpoenaed each of the complaints lodged with the state's ethics panel known as the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, or JCOPE, and the records from members of the aborted Moreland Commission.

• RELATED : Federal prosecutors' grand jury issues another subpoena, this time seeking emails, text messages, and other records from all the members of the anti-corruption Moreland Commission that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo abruptly disbanded for political reasons. (U.S. Said to Seek Records From Anticorruption Panel’s Members * The New York Times)
• RELATED : Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara, who is waging a crackdown on political corruption in New York, has requested all the complaints of wrong-doing filed against public officials with the state’s ethics panel, Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), sources told The New York Post. (Feds widen crackdown on New York political corruption * The New York Post)

Mr. Bharara's subpoena of the JCOPE complaints will give him a larger understanding of the corruption landscape across New York state. JCOPE has existed since 2011, and it was tasked with investigating ethics complaints of the state's executive and legislative branches. Against the JCOPE complaints, the federal prosecutor's office will be able to match, supplement, or cross-reference the aborted Moreland Commission investigations. And the fact that Mr. Bharara empaneled a grand jury means that federal prosecutors are seeking criminal indictments in possible connection with the aborted Moreland Commission corruption investigations. Whatever the USAO learns from the JCOPE complaints and commission member records may be the "icing on the cake," so to speak, to garnish other corruption evidence that federal prosecutors may have been able to independently gather from prior wiretaps, other investigations, and possible whistleblower-activists.

The U.S. Attorney's Office has been resoundingly criticized for the apparent free pass to Wall Street following the 2008 global financial crisis and recession. The media, notably PBS's Frontline, showed that the U.S. Department of Justice's Washington office, known as Main Justice, was compromised by officials, such as Lanny Breuer, who refused to prosecute top Wall Street executives. Even Attorney General Eric Holder, who oversees the DOJ and advises the USAO's district offices, created a scandal when he confirmed the Obama administration's aversion to prosecuting corrupt Wall Street executives, known colloquially as "too big to jail," validating a Frontline investigation and widespread public perception. Indeed, Main Justice appears to serve as a revolving door recruitment outpost for large, wealthy law firms representing corrupt Wall Street executives. For his part, Mr. Bharara has bemoaned the Washington budget cuts to the USAO that many government reform activists claim are intentionally made to curtail regulatory oversight and criminal prosecution of corruption, but some activists believe that Mr. Bharara never prosecuted Wall Street corruption stemming from the 2008 financial crisis and recession due to his close ties to Sen. Charles Schumer, who many see as enabling the corruption culture on Wall Street. Mr. Bharara's political career came to prominence when he served as chief counsel to Sen. Schumer, making the senator the prosecutor's "political daddy." Mr. Bharara has also carried out his own oppression against whistleblowers when he prosecuted Jeremy Hammond for exposing corruption by Strategic Forecasting, part of the DOJ's larger persecution of whistleblowers, including government whistleblowers. The DOJ was further seen to have become politicized under President Obama and Attorney General Holder, when the DOJ began to target journalists in an effort to undermine a free press whilst carrying out the government's vindictive prosecution of whistleblowers. Separately, the DOJ was shown to stall a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records about its vindictive prosecution of activists.

• RELATED : The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission (NYC : News & Analysis)
• RELATED : The Nexus of Campaign Donations, Super PAC's, and Legislation : de Blasio's Mayoral Race and the Delayed Horse-Drawn Carriage Ban (UPDATED) (NYC : News & Analysis)
• RELATED : Permanent government political operative insider and former fundraiser for Mayor de Blasio now earning $8,000 per month advising City Hall (The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : Ex-member of Moreland Commission says there are cases of potential government corruption that need review (The New York Daily News)
• RELATED : In the midst of the Moreland Commission investigation of corruption in state government, Gov. Andrew Cuomo disbanded its members and ended their investigation, a give-away for the complicit who faced exposure. (Gov. Cuomo abandons principles of Moreland Act * Press Connects/Gannett)

Locally, it is supposed to be the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, who is supposed to oversee the criminal prosecution of political and corporate corruption. He works for the New York State attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. Both D.A. Vance and Mr. Schneiderman have pretty much abdicated corruption prosecution to Mr. Bharara. More so than the others, D.A. Vance is vulnerable to the political realities of how he can run for office. District attorneys in the five boroughs of New York run for office with the approval of the local county political organization. Since New York is overwhelmingly a Democratic Party enclave, the county Democratic Party chair of each borough must approve of each respective district attorney candidate running for office, meaning D.A. Vance would not dare sacrifice his political career by prosecuting political corruption of officials, operatives, or lobbyists loyal to the county political organization that approves of his candidacy. That is to say, D.A. Vance will not prosecute candidates for public office, who may be engaged in questionable electioneering activities and who run with approval of the Manhattan Democratic Party chair, otherwise he risks alienating himself from his own political supporters. Instead, D.A. Vance touts his prosecution record against activists, paralleling the DOJ's own suppression campaign against activists.

Mr. Bharara's crackdown on political corruption may be his way of being able to attack the special interest money and lobbyists of large corrupt corporations, at least as they intersect with government officials, one activist said. Plus, it allows him to restore his reputation for prosecutorial independence after his and others' failures at the USAO and the DOJ. It also separates Mr. Bharara from D.A. Vance's failure to prosecute corruption of either Wall Street or elected officials.

The increased prosecution of New York political corruption cases by Mr. Bharara is taking place during the run-up to this year's state-wide election cycle, and it follows a spectacular spree of federal political corruption arrests of officials from City Hall to Albany. With the added access to JCOPE complaints and commission member records to augment his trove of Moreland Commission investigation files, Mr. Bharara may now be poised to lead a historical renewal of government integrity, regardless of his motivation. For all of Mr. Bharara's imperfections, activists in New York have not pressed the Obama administration to reform the USAO and the DOJ. Mr. Bharara's like Batman in "The Dark Knight" : not the hero that Gotham needs, but, rather, the hero Gotham deserves.

Will JCOPE subpoenas show complaints against The Committee to Save New York, ie, any donor ties to Cuomo campaign ? http://t.co/HeOKDfvzAh

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) May 1, 2014

United Nations Free & Equal Bollywood Campaign Video for "The Welcome"

Changing Hearts and Minds

The United Nations "Free & Equal" campaign presents the first-ever Bollywood music video for equal QUILTBAG rights, featuring Bollywood star and Miss India winner Celina Jaitly. Like and share if you believe everyone should be welcomed into their family's hearts, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Nexus of Campaign Donations, Super PAC's, and Legislation : de Blasio's Mayoral Race and the Delayed Horse-Drawn Carriage Ban [UPDATED]

3 Back-to-Back Days of Sordid Coverage in The New York Daily News

---

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: SUN, 27 APR 2014, 08:00 AM

The FBI questioned ex-Council Speaker Christine Quinn in its probe of alleged carriage horse conniving during last year’s mayoral race, The New York Daily News has learned. (FBI asks Christine Quinn about vicious attack ads launches by animal rights group, probes de Blasio's flip-flop on carriage ban as inquiry widens. * The New York Daily News)

---

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: FRI, 25 APR 2014, 11:30 PM

FBI agents have been questioning people about each of the pledge then mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio made in March 2013 and the ads launched the following month by animal rights activists attacking former Council Speaker Christine Quinn (far right), The New York Daily News is reporting, adding that FBI agents also appear interested in a $175,000 contribution to the animal rights group NY-CLASS from a union tied to de Blasio's cousin, labor leader John Wilhelm (center). (FBI investigation of mayoral race includes Bill de Blasio's pledge to ban carriage horses * The New York Daily News)

---

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: FRI, 25 APR 2014, 09:50 AM

In the past few weeks, FBI agents have been asking questions about the campaign by the animal rights group NY-CLASS to strong arm former Council Speaker Christine Quinn (center) to support a ban on the iconic horse-drawn carriages, two sources familiar with the matter told The New York Daily News. The horse lobbyists in question include Scott Levenson, and they are linked to Mayor Bill de Blasio (inset). This isn't Mr. Levenson's first time in the crosshairs of a serious political corruption investigation. Five years ago, Mr. Levenson was an official of ACORN, a community group that was charged with voter registration fraud. (FBI investigating claim that Christine Quinn was threatened by Scott Levenson for refusing to support carriage horse ban during the mayoral race * The New York Daily News)

---

PUBLISHED : WED, 23 APR 2014, 11:00 AM
UPDATED : TUES, 29 APR 2014, 09:35 AM

On Richard French Live, Andrew Whitman, Dominic Carter, Jeanne Zaino, and former Rep. Chris Shays engaged in a round table discussion about the controversial role of a Super PAC in last year's mayoral election that has cast a lingering shadow in the current discussions on a delayed proposed ban of horse-drawn carriages in New York City.

What is truly delaying the horse-drawn carriage ban : is it the lack of a draft legislative bill, or is it the federal definition of bribery ?

Two weeks ago, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that his planned ban of the horse carriage industry in New York City has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances, but the circumstances he identified did not include the investigation into the lobbyist Scott Levenson and his lobbying firm, The Advance Group.

• RELATED : Were possible coordination of independent expenditures and free gifts of lobbying services between The Advance Group, NYCLASS, the de Blasio mayoral campaign, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race violations of federal laws ? Will the Moreland Commission investigate possible campaign corruption ? (The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission * NYC : News & Analysis)
• RELATED : The mayor and his Council speaker, who both reject checks-and-balances, oversee city campaign regulators nominally tasked to investigate campaign corruption of groups with close ties to the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration. (Scott Levenson, NY-CLASS, Citizens United Super PAC Investigation * NYC : News & Analysis)
• RELATED : Mayor de Blasio says the horse-drawn carriage ban will have to wait (The New York Daily News)

The Advance Group is at the center of an investigation by city campaign finance regulators over the circuitous flow of campaign cash between Super PAC's and official campaigns administered by The Advance Group. But many government reform activists do not have confidence in the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board. The Campaign Finance Board is governed by a Board that routinely makes politically-motivated rulings. For example, last year former Council Speaker Christine Quinn returned what were believed to be $25,000 in straw donations connected to the corruption case of William Rapfogel, and just last week the de Blasio campaign offered to return illegal straw campaign donations -- an option the Campaign Finance Board never gave Mr. de Blasio's challenger, former city Comptroller John Liu, over the same infraction. Few reform activists believe that the Campaign Finance Board's chair, Rose Gill Hearn, who let the massive CityTime fraud scandal exceed $600 million on her watch as head of the city's Department of Investigation, is capable of carrying out thorough corruption investigations of any kind. Cementing the impression that the city campaign finance regulatory authority is incapable of investigating possible campaign corruption at City Hall is the fact that the authority's board is appointed by the mayor and the City Council speaker. Consequently, a blogger filed a civilian crime report with the U.S. Attorney's Office, asking federal prosecutors to investigate the electioneering activities of The Advance Group for possible federal crimes. Mr. Levenson has close ties to both the mayor and to the City Council speaker, and Mr. Levenson administered a million dollar Super PAC to defeat former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's mayoral campaign at the same time when the Super PAC's donors were seen to be closely allied with Mr. de Blasio's mayoral campaign. It is against federal law for Super PAC's to coordinate their independent expenditures with the political campaigns of candidates, but The New York Daily News reported this week that last summer two of Mr. de Blasio's top financial supporters contributed a total of $225,000 to NY-CLASS -- on the same day.

"One of the givers was his cousin, John Wilhelm, then head of the union group UNITE HERE!, which wrote out a check for $175,000 to NYCLASS — the biggest contribution NYCLASS had ever received. The other was Jay Eisenhoffer, an attorney. Wilhelm and Eisenhoffer both acted as 'intermediaries' for de Blasio’s campaign, collecting $165,000 for him, records show," The New York Daily News reported.

Equally troubling for Mr. Levenson and his lobbying firm is that they provided free lobbying services for Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign at the same time when Mr. Levenson, along with his Super PAC's and their donors, were pressing for the city to enact a horse-drawn carriage ban. Under federal law, if a lobbyist pays money or makes a gift to an elected official and asks for a favor of the elected official, that's enough to prove a bribe has been transacted. On or about the time when The Advance Group was advising Councilmember Mark-Viverito on her speakership campaign, Councilmember Mark-Viverito established a campaign finance account with the state campaign finance regulatory authority, the Board of Elections, in betrayal of the spirit of campaign finance laws which act to minimize the corruptive role of money in politics. Prior to opening the Board of Elections account, Councilmember Mark-Viverito had already drawn down an entire fundraising cycle of regulated campaign contributions, subjects to fundraising caps, spending limits, and public matching dollar eligibility, in order to win her reëlection to the City Council. Her opening of a second campaign account through the Board of Elections was unprecedented. No law was changed to allow Councilmember Mark-Viverito to establish her Council speakership campaign finance account with the Board of Elections, and it is believed that her predecessor, former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, as corrupt as many activists believed Ms. Quinn to be, never flagrantly violated the spirit of campaign finance laws to this same extreme degree. Moreover, the free lobbying services provided by The Advance Group to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign were never declared as in-kind contributions to the Campaign Finance Board or to the Board of Elections, even though the law requires that donations of services or other gifts to campaign committees must be declared and disclosed. Perhaps to further deceive campaign finance regulators, Councilmember Mark-Viverito publicly announced that she had fired The Advance Group from her speakership campaign after The Advance Group became engulfed in a series of corruption investigations by bloggers and mainstream media, but the truth is that The Advance Group kept working on her speakership campaign, contrary to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's statements to the press. NY-CLASS has a long history with Councilmember Mark-Viverito, stretching back to at least 2010, when she co-sponsored legislation pushed by NY-CLASS to phase out the horse-drawn carriages.

Now that The Advance Group faces at the prospect of more than one investigation into its questionable electioneering activities, the mayor and the Council speaker have delayed the enactment of the horse-drawn carriage ban in a political move some consider to be a possible cover-up of the quid pro quo nature of the crucial roles that The Advance Group's Super PAC monies and its free lobbying services played in the election of the mayor and the selection of the Council speaker, respectively.

To manufacture a delay in the horse carriage ban bill, Councilmember Daniel Dromm has been nominally tasked with the bill's drafting, striking back at Queens Democratic Party officials with whom he broke during the Council speaker race

Queens Democrats have historically supported the horse carriage industry, at least since the time when Thomas Manton was chair of the Queens Democratic Party. After Councilmember Daniel Dromm's recent break with Queens County Democrats during the Council speaker race, the councilmember now very publicly opposes the horse carriage industry -- and ranking Queens Democratic Party officials.

Word on the street for many years was that the reason that former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wouldn't support a ban on horse-drawn carriages was because the former chair of the Queens County Democratic Party, former Rep. Thomas Manton, was allied with the horse carriage drivers, who are unionized, making them a natural constituency group.

After Mr. Manton passed away, Rep. Joseph Crowley, became chair of the Queens County Democratic Party. Councilmember Dromm was elected to his post in 2009 as an insurgent candidate without the institutional support of the county Democrats. Recently, Councilmember Dromm and his close colleague, Councilmember James Van Bramer, turned their backs on the Council speaker candidate, Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, who had the support of their former fellow Queens County Democrats. Therefore, Councilmember Dromm's break with his Democratic Party peers in respect of the proposed horse-drawn carriage ban is adding to the bad blood created during the schism over the recent Council speaker race, perhaps indication of a lingering resentment stemming from his unsupported 2009 race for City Council. All this unnecessary political agita.

• RELATED : HORSE BILL SCOOP -- Capital New York’s Gloria Pazmino and Sally Goldenberg : “A controversial bill to ban horse-drawn carriages, which became a flashpoint in the mayor's race last year, is being drafted in the City Council … The bill's main sponsor will be Councilman Danny Dromm, a Queens Democrat.” (City Council Drafts Horse-Carrige Bill - Subscription Required * Capital New York)
• RELATED : Queens Democrat Daniel Dromm is the primary author of the horse-carriage legislation, which Mayor Bill de Blasio has promised to pass. (Horse-and-Carriage Bill to Hit City Council * Animal New York)

Stalling the horse carriage ban bill gives the mayor a political cover story to explain his backpedaling.

A few critics of the mayor's promise to ban the horse-drawn carriage industry point to the special interests that Edison Properties LLC and its former chief executive officer, Steve Nislick, have in emptying the land being used as horse stables by the carriage trade.

At the other end of this fight are animal rights activists, who are trying to change the hearts and minds of the public about animal rights. Animal rights activists make the noble argument that horses have no place in Midtown Manhattan traffic, given the many examples of traffic accidents, injuries, and even deaths caused by what they see as inhumane conditions.

But the real issue of the delay in the ban, the use of the drafting of a bill as a stalling tactic, and the mayor's changing of the timeline to ban the horse-drawn carriages from his first day in office to sometime later this year comes down to investigations of a campaign consulting and lobbying group at the center of the issue's swift rise to prominence.

The Advance Group, headed by the lobbyist Scott Levenson, administered a Super PAC largely funded by donors loyal to Mr. de Blasio to defeat his chief challenger in last year's mayoral race, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The Super PAC donors also included advocates pressing for the horse-drawn carriage ban. Mr. Levenson also advised the 501(c)(4) non-profit animal rights group named New Yorkers for Clean, Livable and Safe Streets, or NY-CLASS, which was conveniently founded by Mr. Nislick, the real estate developer. Mr. Levenson also authorized his firm to provide free lobbying services to Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito in her successful bid to be selected as the current City Council speaker. Any legislative ban, once Councilmember Dromm has finished drafting the bill, must have Speaker Mark-Viverito's support. Thanks to Mr. Levenson's crucial support during her speakership campaign, Speaker Mark-Viverito is now indebted to The Advance Group's legislative asks. To cement The Advance Group's role at the nexus for campaign donations, Super PAC spending, and lobbying services that benefitted the mayor and the Council speaker, The Advance Group also is a paid lobbyist to Edison Properties LLC. Edison Properties LLC stands to benefit from banning the horse-drawn carriage trade from the closure of the carriage horses' stables, which would free up that space, which Edison Properties LLC covets, for possible zone-busting real estate development. The Advance Group is getting paid or has positioned itself to benefit from each side of the mayor's promise to ban the horse-drawn carriage trade. And, as if to compensate for The Advance Group's undeclared in-kind contribution of free lobbying services to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's Council speakership race, Edison Properties LLC paid The Advance Group $15,000 at the start of this year, potentially coinciding with the end of Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership electioneering campaign.

This wouldn't be the first time that allegations involving The Advance Group using a third-party vehicle to structure a payment stream that has, at times, over-lapped with services The Advance Group was providing to a political campaign. The Advance Group became implicated in questionable electioneering work on behalf of City Council Candidate Igor Oberman. "Last April, records show, Mr. Oberman signed off on a six-month, $45,000 lobbying contract with the Advance Group for the portion of the massive Coney Island co-op he runs a part of, Trump Village, at the same time the Advance Group was running Mr. Oberman's political campaign, separately earning $73,000," reported Crain's Insider muckraking journalist Chris Bragg. Mr. Bragg also uncovered The Advance Group's use of a fictitious political consulting firm to help obscure its backroom Super PAC political machinations during last year's municipal elections.

Last year, The New York Daily News examined how politicians and lobbyists are "often connected at the hip" as a consequence of campaign consultants doubling as lobbyists, a troubling situation that is "raising alarms for ethics watchdogs." Among the two-timing campaign consultants/lobbyists singled-out in the article was The Advance Group.

Against the backdrop of The Advance Group proverbially "jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," to borrow Matt Tiabbi's famous phrase, is the crackdown on political corruption being waged by federal prosecutors in New York. Although city and state laws have not kept up with the corruptive role of campaign consultants doubling as lobbyists, federal laws make it easy to prosecute criminal cases against corrupt lobbyists.

Based on the federal definition of a bribe, a corrupt lobbyist doesn’t have to get payback to be guilty. A corrupt lobbyist just has to pay money (like, perhaps, steer donations or make a valuable gift, like the undeclared free provision of lobbying services) to a political candidate or an elected official, and then make an ask for a legislative favour for the lobbyist's client. That’s it : that's sufficient to make the corrupt lobbyist guilty.

No matter how long the mayor or the City Council delay the legislative ban on horse-drawn carriages, or whether the ban ever comes to fruition, it may not have any impact on a possible federal bribery charge, if that is what federal prosecutors find what happened between The Advance Group in respect of the mayor's promise to ban the horse-drawn carriage trade. Perhaps that is why one saw the Editorial Board of The New York Times trying to persuade the mayor earlier this month into abandoning the horse-drawn carriage ban, because the editors suspect that legal troubles may lay ahead.

Since city and state prosecutors are known to rarely, if ever, prosecute public corruption cases involving lobbyists and other corrupt political insiders, and with the notable disbanding of the Moreland Commission, the loose city and state laws that permit shady lobbying activities will not govern any federal review of possibly illegal campaign finance and bribery activities that may apply to The Advance Group's role in the drive to ban carriage horses, no matter how noble the cause may be to animal rights activists.

HORSE POLITICS -- “Mayor de Blasio's position on horse carriages switched as the cash rolled in” by News’ Greg Smith: De Blasio switched positions on the issue, first expressing doubt about a potential ban and later embracing it. Along the way, he pocketed $45,000 in a stream of campaign checks from the anti-carriage crowd, a Daily News review found.

“He was also the beneficiary of a highly choreographed media blitz against his chief rival for City Hall — former Council Speaker Christine Quinn — an effort funded to a great extent by the anti-carriage crowd. … De Blasio’s spokesman, Phil Walzak, did not respond Tuesday to questions about the donations. …

“Checks from anti-carriage supporters like [Wendy] Neu, NYCLASS co-founder Stephen Nislick and others continued through 2009 and into 2010. Meanwhile, de Blasio — then public advocate — stayed neutral when dueling laws to either reform or simply ban the carriages popped up in the City Council. …

“By January 2011, NYCLASS supporters had written $20,400 in checks to de Blasio. One month later, he came around for the first time, declaring support for an outright carriage ban in a Huffington Post story.” (Mayor de Blasio's position on horse carriages switched as the cash rolled in * The New York Daily News with Summary by Capital New York)

The horse-drawn carriage ban is about more than just a corrupt real estate deal for the horse stables ; it's emblematic of a broken political system that keeps giving permanent government insider lobbyists access to elected officials.

The common denominator to the public corruption cases being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office are the corrupt political operatives that grease the wheels of government.

• RELATED : When he was running for mayor, Bill de Blasio made a lot of campaign promises. One of them was making government more transparent, but after nearly four months in office, he has not gotten around to at least one of those promises: disclosing meetings with lobbyists. (Mayor Has Not Gotten Around to His Promise to Disclose Meetings With Lobbyists * NY1)
• RELATED : Mayor Bill de Blasio will attend a closed-door meeting of the City Council's Democratic conference on Thursday, several sources said. (Mayor de Blasio to Attend a Closed-Door City Council Meeting * Capital New York)
• RELATED : By Approving Double Electioneering Accounts For Melissa Mark-Viverito, Did Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ? (NYC : News & Analysis)

Equally important, it seems, is another of the mayor's broken campaign promises : to reform the municipal campaign finance system, which The New York Times recently described as open to manipulation.

William Rapfogel : Another corrupt bundler of campaign contributions exploiting the @NYCCFB matching dollar system. http://t.co/es6EFlwAc8

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) April 23, 2014

The corruptive influence of Super PAC money in the last municipal election cycle is no more different than the role that big money donations have on government policy.

Ironically, one of the many TV attack ads that the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC administered by Mr. Levenson broadcast about former Speaker Quinn focused on the $30,000 in campaign contributions she received from the family that controls the Rudin Management Company, a large New York City real estate developer.

When NYC Is Not For Sale asked voters how could they support Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign for allowing the role of big money donors to influence the luxury condo development that is replacing St. Vincent's Hospital, it could very well ask a version of the same question of the role of the Super PAC money influencing Mayor de Blasio's policy on the proposed horse-drawn carriage ban.

• RELATED : The TV attack ad from NYC is Not for Sale 2013 slams Speaker Quinn for supporting zoning changes that cleared path for hospital closure. (SEE IT: New ad blasts Christine Quinn for role in closing of St. Vincent’s Hospital * The New York Daily News)

In the wake of the three days of back-to-back reporting by The New York Daily News, the mayor keeps denying he had any role in coordinating the corrupt Super PAC spending. Confronted last year about the NYC Is Not For Sale campaign, then candidate de Blasio initially defended NYC Is Not For Sale's attack ads, saying, "People decided to speak out, and that's their legal right. But the fact is in our system, everything can and will be disclosed, and that's what the people require," although, contrary to then candidate de Blasio, the Super PAC got into trouble for failing to fully disclose its activities, as "the people require." At the time, Mr. de Blasio added that he'd be open to later reforming campaign finance laws (presumably after NYC Is Not For Sale sank former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign). "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law. I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system, but so long as the law is the law, people will make choices within it. That is their right, but I will certainly never ask anyone to engage in such behavior." But so far, the mayor has betrayed his campaign promise to reform the loose campaign finance laws that allow Super PAC's to game elections. Furthermore, former Speaker Quinn has appeared to be milking the NY-CLASS scandal to portray herself as a victim of shady campaign finances ; meanwhile, she has a long record of political corruption.

How can we clean up our election process from the scourge of big-money special interest donors, corrupt Super PAC's, and double-dealing lobbyists ?

The only answer to clean elections is to ban all private campaign contributions, to fully fund elections with public money, and to institute stricter regulations on campaign consultants and lobbyists. If Mayor de Blasio were a true progressive, he would ban all private campaign contributions in New York City elections as a model for what a new era of real government reform looks like, setting a pattern that could be spread to the rest of the nation. Learn more about why advocates for "clean money" elections want to ban private donations.

While an outright overturning of the corruptive role of Citizens United may be technically impossible to create at a municipal level, there are other actions that City Hall can still nonetheless undertake. Municipal lawmakers and the mayor can repeal the law passed by former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, which weakened campaign finance regulations. There are other municipal steps that can be taken to roll back the corruptive influence that lobbyists and big business and special interest money have on local elections : (i) reforming the do-nothing Campaign Finance Board ; (ii) pressuring progressives to enforce transparency ; (iii) improving Speakership electioneering reporting to make it more difficult for candidates to jurisdiction shop to obfuscate disclosure ; (iv) ending loopholes that allow subcontractor operatives to skirt disclosure requirements ; and (v) ending the provision of free campaign services, including for the Speakership. There are still yet other local reforms that the city can enact. Another important reform that the mayor and the City Council can swiftly enact is to close the corrupt "messaging" cloaking loophole for lobbyists.

• RELATED : A federal judge struck down New York State’s limit on contributions to independent expenditure groups that spend money supporting political candidates, a move that promises to escalate the corrupt, big-money donor spending by so-called "Super PAC's" in state races. (Corrupt Federal Judge, Appointed by President George W. Bush, Rejects New York Limit on Donations to ‘Super PACs’ * The New York Times)
• RELATED : Common Cause/NY calls for Super PAC's to be required to disclose their top five donors on all public materials. (Common Cause on NY Jobs Now contributors * The Times Union).

One of the principal gains made during the Progressive Era was the spread of voter referenda in state governments across the United States to counteract the outsized influence of corporations on determining government policy. Referenda gave voters a direct say in specific and important government issues, and because corporations now exert so much power over government, people should be given a direct say in corporate governance. The mayor and his municipal legislators should consider enacting a law requiring all corporations domiciled or doing business in New York City, especially those doing business with the governments, to enact reforms to their operative agreements or corporate charters that incorporate "public service" and "socially responsible investing" as business purposes and to create a public, binding stakeholder resolution process to allow city stakeholders to enforce the corporation’s "public service" and "socially responsible investing" business purposes in the way the corporation does business. A stakeholder resolution process would give voters an access point to exert public pressure on corporations to enforce compliance with public ethics. This kind of scrutiny would end the flimsy self-regulation of corporate social responsibility and create public involvement to compel true social responsibility as an influencing purpose on the governance of corporations. Other reforms that the mayor and municipal legislators could consider would be to pressure prosecutors to enforce anti-trust laws against corporations that exert monopolistic-like powers, most especially the typical special interest corporations like public and private money center banks, insurance companies, and real estate developers based right here in New York City. If Mayor de Blasio and the City Council have become too corrupted by their teams of campaign consultants and lobbyists-operatives to enact these kinds of legislative reforms, perhaps the U.S. Attorney's Office can "defeat" the culture of corruption by changing corporate culture by stipulating to these and other novel kinds of reform measures into consented court orders, settlement agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, or other plea agreements with criminally corrupt corporations. Since City Hall and the City Council have become corrupted by the influence of big money donors and corrupt lobbyists, the U.S. Attorney's Office can and should take the lead, through its court cases, to help right our democracy. The U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the teams of federal prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office is far from being free from political influence. Witness how the DOJ is stalling on a very important Freedom of Information Act Request pertaining to the wrongful targeting of activists for federal prosecution, and other examples of how President Barack Obama has politicized the DOJ. Even within this imperfect system, hopefully a few brave leaders like Preet Bharara and Loretta Lynch, the top federal prosecutors for Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively, can help reform the DOJ -- and our broader government.

Voters can also learn more about campaign finance reform activist Howie Hawkins' gubernatorial campaign for ideas of what it would look like to reform our corrupt campaign finance system.

---

QUESTIONING THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD With John Liu's lawsuit against New York City over conflicted city campaign finance regulators, this makes three federal referrals of elections violations, forcing Mayor de Blasio to lawyer-up, recruit special inside election counsel. After a wave of federal complaints that have been lodged over electioneering violations in last year's municipal elections, Mayor Bill de Blasio has hired a special legal advisor specializing in election law. RELATED : Henry Berger, a longtime election lawyer, previously served as election counsel to Bill de Blasio during his 2009 public advocate campaign, has been appointed to be "special counsel" to the mayor. (Election Lawyer Hired As Special Council To Mayor Bill de Blasio * City & State) Since Mayor de Blasio and City Council Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and/or their political operatives, are entangled in some of these federal complaints, it should come as no surprise that Mayor de Blasio is now maneuvering to use his public office to defend himself against allegations of wrong-doing that took place during the electioneering of last year's municipal elections.

The three federal complaints lodged following last year's municipal elections : GOP consultant E. O'Brien Murray argued to the State Department that Patrick Gaspard, a former top White House aide with a deep history in Gotham politics, violated the federal Hatch Act by getting involved in Mayor de Blasio's campaign -- and City Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito's subsequent election as speaker -- while representing the U.S. in South Africa. (GOP Operative Files Hatch Act Complaint Against U.S. Ambassador Patrick Gaspard * The New York Daily News) Louis Flores, a local political gadfly who ran a blog and wrote a book criticizing Christine Quinn, has filed a complaint with U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s criminal division against Scott Levenson and The Advance Group consulting firm, which came under deep scrutiny during the mayoral campaign. (Federal Complaint Filed Against The Advance Group for Election Work * Politicker) Former New York City Comptroller and failed mayoral candidate John Liu has filed a federal lawsuit against the city and its Campaign Finance Board. He says the board unfairly crippled his campaign by denying him matching funds in last year's race for mayor. (Ex-NYC mayor hopeful sues Campaign Finance Board * AP/The San Francisco Chronicle)

---