Daily News Finds The City Council Colored With Money

As if we needed yet another reason for Clean Money, Clean Elections, the NY Daily News has highlighted the problem of money in politics at the level of the New York City Hall. The article won't surprise you, might not even shock you, but it is disappointing to anyone and everyone that believes those we elect to public office should make decisions based on what is best for their constituents and not just their campaign donors. Unfortunately, that is just not the case for many City Council members.

From The NY Daily News:

Councilwoman Maria del Carmen Arroyo got $33,500 from employees of a developer building a 600-unit apartment complex and shopping center in the Bronx.

Thirty-eight of the 51 Council members got some campaign cash from nonprofits to which they steered millions of dollars in taxpayer funding. The News found contributions of at least $200,000 from nonprofit employees and some board members in the last four years.

Nearly all the donations are legal, but special-interest donors often skirt the law by bundling checks from a company or corporation to raise more money. It is illegal for the bundler to repay the “donors” because that would mask the source of the funds.

Veteran lobbyist George Arzt and his colleagues at George Arzt Communications have given more than $23,000 to 17 Council members since 2005. He concedes that as long as people believe they need to contribute to have influence, the money will flow — and some pols will take advantage.

“There are elected officials who, believe it or not, will hand you [an invitation to] a fund-raiser when you leave their office [after a lobbying visit],” Arzt said. “I’m genuinely embarrassed when that happens."

And Maria Carmen del Arroyo is just one of many names listed within the piece. Bill de Blasio, Melinda Katz, Diaz, Baez, (current Public Advocate candidate) Gioia and even Garodnick. Though Garodnick was an odd twist in the story, because it highlights people raising money to stop the bullying developers that largely dictate policy in this city. I get that it is about money in politics, but that one is a stretch. Overall the Daily News does a good job. I'd mention that Chris Quinn is a big elephant in the room that they missed, but the article promised to highlight the slush fund scandal in their next investigative piece.

After an extended blogging break, I'm back at keyboard ready to type. Though I'll probably post less in the coming months, I've felt less connected to the news I've read over the last three weeks so it is something I'll keep at.

Newsday Gets It On Pay To Play Politics

Ah the term "pay to play," always has an interesting ring to it and makes one think the worst of politics and power. If you want action from your government, then get ready to pony up with the legislator that can make it happen. The idea is a staple in New York politics, and it is the leading cause of so much of the corruption we see across the state. The question of how to get rid of it is to get rid of the money by instituting clean elections. After Hank Morris and David Loglisci were indicted last week for their extreme pay to play crimes, it was heartening to see Newsday's Op-Ed get on board with the program.

From Newsday:

New York is only one of three states where an elected official in the only person responsible for managing the public pension fund. Most states have boards of trustees who are appointed, with myriad combinations of how they are selected and how much independence they are given. A board, however, is not a perfect solution. In recent years there have been scandals and probes of board members in several states, including California, Texas and Illinois.

Whether New York should change its sole trustee arrangement needs to be examined. What doesn't need to wait is campaign financing. Not needing millions of dollars to run reduces the temptation to abuse the office.

Since DiNapoli took office, he has been recommending public financing for comptroller races. His proposal would cap spending in the primary and general election campaigns and allow the candidates to get $6 in public funding for every $1 raised. This still requires the candidates to solicit contributions of more than $1 million in private funds. It's a start.

The Morris indictment, however, should spark support for public financing for all statewide races. In the past two years, Gov. David A. Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have all supported campaign financing reform, if not outright public financing. Which ones will now take ownership of the movement for campaign reform - Paterson? Silver? Or Smith?

Attorney General Cuomo just hung a "For Sale" sign for all to see on Albany. Now, we need to see who's going to take it down.

That "For Sale" sign is something that Cuomo has been repeatedly pointing out so that all can see it. The sign has been there for decades.

As for taking ownership of campaign reform, any of the three of those being responsible for change is laughable. Smith and Paterson are for it in name only and Silver is a high priest in the pay to play culture. They all benefit from the current power structure and are reticent to change it. The movement must come from the grassroots and it has to grow into a fevered pitch so that the three men in the room have no choice but to relent and institute clean elections. That can happen with a dedicated single-issue campaign to hold legislators feet to the fire by having them go against their party's "leadership" and act as leaders on their own.

If Only The Mayoral Election Could Be Cleaned Up

The way the Mayor and 18 19 Council members (with Vacca flipping) thus far are trying to extend term limits has become a distasteful campaign to many New Yorkers. The maneuvering is very unlike the Mayor that came in eight years ago and a far cry from the man that called a legislative fix to change term limits "disgraceful."

One of the arguments from his side is that the extension gives voters more of a choice but in reality the power of incumbency deters many from seeking office and will shoo away a majority of those thinking about those once-expected 35 empty seats in the Council next year. With the Mayor claiming to spend $80 million on his re-election race, how is anyone supposed to have a chance to compete? Well as Connecticut shows, you can take the money out of the equation.

From The NY Times:

At a time when roughly half the states are seriously considering public financing of campaigns, Connecticut’s initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters. Of the 343 candidates running in General Assembly elections, 258 — about 75 percent — are seeking public financing.

“I think that for many reasons, Connecticut has made history this election season,” said Beth A. Rotman, Connecticut’s director of public financing. “We’ve had an unprecedented participation rate for the first elections with voluntary public campaign finance, and we’ve virtually eliminated special-interest money from the elections.”

Connecticut’s experiment with campaign finance reform happened only when it hit bottom. After the resignation of Gov. John G. Rowland in 2004 and a spate of other public corruption cases, with the state’s image moving from “the Land of Steady Habits” to “Corrupticut,” public financing suddenly became something other than a pet topic for good-government types.

Here in New York we are about to hit a bottom of our own if the Council passes this awful legislation. Unfortunately the passage of clean elections looks more bleak than the Mayor losing his bid for a third term this afternoon. If the people on his side really wanted to reform the system and give New Yorkers a choice for deciding who they should elect, clean elections would be a tremendous step forward in letting our government represent the people again, instead of the billionaires it caters to presently.

NY Times Slams Paterson's Reform Reversal

The New York Times had some harsh words for Governor Paterson yesterday on the question of reform in Albany. Now that some time has passed since he became the top dog in New York, his zeal for reform has nearly disappeared. He made a vain attempt at looking interested at the end of Reform Day two weeks ago, but in legislation, where it counts, he has done next to nothing. Philip Anderson at the Albany Project is 'giving him the benefit of the doubt', but no such thing exists at the Times.

From The NY Times:

Before he suddenly became New York’s governor, David Paterson was a committed reformer. In his years as a state senator (and leader of the Democratic minority), he called for limiting special-interest money, public financing of elections, and sweeping out as much muck as possible from the State Legislature.

Now that Mr. Paterson finally has the power he has lost his zeal. He has not charted any real plan to push a resistant Legislature toward reform. He has said his focus is on steadying the state in hard economic times.

A steady hand is important. But voters also want reform, Albany desperately needs it, and it is very, very cheap. The only thing that could cost money — public financing for campaigns — would save over the long run. All those lobbyists would have more trouble skewing state money to special interests.

The No. 1 reform should be an end to the system that allows legislators to draw their own districts so that they are re-elected pretty much for life. Mr. Paterson needs to begin pushing now for a constitutional amendment creating a nonpartisan commission on redistricting like those in Iowa and Maine.

Most of Mr. Paterson’s friends in the Legislature will not want to give up this self-serving operation. Senator Malcolm Smith, who leads the Democratic minority, has backed away from this reform, especially if Democrats win full control of the Legislature this year. Mr. Paterson has the power to shame, if he has the will. He needs to start publicly pressing the redistricting reform and threatening vetoes — of money for the current redistricting system and of any future proposal that is not done fairly.

That will seems to have evaporated into the dirty air that envelops the State Capitol. I wish I could say differently, but Paterson will have to prove he still believes in the reform he talked so much about when he was in the State Senate. Words are words, and action is the only thing that matters.

Luke Henry Takes Clean Elections To The Streets

Luke Henry is running for the 64th Assembly District seat and also to rid Albany of Sheldon Silver, one of the "three men in the room." Luke has to spend most of his time dialing for dollars, but with clean elections, he can spend more time making videos like this: