Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Board. Show all posts

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Pledge 2 Protect latest advocacy organization to hire The Advance Group, masking donors behind a law firm

Elected officials no longer listen to voters, unless a community forms a nonprofit organization and hires corrupt lobbyists in a scheme that cloaks the identity of donors

Exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws, the small Manhattan law firm Marquart & Small is hiding the identity of donors funding the Pledge 2 Protect advocacy group

The community advocacy group, Pledge 2 Protect, which is nobly fighting the opening of a huge marine waste transfer station in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, is flouting campaign finance laws to do it, Crain's New York Business reported today.

Pledge 2 Protect is using a law firm, Marquart & Small, to hide the identity of its big money donors. In two months of this year, those monies have been used to pay a small army of lobbyists and consultants :

  • $78,000 to The Advance Group, a lobbying firm that doubles as a campaign consulting firm headed by Scott Levenson, was involved in the astroturf group, NYC Is Not For Sale ;
  • $20,000 to The Black Institute, a nonprofit organization founded by former ACORN head Bertha Lewis ; The Black Institute shares office space with The Advance Group ;
  • $20,000 to Gladstein Neandross and Associates, an environmental consulting firm based in California ; and
  • $7,000 to Rubenstein Public Relations, which is also the official rep for New York Yankees baseball superstar Alex Rodriguez.

The fact that Pledge 2 Protect is skirting campaign finance laws calls to mind the controversies engulfing another noble-purposed group, NY-CLASS. NY-CLASS is a group seeking a ban of horse-drawn carriages in New York City. Last year, NY-CLASS was the primary force behind a Super PAC named NYC Is Not For Sale ; both NY-CLASS and NYC Is Not For Sale received campaign consulting and lobbying assistance from The Advance Group. The city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board, has ruled that a forbidden pattern of coordination took place between the Super PAC and official campaigns also managed by The Advance Group, and The Advance Group is the subject of a complaint filed with federal prosecutors on the fourth anniversary of the corrupt Supreme Court decision in Citizens United over its electioneering work. Now that Pledge 2 Protect seems to be trying to skirt disclosure laws through gimmicks and tricks, how long before regulators or prosecutors crack down on the shady structure set up to pass-through campaign donations to benefit Pledge 2 Protect ?

Upon hearing news of Pledge 2 Protect's shadowy campaign finance structure, some of New York City's political bloggers lamented that elected officials refuse to listen to grassroots community demands. The only way elected officials seem to offer their ear is when dollar bills start exchanging hands with lobbyists with insider access to City Hall. Both The Advance Group and The Black Institute are headed by individuals with close ties to Mayor Bill de Blasio. What does it mean when the only way to impact City Hall is to pay-off individuals with close ties to the mayor ? Community groups wouldn't need to hire lobbyists if the character of officials elected to public office embodied a true ethic of public service. Perhaps before hiring lobbyists and setting up structures to cloak the identity of big money donors, the many nonprofit groups in New York City should first band together to vote out of office any politician, who makes hiring lobbyists as a condition precedent before listening to community demands, followed by a strengthening of campaign finance laws to close all loopholes ?

RELATED


East Side garbage foes hide behind loophole (Crain's New York Business)

Ongoing Levenson-Lewis-de Blasio political activities that may rise to be prohibited ? (YouTube)

Using political entities, operatives close to mayor exploit campaign finance regulations through ''pattern'' of activities (NYC : News & Analysis)

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

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

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

Not even former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was accused of being each of shady, unethical, and a political boss in the old-fashioned corrupt sense by many New York political bloggers, ever dared to be this blatantly egregious

Updated information about campaign committee fundraising and expenditures were made this week by elected officials serving in New York State to the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, the New York State Board of Elections.

The filing by New York Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito showed some activity since her January filing, but the latest disclosures of her 2017 campaign committee still showed no expenditures to pay for the lobbying services provided to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign that began in earnest following her successful reelection to the City Council.

It was publicly reported that The Advance Group was providing lobbying services to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign. Those services were described as being provided for free, even though municipal campaign finance regulations require that in-kind contributions be declared. The Council speakership is a leadership post of the city's legislative body that is secondary to the leader's Council seat. The speakership is served concurrently for the term of the leadership post with the elected official's service of the underlying Council seat.

Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's use of The Advance Group triggered extensive media scrutiny, notably by political bloggers and several mainstream media outlets. Further criticism were made when it was shown that many of the political operatives, who worked on Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign were later given high-ranking patronage jobs with the City Council. Other lobbyists were reported to have been helping Speaker Mark-Viverito determine the assignments of secondary and tertiary leadership posts at the City Council.

Candidates, who run for the City Council and who participate in the matching contribution program of the city's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Campaign Finance Board, as was the case with Councilmember Mark-Viverito, are subject to fundraising caps and spending limits. However, Councilmember Mark-Viverito opened a second campaign committee account with the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, and her campaign committee designated that second account for the 2017 election cycle.

If the state Board of Elections had done its due diligence, it would have relatively easily discovered that Councilmember Mark-Viverito had just participated in the Campaign Finance Board's matching campaign contribution program, and that the leadership post she was very publicly seeking would be won through a lobbying campaign of her fellow City Councilmembers, who vote to select the Council speaker, rendering that second state campaign committee account to be a vehicle to fund the leadership post that would be served concurrently with her elected office. Until now, nobody knows the rationale for why the state's Board of Election continues to approve the fundraising and expenditures through Council Speaker Mark-Viverito's sham 2017 campaign committee account, when that account has been and is being used for a leadership post with dual mandate implications. A dual mandate is a controversial loophole that allows a person to serve more than one elected office at the same time, meaning, that an elected official would have competing interests as the office holder carries out his or her duties to the public. An elected official serving a dual mandate would be beholden to teams of lobbyists, campaign consultants, and big money donors that would trash the spirit of campaign finance laws and would open the door to appearances of conflicts of interest, steering patronage jobs to political operatives, allowing lobbyists a greater say over government business, and other questionable dealings. There is no known municipal precedent for dual campaign committee accounts to be authorized for the concurrent service of a publicly elected municipal office and a municipal leadership post that is secondary to the elected office.

Furthermore, no other City Councilmember was allowed the unfair advantage of staying within the fundraising and expenditure caps of the Campaign Finance Board and still circumvent those caps with a state Board of Elections campaign committee account that is subject to no restrictions.

When contacted last March, representatives of the state Board of Elections turned down a Freedom of Information Law request for the rationale for approving Councilmember Mark-Viverito's second campaign committee account, and, after negotiation, agreed to provide the account opening documents for her sham 2017 campaign committee.

RELATED


Melissa Mark-Viverito spent big bucks on speaker's race, campaign filings show (The New York Daily News)

Council speaker puts connected lobbyist on payroll (Crain's New York Business)

Lobbyists aid Mark-Viverito transition (Crain's New York Business)

Friday, June 13, 2014

New revelations about possibly greater coordination between controversial anti-Quinn attack Super PAC and official campaigns

Anybody But Quinn Used Voter Info From Other Advance Group Campaigns : Sources

Anybody But Quinn photo AnybodyButQuinn600_zps55f4431f.jpg

RELATED


Anybody But Quinn Used Voter Info From Other Advance Group Campaigns: Sources (The New York Observer)

Did New York State Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ? [UPDATED] (NYC : News & Analysis)

Somebody from the corrupt “Anybody But Quinn" Super PAC has leaked new information about possibly illegal campaign coordination to the reporter Will Bredderman of The New York Observer relating to how information sharing was done behind the scenes at The Advance Group. That customized voter registration information belonging to official campaigns was, inturn, used by the Super PAC adds to a pattern of coordination following revelations that campaign cash flowed circuitously amongst the Super PAC, its contributors, and the official campaigns managed by The Advance Group in the last election. As if that wasn't enough, many activists taking part in the Anybody But Quinn movement carried the banner for reforms to end Quinn-like government and campaign corruption. But as soon as the new mayor was elected, the entire Anybody But Quinn movement ceased their calls for reform, raising the obvious quesiton : what was the real intention of the Anybody But Quinn Super PAC, if it was not to press for reforms of the broken political system ?

It's getting ugly, but it's only when the system turns against itself, as demonstrated by the leaker of these latest revelations that voter registration information was shared, that voters find out the real truth about the duplicitious role of dubious campaign consultants, lobbyists, and other political operatives in setting up corruptive Super PAC structures, and controversies such as these are the only things that can lead to reforms to end the corruptive role of Super PAC's in our elections system. But more people need to join the call to press Mayor Bill de Blasio to make good on his outstanding campaign promises made during last year's mayoral campaign to further reform the city's campaign finance system.

"The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law," Mr. de Blasio said last year after he was confronted with questions over a controversial Super PAC's attack TV ads against former Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system," he added, but Mr. de Blasio has so far failed to keep true to his campaign promise to reform the city's corrupt campaign finance laws. Here's an opportunity to use the growing campaign finance controversy engulfing The Advance Group to press for reforms. Voters can make this opportunity work for them, to bring about reforms, but voters need to take action to demand that the mayor keep his campaign promises to reform and update the city's corrupt campaign finance laws that allow Super PAC's to exploit our elections system.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

With Haggerty seeking retrial and Hynes using drug money for campaign consultants, will campaign finance laws ever be reformed ?

State Sen. Malcolm Smith goes to trial for trying to buy the GOP ballot line just days after Gov. Andrew Cuomo "secures" the Working Families ballot line.

A strange convergence of four different election scandals is taking place this week. Former Queens GOP operative John Haggerty, Jr., requested a new trial on technical ground for stealing $750,000 from former Mayor Michael Bloomberg during the 2009 mayoral election as it was revealed that former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes was using the seized criminal assets in the District Attorney's Office to pay for a campaign consultant.

As if it couldn't get any worse, two politicians are being treated different by prosecutors for essentially having done the same thing.

Why is State Sen. Malcolm Smith facing a corruption and bribery trial for making deals and proposing bribes in order to make a "deal" to get his name on the GOP ballot line in last year's mayoral race, at the same time that newspapers widely reported that Gov. Andrew Cuomo made his own "deal," including offering to contribute to a possible $10 million election fund, to get on the Working Families Party ballot line on this year's gubernatorial race ?

The pattern of corruption in the Haggerty-Hynes cases show how political operatives and elected officials themselves are so starved for corrupt campaign finance money that they will go to great lengths to misuse other people's money. Mr. Haggerty was already convicted in a trial, whereas Mr. Hynes is said to be awaiting possible criminal charges. While State Sen. Smith faces trial over his efforts to buy the GOP line, there's not even a hint that Gov. Cuomo may face criminal charges for trying to possibly buying his way onto the WFP line.

The apparent similarities in these cases, but the unequal application of the law, seem to point to even added corruption in how prosecutors decide which politicos to charge with election and campaign finance crimes.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Using political entities, operatives close to mayor exploit campaign finance regulations through ''pattern'' of activities

PUBLISHED : FRI, 23 MAY 2014, 04:18 PM
UPDATED : TUES, 27 MAY 2014, 07:20 AM

Ongoing Levenson-Lewis-de Blasio political activities that may rise to be prohibited ?

RELATED


Scott Levenson's campaign practices are damaging his brand, will it extend to his clients as well ? (Scrutiny of Advance, Levenson Heating Up * City & State)

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 ? (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)

Last year was the first time when the corrupt Citizens United Supreme Court decision allowed Super PAC’s to influence the municipal elections in New York City. One Super PAC, deceptively called Jobs For New York, spent millions that were largely funded by greedy real estate developers, who were trying to buy off politicians. But one lobbyist, in particular, Scott Levenson, exemplified the worst of Super PAC corruption. So far, one Super PAC and two political campaigns managed by Mr. Levenson have been fined for campaign finance violations, and the city’s campaign finance regulatory authority has indicated that more fines may follow.

The facts surrounding the ongoing political activities of the campaign organizations maintained or controlled by Scott Levenson give rise to an « established pattern. »

Now that the Campaign Finance Board has fined each of Mr. Levenson's Super PAC and the campaign committees of Councilmember Laurie Cumbo and Councilmember Mark Levine, rendering decisions that prohibited coordination took place between the Super PAC and official political campaigns, these determinations may have federal legal implications. The chair of the Campaign Finance Board, Rose Gill Hearn, has been criticized in the past for going soft on some investigations, but she may have shown, with these early Super PAC rulings, an « established pattern » of activites, whereby Mr. Levenson is mainintaing and controlling political entities for the apparent purpose of gaming New York City’s campaign finance regulations, activities, which include :

The situation for Mr. Levenson and his lobbying clients shouldn’t have been allowed to have become so severe. Mayor de Blasio had made a campaign promise to reform campaign finance laws, but the mayor hasn’t proposed any reforms. Indeed, he has no motivation to, not when he and his political operatives stand to gain so much from an ongoing pattern of political activities.

The New York Post has reported that since 2001, the mayor’s political operatives, possibly including Bertha Lewis and others, have been conducting activities with the goal of electing Mr. de Blasio as mayor, a feat they finally achieved last year, possibly with the help of a Super PAC. The Super PAC administered by Mr. Levenson was called NYC Is Not For Sale, but it organized under the astroturf campaign called, Anybody But Quinn. The project to elect the mayor began not long after the Working Families Party was co-founded by Mr. de Blasio, Ms. Lewis, ACORN, several unions, and others.

Ms. Lewis’s post-ACORN, post-New York Communities for Change organization is called The Black Institute, and she shares office space with Mr. Levenson, as did the now notorious Super PAC, which Mr. Levenson administered. Sometimes, all of their ongoing political activities appear just sufficiently distant from the mayor, and sometimes they don’t.

RELATED


The close relationship between City Hall and the private firms attached to the UPKNYC effort has raised eyebrows amongst government reform activists due to the fact that the mayor continues to rely on large political donations after normal election cycles to advance his own political ambitions, which many see as separate from the many unpopular political decisions he faces as the city's new mayor. (Bill de Blasio’s Old Campaign Operations Live On, in One Form or Another * Politicker)

Once the mayoral race was over, the corruptive role of money in politics cycled out of the NYC Is Not For Sale and New York Jobs Now Committee Super PAC structures and into 501(c)(4) structures, just like money used to cycle from ACORN, to New York Communities for Change, to the Working Families Party, to NYCLASS, and to The Black Institute, depending on whether Mr. de Blasio was facing an election year, or not. How Mayor de Blasio directs the affairs of political entities is by making sure that they get staffed by operatives or lobbyists, who have pledged their loyalty to him. Once vetted, these operatives and lobbyists can be counted on to conduct and participate in the established pattern of activities most beneficial to the mayor. It was announced last week that the purpose of the UPKNYC 501(c)(4) organization was to evolve from advancing the mayor's universal pre-kinder agenda to now being basically a blank check political apparatus. The interchangeability and permeability of these "instruments" staffed by loyalists form the basis of the "enterprise" that allows the mayor, from a phantasmal distance, to essentially order others to do his political bidding.

The mayor's political influence was extended across New York City after his administration installed the lobbying and consulting firm of Berlin Rosen, political operatives who worked on the mayor's campaign, in the media relations role of the mayor's universal pre-kinder initiative. Berlin Rosen maintained the universal pre-kinder messaging for the mayor this way. Berlin Rosen also serves as consultants to a coalition of major police reform groups, Communities United for Police Reform. The latter allows Berlin Rosen to again maintain the messaging coming from one of the mayor's most politically sensitive quarters : police reform activists. Tampering down police reform activists is all the more important to the mayor, especially after the NYPD continues to become embroiled in more racial profiled controversies. It was reported that another political insider and lobbying firm, Pitta Bishop, helped Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito with City Council staffing. In respect of City Council staffing, loyalists to the mayor being paid for by special interest donors act as gatekeepers for the mayor's agenda.

Left out in the lurch as a consequence of the mayor's machinations are voters, who had no say in what the messaging was that came out of the universal pre-kinder reform movement. As for other reform movements in New York City, political operatives staffing the political entities working to further the mayor's political ambitions will first check with the mayor before announcing what the reelection-friendly reforms the mayor can approve.

As the roles of money and lobbyists further corrupt government and fair elections, that corruption is only going to get worse, as New York state's campaign finance regulatory authority, the Board of Elections, has eliminated caps on political donations by individuals.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Political Machinations Cloud Campaign Finance Board's Decision-Making

PUBLISHED : TUES, 18 MAR 2014, 11:49 AM
UPDATED : MON, 21 APR 2014, 05:38 PM

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.

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)

The federal complaints filed by Mr. Flores and Mr. Liu allege that the Campaign Finance Board is not sufficiently independent of political motivations to independently conduct investigations and to render fair and just decisions. 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.

Mr. Berger had once saved Mayor de Blasio's political career when the election lawyer kept Mr. de Blasio from getting kicked off the 2009 race for public advocate after an error was found on a Board of Elections submission. In his new post, Mr. Berger "will provide legal counsel to the mayor and staff at City Hall," according to City & State. Other than the growing number of federal elections complaints that may implicate his Council speaker and himself, it's not known what other reasons exist for Mayor de Blasio to need a taxpayer-paid election lawyer to advise him.

Typically, the Campaign Finance Board "audits suspect claims long after an election and then imposes financial penalties on rule breakers," the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News wrote. In John Liu's case, the Campaign Finance Board "moved beyond policing violations to imposing the death penalty on a mayoral campaign."

As the staff of the Campaign Finance Board and the mayor's legal counsel become more politicized, it should not come to such a surprise that the mayor would receive preferential treatment at the hands of the Campaign Finance Board that he oversees.

Among the complaints that Mr. Liu alleged in his complaint about the Campaign Finance Board, he noted that appointees to the Campaign Finance Board may follow the political agenda of those officials, who make the appointments. Mr. Liu further complained that two board members of the Campaign Finance Board had made campaign contributions to former Council Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign ; in spite of their expressed interests in support of Mr. Liu's political challenger, the two board members refused to recuse themselves from the decision by city campaign finance regulators to deny public matching dollars to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign. The Campaign Finance Board is a conflicted institution with political motivations that can be reflected in its decision-making.

Days before the general election, E. O’Brien Murray, a political operative advising Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota filed a complaint with the Campaign Finance Board, alleging that Mr. de Blasio was coordinating his campaign with an anti-Quinn Super PAC, according to The New York Post. Because of the board members of the Campaign Finance Board answer to the mayor and to the Council speaker, it's not known how serious city campaign finance regulators will investigate the complaint. It was out of precisely this concern that Mr. Flores lodged his complaint against Mr. Levenson and The Advance Group with federal prosecutors, to be able to remove the investigation from the conflicted Campaign Finance Board. Mr. Flores has separately said that he believes that the city's Department of Investigations, headed by a loyal ally of Mayor de Blasio, is also insufficiently independent from City Hall and City Council, to be able to conduct investigations that may implicate city officials or their political operatives.

Complicating matters is that reform advocates want to impose on New York State the very New York City model of campaign finance regulations, including a form of a matching public dollar program, even though city campaign finance regulations have been shown to be so questionable that activists are filing complaints at the federal level in search of a truly fair and independent review of violations.

Documents show that former Utah Attorney General John Swallow sought to transform his office into a defender of payday loan companies that had helped bankroll his election. (A Campaign Inquiry in Utah Is the Watchdogs’ Worst Case * The New York Times) Former New York City Comptroller John Liu will announce a “federal challenge” to the Campaign Finance Board after he was denied public matching funds during last year’s mayoral race. (John Liu to Announce ‘Federal Challenge’ to Campaign Finance Board * Politicker)

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

John Liu sues New York City for blocking public matching campaign funds

"John Liu's campaign did nothing wrong," says lawyer Richard Emery.

John Liu, the former Comptroller for New York City, filed a federal lawsuit today against the City of New York, alleging that he was "denied the opportunity to compete on an even playing field with the other mayoral candidates, and his reputation was irreparably damaged," The New York Post is reporting, adding, that the Campaign Finance Board's decision to deny Mr. Liu $3.8 million in matching public dollars amounted to a “death sentence” to his mayoral campaign.

Mr. Liu's complaint alleges that the Campaign Finance Board unlawfully “crippled” his bid to become the city’s first Asian-American mayor by citing the court convictions of others, even though Mr. Liu himself was never charged with any wrong-doing.

The investigation into Mr. Liu's campaign finances originated in a report published in 2011 by The New York Times at a time when Mr. Liu was attracting serious attention and support for his expected mayoral campaign in 2013. Many activists have alleged that the editors of The New York Times preferred the mayoral candidacy of former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. After the Campaign Finance Board denied Mr. Liu's public matching funding dollars, former Speaker Quinn received the glowing endorsement of The New York Times' editorial board.

In a further example of the politicization of the Campaign Finance Board, city campaign finance regulators appeared to obsess over Mr. Liu's troubled donations, identified as only 35 out of over 6,300 donations, but city campaign finance regulators did nothing to scrutinize the corruptive influence of super PAC's in the 2013 municipal election.

In a video made last year by The Queens Courier, Mr. Liu described how investigators deceived his campaign workers into accepting tainted donations. Essentially, he was the victim of entrapment.

2014-03-12 John Liu v NYC Campaign Finance Board - USDC-SDNY COMPLAINT (Stamped Copy) by Connaissable


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.

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 :

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)


Monday, March 10, 2014

Proposed NYS public matching dollars at risk of being gamed, just like with "model" NYC campaign finance system

  • During the same election cycle, campaign finance loopholes allowed Melissa Mark-Viverito to accept, on one hand, New York City public matching dollars hinged on a spending cap through a city campaign finance account with indifferent oversight from the New York City Campaign Finance Board for a total election cycle spend of $284,000 ;
  • Followed by a parallel state campaign account, that allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise and spend more campaign money subject to no cap and with no oversight by the New York State Board of Elections for her speakership campaign for an additional spend of $72,000 ; and
  • And book-ended by another city Campaign Finance Board account that allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise $30,000 from real estate developers and other supporters for her transition/inauguration celebration.

The Moreland Commission, a state panel formed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and delegated with the charge to investigate public corruption, is recommending nominal reforms to the campaign finance system for New York State elected officials.

"New York needs comprehensive campaign finance reform. The Commission recommends, among other things, lowering contribution limits and closing campaign finance loopholes, empowering regular New Yorkers with a small donor matching system of public financing, limiting the use of campaign funds, and creating tough new disclosure rules for shadowy outside spending groups," the Commission is recommending on its Web site.

But the general Moreland Commission recommendations will do nothing to address how municipal candidates can open several campaign accounts at city and state levels to exceed spending caps imposed on the city level. Because city campaign regulators are not accountable to state Board of Elections and vice versa, candidates for public office can exploit weaknesses of laws relating to lobbying, conflicts of interest, and public ethics, as was seen in the case of the $386,000 spent by New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito during one single election cycle when the private spending cap imposed by the New York City Campaign Finance Board was $168,000 for her official post at the City Council -- a limit more than once over exceeded.

The "compliance apathy" noted by Moreland Commission co-chair Kathleen Rice in the panel's report calls into question how city and state campaign finance regulators will police spending caps, public matching dollars, and rules violations when some candidates can jurisdiction-shop for the loopholes between city and state regulations. Extending the New York City model of campaign finance to the rest of New York State will do nothing to curb the undue influence of large-money donations and lobbyists in our elections if there is no robust regulatory compliance review. What effect does a spending cap have on the campaign finance account of a candidate in one jurisdiction, if the candidate can skirt that spending cap by opening a campaign finance account in another jurisdiction ?

Campaign finance regulators with the state's Board of Elections should have been able to determine that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's intent in opening a state campaign finance account was to skirt the spending cap imposed by the city's Campaign Finance Board. But the Board of Elections did nothing to stop the exploitation of the loophole that did not subject state Board of Elections account openings to spending caps governing an elected official's public post. In this past election cycle, Councilmember Mark-Viverito was running for reëlection. Campaign finance laws help candidates run for public office ; these laws do not promise that candidates, once elected, can keep opening further campaign finance accounts to fund further political campaigns, either for leadership posts, to lobby other publicly-elected officials, or for other purposes -- during the same election cycle. If candidates can open a series of parallel campaign finance accounts across various jurisdictions, what good is it to impose spending caps ?

The dangerous precedent set by Melissa Mark-Viverito : An elected official can hire outside lobbyists to "lobby" other elected officials.

By receiving lobbying services from The Advance Group, Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin LLC, and others, Councilmember Mark-Viverito effectively outsourced official acts, which she needed to personally undertake, to seek the speakership post. This means that Councilmember Mark-Viverito very visibly retained, as an elected official, teams of lobbyists, either paid or unpaid, to lobby other elected officials with dangerous consequences to transparency and democracy. Cloaked behind the imperfections of the same campaign finance regulations which allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to open three campaign finance accounts during the same election cycle, these lobbyists skirted the reach of the do-nothing Campaign Finance Board ; took advantage of the fact that only dollar amounts associated with their activities, not their activities themselves, would be disclosable to the public ; took advantage that some payments, if any, for post-Election Day work could be had by opening a Board of Elections campaign finance account in Albany ; may have enjoyed the opportunity made available by the further loophole that allows subcontractor operatives to skirt disclosure requirements ; and took advantage of the fact that the dueling city and state regulators would not have exclusive authority over the provision of free campaign services. The combined effect of this imperfect system gave unfair advantages to each of (i) The Advance Group, other lobbyists, and the clients of those lobbyists over other lobbying firms and (ii) Councilmember Mark-Viverito over other candidates for the City Council speakership. When elected officials are allowed to hire lobbyists to do the public's business, all the work that those lobbyists do constitutes a subversion of the government's work.

Indeed, it was believed that this was the first reported instance when a public official intentionally opened at least three campaign finance accounts during one election cycle for the same elected office, but the public official, flush with about $400,000 in cash, still needed, for economic or other reasons, to receive free lobbying services. At each step of the way, Councilmember Mark-Viverito's "need" to raise money opened new opportunities for wealthy campaign contributors to have a role in and to influence Councilmember Mark-Viverito's public activities. It was reported by Crains Insider that Jon Del Giorno, a lobbyist with Pitta Bishop, on Councimember Mark-Viverito's behalf, was "involved in setting up the structure of an 'appointments committee' charged with council staffing." Another lobbyist, Alison Hirsch, also worked to select the Councilmember Mark-Viverito as Council speaker, but Ms. Hirsch's work was reported to have been being provided on behalf of the Progressive Caucus of New York City Councilmembers. It's not known who was paying for the post-Election Day functions of Pitta Bishop or Ms. Hirsch in relation to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's "transition." Were members of the Progressive Caucus expected to file fundraising and expense disclosure reports to campaign finance regulators, too, for the outside lobbying services they directed ? If so, to which campaign finance regulators, at city or state levels, or both, were the Progressive Caucus supposed to report ? Moreover, further reporting by Crains Insider has revealed that, that separate from campaign finance regulation loopholes, another exception that lobbyists exploit are City Clerk Office's disclosure rules that specifically do not require the reporting of lobbying for leadership posts. These serious questions and loopholes come on top of the fact that neither The Advance Group nor Ms. Hirsch were not paid through Councilmember Mark-Viverito's state Board of Elections campaign account for their roles in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's successful speakership campaign. When lobbyists are not paid for work they provide to elected officials, the provision of these free lobbying services are said to violate city ethics regulations. "The city’s conflict of interest rules bar public officials from accepting freebies from lobbyists, and they prohibit lobbyists from dispensing same to public officials," wrote the Editorial Page editors of The New York Daily News.

Councilmember Mark-Viverito accepted public matching dollars from the Campaign Finance Board in exchange for promising to keep her political expenditures under a cap during the 2013 election cycle. But she opened a state campaign finance account to skirt around the cap under the loopholes of state regulations, opening the door for others to do the same.

Campaign finance regulations aim to each of expand disclosure and transparency, enforce spending caps to limit undue influence of special interests, and to add elements of public financing, like matching public dollars, to level the playing field. Campaign finance regulators are supposed to monitor electioneering to maintain voters' faith in the acts of elected officials. Regulators maintain the integrity of fair elections by curtailing the situations whereby contributors of large campaign donations or free lobbying services give some candidates unfair advantages over other candidates. It's supposed to be a level playing field.

Since Councilmember Mark-Viverito raised nearly $400,000 through three separate campaign accounts, she signaled to other Councilmembers that big business interests and other wealthy constituents had voted with their dollars to give her a special dominance over other elected officials. One consequence of this unfair advantage is that voters of other Councilmembers, seemingly equal to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's own voters, have had their voices and roles diminished before the City Council compared to the contributors to Councilmember Mark-Viverito's three campaign finance accounts. This opens the door to lobbyists and insiders, like The Advance Group, Pitta Bishop, Mr. Levenson, Mr. Del Giorno, Ms. Hirsch, NY-CLASS, and other Super PAC-funded groups, to have greater access to Councilmember Mark-Viverito than mere voters, especially voters, who were not wealthy enough to be campaign contributors.

Besides determining whether there was illegality in each of the provision of unpaid lobbying services and the possible coordination of independent expenditures, city and state campaign finance regulators must deal with how "compliance apathy" and "regulatory apathy" have created Swiss cheese out of city and state campaign finance and ethics regulations. But as has been noted before, city campaign finance regulators answer to the mayor and to the Council speaker, leaving voters to conclude that city campaign finance regulators are not independent enough over the public officials whose campaign finance accounts they are charged to regulate.

The politicized Campaign Finance Board spent the first municipal election cycle under the undue influence of Citizens United by seemingly persecuting John Liu's campaign, but not focusing on the obviously corruptive role of Super PAC's.

Councilmember Mark-Viverito was allowed to keep her public matching dollars, even though she opened three campaign finance accounts through two different jurisdictions, but former Comptroller John Liu was denied public matching dollars when his mayoral campaign was beset by controversy when it was reported that his campaign may have received "straw donations," an illegal tactic that masks the true identity of donors in an attempt to game the city's public matching dollars. Mr. Liu's campaign challenged the allegations, but his campaign's ex-treasurer and a former fund-raiser were charged with wrong-doing. Martin Connor, Mr. Liu's campaign finance attorney, acknowledged issues with 35 out of more than 6,300 donations, but the Campaign Finance Board, in an unusual move, denied any matching money to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign in a move that did not seem proportional to the problem, if it was, indeed, isolated to only a small percentage of donations at the same time when, for example, Crains Insider was reporting serious questions with the finances of some Super PAC's operating during the same election cycle.

The impact of the Campaign Finance Board's controversial decision essentially put an end to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign. Because he was denied matching money, totaling approximately $3.5 million, he was put in a "severe financial disadvantage," The New York Times reported, "because he will now have significantly less money to buy television advertising." To the last, Mr. Liu challenged the decision by city campaign finance regulators, because he said that his campaign committed no wrong-doing, and prosecutors never had proof of wrong-doing against he himself. "There’s no question that this weakens my campaign. For the last couple of years, I have taken body blow after body blow," Mr. Liu said after the Campaign Finance Board's decision. Many astute political observers never understood why The New York Times metropolitan reporters seemed obsessed with taking down Mr. Liu's campaign, since it was The New York Times, which first reported these allegations in 2011 after having sent reporters to stalk Mr. Liu's donors, and The New York Times never seemed to let up, in spite of the questions being isolated to such a small proportion of donations. Less than three weeks after the Campaign Finance Board dealt its lethal blow to Mr. Liu's mayoral campaign, the editors of The New York Times endorsed Mr. Liu's rival, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Democratic mayoral primary. Speaker Quinn, who had a role in approving the board members of the Campaign Finance Board, was said to have a close working relationship with the editors of The New York Times, some activists said.

2014-03-08 Moreland Commission - Follow-Up E-Mail Re Loopholes

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Taking out Melissa Mark-Viverito’s trash

Ethics watchdogs slam sanitation man for simple tip while ignoring speaker’s violations.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito broke a lot of rules, but paid no price.

From the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News :

Twenty-four years on the job couldn’t protect Sanitation worker Lenworth Dixon when he pocketed a measly $20 tip from a grateful homeowner last fall.

For taking the gratuity — a reward for helping to remove an extra-heavy load of furniture and wood — Dixon was forced by the Conflicts of Interest Board to retire, as well as to fork over a $1,500 fine. Rough justice.

Which brings us to Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.

In her campaign for the speakership, Mark-Viverito accepted free services from the Advance Group, a political consulting firm that also maintains a lobbying practice. That’s a violation of the city’s gift ban as well as the ban on lobbyist giving.

When exposed, she switched to Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin, a lobbying law firm. While she paid them, did she underpay?

She also hid years of personal rental income from the conflicts board. The City Council didn’t care and still unanimously elected her as speaker.

Yesterday, the same City Council approved Mark Peters as the new Department of Investigation commissioner. A Friend of Bill (de Blasio), he served as the mayor’s campaign treasurer.

In 2010, Peters, put on the state ethics panel by his friend Gov. David Paterson, voted to impose a record $62,125 fine on Paterson for taking Yankees World Series tickets worth $2,125.

Peters rightly hit Paterson for soliciting and receiving a gift from a lobbyist with business before the government — just like Mark-Viverito did.

Will Peters and conflicts board Chair Nick Scopetta hammer a trash hauler while letting a powerful speaker skate?



Saturday, January 18, 2014

The Advance Group Kept Working on Melissa Mark-Viverito's Speakership Campaign Until the Very End

The-Advance-Group-Melissa-Mark-Viverito-Campaign-Finance-Violations photo The-Advance-Group-Melissa-Mark-Viverito-Campaign-Finance-Violations_zps67980fb3.jpg

Prior to the backroom deals that selected Melisa Mark-Viverito as the new Council speaker, she had accepted unpaid assistance from The Advance Group, a prominent lobbying firm headed by Scott Levenson, the news Web site Politicker reported. (The Advance Group Helping Melissa Mark-Viverito in Speaker’s Race * Politicker) After controversy erupted over Ms. Mark-Viverito's receipt of unpaid assistance from The Advance Group (City Council Speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules * The New York Daily News), Ms. Mark-Viverito deceptively announced that she fired the The Advance Group. (Melissa Mark-Viverito Drops Advance Group for Speaker Bid * Politicker) However, Jonathan Yedin, an operative with The Advance Group, has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Frank Seddio’s political club. Mr. Yedin was a crucial player in brokering the backroom deal with Mr. Seddio to give Ms. Mark-Viverito the win in her bid to become the next Council speaker, sources said. (Inside Melissa Mark-Viverito’s Road to Victory * Politicker) But The Advance Group was never paid for their work, according to New York State Board of Elections campaign finance disclosure records, raising the specter anew that Ms. Mark-Viverito was in violation of prohibitions on publicly-elected officials from accepting a “valuable gift” from a firm that intends to do business with the city, according to an analysis by The New York Daily News of the City Charter regulations, which include prohibitions on lobbyists from giving valuable gifts to publicly-elected officials.

2014-01-15 Melissa Mark-Viverito NYS Board of Election Campaign Finance Disclosure Expenditures

Friday, December 20, 2013

Melissa Mark-Viverito Lobbyist Firm Never Quit, Continued Lobbying Despite Investigations

Mission Accomplished : Mark-Viverito Defeats Garodnick ; Checks And Balances Are For Stooges

New York City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito self-delcared herself the winner in the race to be the next City Council Speaker, saying she had defeated Daniel Garodnick and replacing Christine Quinn, who leaves office on Dec. 31, 2013 ; although, the vote to actually select the next Council speaker won't actually take place until Jan. 8, 2014, leading Jim Dwyer of The New York Times to write, "And you do wonder if former President George W. Bush has phoned City Hall to offer the loan of his Mission Accomplished banner."

Mission Accomplished Melissa Mark-Viverito MMV

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio violated separation of powers by championing Mark-Viverito's speakership. His support for her flies in the face of a possible ethics violations during her speakership race and a campaign finance investigation into the shady dealings of one of her lobbyists. If Mark-Viverito does become speaker, she and the mayor-elect will have authority over the Campaign Finance Board and the Conflicts of Interest Board to make these investigations go away. How convenient.

The County Boss system has been surpassed by the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics. While neither system is free from corruption, it is incumbent upon good government groups to address the fact that if Mark-Viverito does cinch the speakership, then it will be because of the role of lobbyists and the pay-to-play promises of Council chair appointments, payments of lulus, and distribution of Council slush funds.

These progressives-in-name-only are seizing power through machinations that violate the very anti-corruption principles of progressivism.

What is more, violating separation of powers, campaign finance laws, ethics, and flouting anti-corruption ideals are coming from the "Left." These kinds of actions are typically ascribed to the sleazy, corporate-controlled "Right" in American politics. What a disgrace that all this is playing out in the progressive capital city of New York -- and it's coming from the "Left !"

The Advance Group Flouts Campaign Finance, Ethics Regulations

The Advance Group Never Quit Mark-Viverito Speakership Campaigning, Other Lies Told To The Media

"As controversy simmers around the Advance Group, Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito revealed tonight she is no longer taking free advice from the leading consulting firm in her bid for City Council speaker," Ross Barkan reported on Dec. 2, adding that Ms. Mark-Viverito said that, "we will not be receiving any additional advice from The Advance Group."

After Ms. Mark-Viverito's association with Mr. Levenson and The Advance Group was at risk of derailing her speakership campaign, she misrepresented the role of The Advance Group just long enough to take the heat off her campaign, and let one of the lobbying group's consultants continue to provide "crucial" support.

Seventeen days later, it was confirmed that Ms. Mark-Viverito never completely stopped receiving advice from The Advance Group. The very same reporter, Mr. Barkan, to whom she had said, "we will not be receiving any additional advice from The Advance Group," now reported that Mr. Levenson's chief deputy, Jonathan Yedin, kept lobbying on behalf of Ms. Mark-Viverito.

"Ms. Mark-Viverito’s team was Brooklyn-infused for this purpose and included a paid operative, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz’s chief of staff John Paul Lupo, and an operative with the controversial Advance Group, Jonathan Yedin, who has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Mr. Seddio’s political club."

It's unclear how Ms. Mark-Viverito can fire The Advance Group but keep receiving advice from one of their chief consultants ? Was Mr. Yedin's involvement just a backdoor way for Scott Levenson to each of keep tabs on the negotiations and feed instructions to Mr. Yedin in a smoke and mirrors attempt to confuse the editorial board of The New York Daily News ?

These are not the only misrepresentations that have been told to the media by those connected with The Advance Group. Representatives from The Advance Group were caught telling two different stories about the firm's work to defeat LGBT candidates for the City Council.

In a Nov. 21 report in The New York Daily News, a spokesperson for the lobbying firm said that the anti-LGBT work that the firm did was as a result of a "favor for a political operative." Four days later, Mr. Levenson told Michael Powell of The New York Times that, "I didn’t do my due diligence."

But Mr. Levenson has a calculating reputation and "tends to hedge his bets" on clients. At the time he was advancing Ms. Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign, it was reported that he had previously attended a function promoting another Council speaker candidate, Inez Dickens. Mr. Levenson also worked for opposing candidates in the same political race.

It may be too soon to find out if all these misrepresentations will have any impact on the investigations, before Ms. Mark-Viverito has them dismissed against her and her lobbyist firm, or if prosecutors will look into this mess.

Conflict between the old County Boss system of Big Business and the Super PAC's and Lobbyists of Special Interests

The aggressive and deliberate flouting of campaign finance laws and ethics regulations pushed the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News to denounce Ms. Mark-Viverito's Council speakership candidacy last month. Relatively speaking, all the backroom machinations of the mayor-elect and the Council speaker-select are making the old County Boss system, never transparent and always shady, look like reformers. As Sal Albanese wrote, "You can't make this up."