Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2015

NY1 report exposes BerlinRosen's conflicts of interest with the de Blasio administration

Who is Jonathan Rosen ?

Jonathan Rosen - Credit - NY1 Screen Shot

NY1 broadcast journalist Grace Rauh pulled back the curtain on the unregistered lobbying firm, BerlinRosen

The unregistered lobbying firm BerlinRosen has access to material, nonpublic, inside information about the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. One of the firm's name partners, Jonathan Rosen, for example, attended 20 private meetings with Mayor de Blasio in 2014. That insider access allows the firm to exploit advantages for its roster of consulting clients, including some of the city's largest real estate developers.

RELATED


NY1 report exposes BerlinRosen's conflicts of interest with the de Blasio administration (Progress Queens)

Who is Jonathan Rosen? The Most Powerful Man in Politics – Outside City Hall (NY1)

de Blasio's lobbying group, the Campaign for One New York, finally drawing heavier scrutiny from mainstream media (NYC : News & Analysis)

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.

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.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Anybody But Quinn Super PAC donor deflects questions about FBI investigation into campaign corruption

"I don’t have any comment on any of that."

Anybody-But-Quinn-Super-PAC-Cover-Up

Mayor Bill de Blasio's cousin, John Wilhelm, was the former leader of the union, UNITE HERE! The union made a large contribution of $175,000 to the animal rights group New Yorkers for Clean, Livable, and Safe Streets (NY-CLASS) on June 1, and, two days later, NY-CLASS regifted the same large contribution to a Super PAC that was funding a flood of TV attack ads against former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was the leading Democratic mayoral primary candidate at the time. When Mr. Wilhelm was asked by The New York Daily News to identify who directed UNITE HERE! to make the donation to NY-CLASS, Mr. Wilhelm replied that he had "no comment."

The size and timing of the union's campaign contribution are enough to raise questions about coordination between the mayor's cousin and the anti-Quinn attack Super PAC, but the way that UNITE HERE! structured the donation to pass-through NY-CLASS first in order to get to the anti-Quinn attack Super PAC raises further legal problems, because the pass-through contribution was cloaked in "anonymity for months," The New York Daily News reported. NY-CLASS wasn't required to disclose UNITE HERE!'s contribution until NY-CLASS "began its own campaign spending, an event that occurred on Sept. 7, three days before the Sept. 10 mayoral primary." The $175,000 was practically hidden from voters and activists autonomously working to defeat former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, because NY-CLASS "disclosed the contributions on Sept. 17, 10 days after the primary," The New York Daily News's report added. NY-CLASS's questionable finances have been the subject of a series of reports by Crain’s New York Business reporter Chris Bragg.

The union UNITE HERE! last triggered controversy when its former political director, Maura Keaney, was raising campaign donations from unions on behalf of former Speaker Quinn, even as Ms. Keany was working on municipal legislation involving unions. Ms. Keaney's actions were a "potential violation of the city’s conflicts of interest law," The New York Times reported at the time. At the conclusion of the city's investigation, Ms. Keaney was slapped on the wrist with a $2,500 fine to dispose of the corruption investigation into her political machinations. To dissipate political blow-back to Speaker Quinn, Ms. Keaney served on former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 reelection race. After Mayor Bloomberg won that election by a slim margin, he paid Ms. Keaney a lottery-sized bonus of $150,000, which more than made up for her ethics fine.

According to federal law, it is illegal for Super PAC's to coordinate their activities with official campaigns of politicians. Does handing off the same, sizable campaign contribution, apparently timed just right, through an intermediary meet the scrutiny test to prove coordination ?

Both NY-CLASS and the anti-Quinn Super PAC shared the same political lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which is headed by Scott Levenson, a political operative who further shares connections with Mayor de Blasio, given their long history of supporting the Working Families Party, one of the mayor's key political supporters. In the last election, Mr. Levenson further attracted scrutiny for possibly coordinating the 501(c)(4) political expenditures of NY-CLASS and other Super PAC monies with official political campaigns that he also managed in his capacity as a campaign consultant. The anti-Quinn Super PAC was known as NYC Is Not For Sale, but it organized under an astroturf campaign known as "Anybody But Quinn."

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Did New York State Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ? [UPDATED]


SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: SUN, 11 MAY 2014, 09:30 PM

Now that federal prosecutors have empaneled a grand jury to investigate political corruption, all of a sudden Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pushing changes to the state campaign finance system -- but only after he amassed a $30 million war chest for this year's reelection race.

But the governor wants the state to adopt the New York City campaign finance model, even though this model easily allows for unscrupulous candidates and Super PAC's to engage in campaign finance corruption.

In spectacular articles in The New York Daily News, it was reported the FBI is investigating a Super PAC for possibly violating the law. These articles portrayed former Council Speaker Christine Quinn as the victim, even though Speaker Quinn weakened campaign finance laws in the New York City model.

Christine Quinn's replacement as Council speaker, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito, collected her public matching dollars from the New York City model, then she opened another campaign finance account to go around restrictions of the New York City model.

The only answer real campaign finance reform advocates should support is a ban on all private campaign donations, and, in its place, 100% public financing of campaigns with heightened oversight. Any reasonable person can see how the New York City campaign finance model can be gamed, but maybe Gov. Cuomo can't see straight ?


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

Scott Levenson NY-CLASS Christine Quinn Bill de Blasio FBI Investigation into Campaign Corruption photo 2014-04-25TheNewYorkDailyNewsFBIReport_zps189d95ac.png

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). (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 : THURS, 27 MAR 2014, 05:30 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 11 MAY 2014, 01:30 PM

By Approving Double Electioneering Accounts For Melissa Mark-Viverito, Did Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ?

Last year, New York City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito raised $149,151 in private donations for her primary reëlection race. Because she remained under the $168,000 cap on private donations set by city campaign finance regulations, the New York City Campaign Finance Board granted Councilmember Mark-Viverito's campaign $158,502 in public matching dollars, according to the Campaign Finance Board's formula. City campaign finance rules require that all donations and in-kind contributions to political campaigns be disclosed to the Campaign Finance Board. But last year was the first time when the corrupt Citizens United Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates of outside independent expenditure Super PAC money in the New York City municipal elections, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito received the benefit of about $26,868 in outside Super PAC spending in a super-heated primary election campaign ; she won her primary bid with barely 36% of the vote. If any of that extra money, which Councilmember Mark-Viverito desperately needed to defeat her five other challengers, was coordinated with her campaign, then she might have exceeded her cap on fundraising.

Since Councilmember Mark-Viverito's district is overwhelmingly Democratic, she faced no serious challenge from the Republican or Liberal party candidates after she won the Democratic primary. Having succeeded at being reëlected, she initiated a semi-private campaign to lobby her fellow councilmembers in order so that she could become selected as the next City Council speaker. Although the spirit of campaign finance laws is to regulate and decrease the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in elections, Councilmember Mark-Viverito opened a second campaign account during the same election cycle in order to hire a team of lobbyists, this time for the Council speaker race. Instead of campaigning before voters, Councilmember Mark-Viverito sought to persuade her fellow councilmembers to vote for her in the Council speaker race. She also used the second campaign account to make patronage-like donations to other political supporters. Traditionally, the Council speaker race has been an "insider's game," where political party heads, operatives, lobbyists, and special interest operate in backroom meetings to barter for support, obscuring from public scrutiny the true extend of the negotiations that go into determining who becomes the Council speaker. True to tradition, much of the political machinations that went into winning the Council speakership for Councilmember Mark-Viverito were never transparent to the public.

Melissa Mark-Viverito photo melissa_mark-viverito_3_zpscc49b72b.jpg

Because of the caps on fundraising, Councilmember Mark-Viverito could not open that second electioneering campaign account through city election regulators at the Campaign Finance Board. Instead, she opened that second electioneering campaign account through state election regulators at the New York State Board of Elections. Subject to no cap in fundraising and ineligible for public matching dollars, that second electioneering campaign finance account allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise another $100,828 for the Council speaker race. In addition to the resources afforded to Ms. Mark-Viverito by this other $100,000 in contributions, she also benefitted from having employed the services of The Advance Group lobbying firm for free. Councilmember Mark-Viverito also benefited from the lobbying services provided by Alison Hirsch, a union political operative. Ms. Hirsch had been retained by the Progressive Caucus of council members. In an apparent example of how inconsistent the Campaign Finance Board is, it's unknown how the Progressive Caucus paid for Ms. Hirsch's lobbying services or who made campaign contributions to the Progressive Caucus in order for Ms. Hirsch to be paid for her lobbying services, or whether the Progressive Caucus was required to establish a legal political committee with state campaign finance regulators.

How could city and state campaign finance regulators condone two electioneering accounts during the same election cycle for one City Councilmember when all other councilmembers were subjected to a cap in fundraising and limited to one campaign finance account ?

The only way the Campaign Finance Board could approve Councilmember Mark-Viverito's use of two electioneering accounts during the same election cycle would be if the Campaign Finance Board were affirming that New York City would treat a City Councilmember and any leadership post held by that Councilmember as two separate, public offices, also known as a dual mandate. But does a City Council leadership post rise to the level of being treated as a "public office" separate and distinct from the underlying Councilmember's public office ?

On background, a supervisor at the New York State Board of Elections was contacted about two questions : (i) is it legal for an elected official to hold more than one simultaneous publicly-elected office, and (ii) how do state campaign finance regulators treat a second campaign finance account for a candidate, when the same candidate is subject to caps for a first campaign account. In a phone conversation, the supervisor admitted that these questions were too complex. "You could have three election lawyers in a room, and you would get three different answers," the supervisor said. The questions were separately submitted as a FOIL request to the state Board of Elections. Although the request sought the legal reasoning that would allow the Board of Elections to grant Councilmember Mark-Viverito the right to open a second, unregulated campaign finance account, the Board of Elections provided a response nine days after the request was made, describing the underlying request for information as not a "request for records." Instead, the Board of Elections passed the buck to their legal staff. "We have forwarded your request to the Counsel’s Office for their reply," the Board of Elections response read, in part. The Counsel's Office never provided a response. In a further discussion with a Board of Elections official, the official stated that there is no specific statue that prohibits a candidate for elected office to open a state election account for a Council leadership race. When the official was asked how could a campaign finance regulatory authority enable politicians to keep opening serial campaign accounts, when the very act of perpetual, unregulated fundraising violates the spirit of campaign finance regulations, the elections official clung to the reasoning of an absence of a prohibited statute. Even after it was pointed out that press reports questioned the way one political candidate, Councilmember Mark-Viverito, used a state Board of Elections account to finance post-Election Day campaign activities that are otherwise distinctly prohibited by the campaign finance regulatory authority nominally tasked to supervise municipal officeholders, the state elections official clung to the reasoning of an absence of a prohibited statute. The state elections official said that as far as the State Board of Elections knew, the state campaign account established by Councilmember Mark-Viverito was for a race in 2017 cycle. Consequently, the FOIL request was modified to request "copies (preferably in .PDF format, if available ; if not, in physical form) of : any agency application or designation document(s) ; any campaign committee formation documents ; list(s) of campaign committee officers ; written certifications, affidavits, or attestations ; committee registration and information document(s) ; committee authorization status document(s) ; and all other required due diligence documents filed or submitted in respect of any campaign committee(s) for the political candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito that correspond with the establishment of these two BOE campaign finance accounts : Filer ID's : C02515 and C02516." In response, the Board of Elections provided the following documents : Committee Registration : Treasurer and Bank Information, Committee Authorization Status, and Candidate's Authorization For A Committee To Make All Campaign Financial Disclosures. The forms submitted to the Board of Elections, which were signed and attested to by Councilmember Mark-Viverito and her campaign treasurer, Randolph Mark, indicated at first that the campaign committee being formed by Councilmember Mark-Viverito was going to be for an office "TBD" with a date of election "TBD." The date of election was later scratched out and replaced with "2017." Even though it has been widely reported that Councilmember used her state Board of Elections account to finance her Council speakership race, the state Board of Elections refuses to acknowledge that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's campaign committee deliberately deceived the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, and so far the city campaign finance regulatory authority refuses to admit that its public matching dollar system was gamed by Councilmember Mark-Viverito. This is even after many scandals, where politicians, their teams of lobbyists, and questionable donors continue to game the system. Today, the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News opined that if political campaigns can scam the public matching dollar system of the Campaign Finance Board, imagine what kind of campaign finance fraud can be perpetuated through the Board of Elections, if the state's regulator adopted a public matching dollar system ? The Editorial Board singled out how the Board of Elections is a compromised regulatory body : ". . . the see-no-evil Board of Elections . . . is party-controlled and paralyzed in the face of runaway lawbreaking." In an environment where city and state campaign finance regulators don’t even care to reign in the corruptive role of big money donors, special interests, or lobyists, a candidate can do whatever it takes, even violating the law outright in order to keep gaming the broken campaign finance system in New York. Against this backdrop of corruption, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that he was dissolving a state commission that was investigating public corruption, thereby decreasing the amount of regulatory scrutiny on corrupt candidates, donors, and lobbyists at the very time when it’s most needed.

There's nothing to stop shady politicians from opening never-ending electioneering accounts or setting up secretive 501(c)(4) organizations to violate the spirit of campaign finance regulations.

A dual mandate is a controversial practise that allows politicians to hold more than one simultaneous elected office. The practise was banned in New Jersey by then Gov. Jon Corzine in 1992 over concerns that such politicians would create conflicts of interest in government. In examples that were noted by The New York Times, sometimes a municipal official would also concurrently hold a state-level office. But in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's case, she is holding what she considers two simultaneous offices : a seat on the City Council subject to a city campaign finance regulations and a leadership post on the same City Council, which is not subject to any city campaign finance regulations. It is said that until recently, Councilmember Mark-Viverito was also a District Leader of the state Democratic Party. She had only won the District Leader race last September, but she reportedly resigned her position, but the Web site for Manhattan Democratic Party still shows her holding the position. It’s not known why Councilmember Mark-Viverito resigned her position, if other elected officials hold a publicly-elected office at the same time when they serve as a District Leader. Although a District Leader is still publicly elected by members of that political party during that political party’s primary race, a District Leader is not a government office. For example, Keith Wright, the chair of the Manhattan Democratic Party and a District Leader, is also a state assemblyman. A search for Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s name with state campaign finance regulators showed no state campaign finance account for her District Leader race. It apparently was never disclosed how Councilmember financed her race for District Leader. Such races can involve considerable expense. In 2010, Lincoln Restler raised $66,066 for his District Leader race, and in 2012, Mr. Restler raised $92,513, demonstrating that a candidate for a mere political party leadership post could use a District Leader race to raise vast amounts of campaign donations, over which campaign finance regulators have limited some say, but impose no overall fundraising or spending cap.

Candidates can further game city and state campaign finance regulations by receiving the benefit of electioneering activities of independent expenditure groups or Super PAC’s. A New York City Democratic Party official, who spoke on background, said that a candidate for District Leader could raise large sums of campaign contributions, like Mr. Restler, according to complex formula that is neither entirely clear or fully transparent, and still receive external help from an independent expenditure group or Super PAC. Mind you, this is only for a political party leadership post that can be served concurrently with a publicly-elected office, which would be subject to its own campaign finance restrictions that could further be augmented by further electioneering activities of an independent expenditure group or Super PAC. What good is a spending cap in one election race, when a candidate has so many options to game the system ? In Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s case, she further opened a third campaign finance account, this time to pay for celebrations and other transition functions, even though she had been re-elected to her Councilmember district, and it remains unclear what transition functions an incumbent office holder needed to conduct outside of her official public duties ?

One major issue that good government groups and government reform activists face is to know why city and state campaign finance regulators would accord Councilmember Mark-Viverito the advantage of having so many electioneering accounts during the same election cycle, but deny that right to other candidates seeking a public office, but maybe it has something to do with how city and state campaign finance regulators can’t keep up with the many ways that candidates and their lobbyists make Swiss cheese out of regulations and restrictions ?

In New York, politicians generally shuttle between posts in municipal and state-level elections. Before she was a City Councilmember, Melinda Katz was a legislator with the New York State Assembly. She now serves as Queens Borough President, a municipal post. But she never held any of these posts in a concurrent fashion. Similarly, Thomas Duane ran for a seat in the New York State Senate while he was still a New York City Councilmember. After he won his State Senate race, he resigned from the New York City Council in order to take his state-level post. In New York, however, it appears that a distinction known as double-dipping is allowed, which is separate from a dual mandate. For example, the current New York City schools chancellor, Carmen Farina, came out of retirement to run the city’s public schools in the de Blasio administration. Mayor Bill de Blasio negotiated a deal which allowed Ms. Farina to continue to collect her retirement income at the same time she collected a full salary for serving as the schools chancellor. It's not transparent how the mayor has discretion to approve double-dipping, or when voters approved that councilmembers could treat the seeking of a City Council leadership post as a separate "election." Lobbyists would be interested in maximizing the number of times that candidates could mobilize an army of lobbyists, because lobbyists would be motivated by seeking additional opportunities for compensation, sometimes inflated by public matching dollars, or establishing a special insider access relationship with elected office holders. Contrary to some perceptions, some candidates for leadership posts, who are prolific fundraisers, would also welcome further opportunities to raise money, because the added contributions would give the candidates an unfair advantage over challengers, who are not adept at raising vast amounts of campaign donations. But why would voters deliberately want a situation like this, that would be so susceptible to the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in determining the leaders of the City Council ?

The Campaign Finance Board was contacted by e-mail to determine its view of dual mandates. "The NYC Campaign Finance Board does not regulate which offices individuals can run for or hold, nor do we have the authority under the law to do so," Campaign Finance Board press secretary Matthew Sollars said in an e-mail. The more campaign finance reform advocates examine the role of city campaign finance regulators, the more it becomes apparent that the regulations have not kept up with the corruptive machinations of politicians or their lobbyists.

Besides the uniqueness of Councilmember Mark-Viverito's dual electioneering accounts, should advocates for campaign finance reform conclude that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's situation disadvantaged her challengers by disallowing her challengers the same opportunities to open serial campaign finance accounts, an unexplained advantage that Councilmember Mark-Viverito enjoyed, or should Councilmember Mark-Viverito's double electioneering accounts be seen as having set a dangerous precedent, whereby an elected official can keep opening electioneering accounts, even after having won a general election, to continue raising money from wealthy and special interest donors in order to arguably campaign for dual mandates or special interest causes ? In the effort to reign in the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics, where can voters expect city and state campaign finance regulators to draw the line ?

The danger of dual mandates and perpetual campaign fundraising in New York City politics

How can a seasoned politician, like Councilmember Mark-Viverito, argue that she can remain eligible for $158,502 in public matching dollars for her primary City Council reëlection race, but still go outside the spirit of campaign contribution caps in order to raise over $100,000 for her run for City Council speaker ? What Councilmember Mark-Viverito seeks to do is to create a backdoor that will allow politicians to treat leadership posts as further elected offices that are separate from the underlying elected office that first permitted a politician the privilege, but not the right, of serving the public.

There's no written guarantee that politicians can keep raising money whenever they want. If they did, this would violate the spirit and nature of campaign finance regulations. What is more, it would treat any leadership race in the same legislative body as a separate "election," thereby leading to never-ending campaign fundraising cycles within government, regardless whether the campaigning would take place before or after what we traditionally view as the first Tuesday in November, or "Election Day." If Councilmember Mark-Viverito can treat the Council speakership as a "separate" election, why didn’t Councilmember Daniel Dromm declare any expenditures in his campaign to be named chair of the City Council Education Committee ? As early as a last December, the press was reporting that Councilmember Dromm was seeking that leadership post. Do city and state campaign finance regulations only require disclosure for some City Council leadership posts, but not all ? Are regulations meant to root out corruption only applied on a voluntary basis ?

In Councilmember Mark-Viverito's view, she has a right to raise money to "lobby" other elected officials for a leadership post the same way she has a right to "campaign" before voters for an elected office. This is an example of the addiction to the corruptive role of money and lobbyists by entitled elected officials, who become unprincipled after they become elected. As a self-identified "progressive," Councilmember Mark-Viverito should be moving away from the corruptive role of money and lobbyists in government, not moving towards it. Likewise, Mr. Restler, who some describe as a reformer, in spite of his dependence on prolific fundraising just to earn a political party leadership post. As it stands, good government groups already criticize other loopholes that allow officials seeking unelected municipal appointments to hire lobbyists cloaked in secrecy to game the appointment process. When officials seeking unelected government appointments, they can hire lobbyists, and how these lobbyists are paid, whether any fundraising is conducted, or other details about the relationship between prospective and elected officials and their corresponding lobbyists are not required to be disclosed to the public. In the example of Ms. Farina, the schools chancellor, it's unknown if she employed a team of lobbyists to negotiate any terms of her employment, including her double-dipping. If she had, there's no rule that would require Ms. Farina to disclose the details pertaining to her lobbyists, how they got paid, or if there was any fundraising to pay for her lobbyists. The same goes with lobbyists, if any, that may have had a role in negotiating the controversial appointment of Willliam Bratton as commissioner of the New York Police Department.

Added to all of the questions of suitability and compliance of twin electioneering accounts and dual mandates is the objectivity of the Campaign Finance Board to review these serious issues. Few advocates for campaign finance reform believe that the city's Campaign Finance Board can be trusted to police the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in government. Already, three complaints about municipal campaign finance or electioneering violations have been filed at the federal level, because there are reasons to suspect that city campaign finance regulators have become politicized in their review of violation cases. Since the board members of the Campaign Finance Board are selected by a combination of either the mayor or the Council speaker, the board members are not truly independent from influence from City Hall or City Council. When violation cases roll up to either the mayor or to the Council speaker or to political operatives connected to either, as they do in the review of Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s twin electioneering accounts, how can the Campaign Finance Board truly act free of undue influence from either the mayor or the Council speaker ?

When the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC was found to have violated reporting requirements, the Campaign Finance Board essentially fined the Super PAC ten cents on the dollar for the infraction amounts. It's been asserted by others that the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC acted in concert or to directly benefit the mayoral campaign of Mr. de Blasio, and, in apparent gratitude, Mr. de Blasio consequently attended a key fundraiser for one of the large donors behind the Super PAC last year, an event that was closed to the press, further frustrating transparency. Given the Super PAC's close association with the mayor, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Campaign Finance Board would levy a proverbial slap on the wrist when the target of an investigation is connected to the mayor. This contrasts greatly to when the Campaign Finance Board dealt a death blow to John Liu's mayoral campaign, one of Mr. de Blasio's challengers, by denying Mr. Liu any public matching dollars in last year's mayoral race. Furthermore, Mayor de Blasio seems to be allowed to set up 501(c)(4) advocacy groups that work in tandem with City Hall without question from the city or state campaign finance regulators.

  • RELATED : The Campaign Finance Board is the judge, jury and executioner of New York City's campaign finance law. As Albany eyes the CFB as a model for a statewide public financing system, City & State probes how the agency has wielded its enormous power over city elections. (Cracks in the Campaign Finance Board * City & State)
  • RELATED : Reform advocates and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo tout New York City's public campaign finance system as a model for the state to follow. But some political figures who insist they support the city Campaign Finance Board's mission are questioning its stewardship. (Campaign Finance Board leadership questioned * Newsday)

Going back to the unknown regulatory reasoning for Councilmember Mark-Viverito's need to establish a second electioneering account outside of the jurisdiction of city campaign finance regulators, how is the Campaign Finance Board going to rule in her case ? Presumably her first campaign finance account is undergoing a post-election audit. The only way the Campaign Finance Board knew that the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC had violated disclosure requirements was because investigators found inconsistencies after having cross-checked the Super PAC's reported disclosure filed with the Campaign Finance Board against the reported disclosure filed with the state's Board of Elections. But in Councilmamber Mark-Viverito's case, she couldn't file the Council speaker race disclosure report to city campaign finance regulators, because that report would have violated the spending cap in place for the primary and general election campaigns. The Campaign Finance Board does not have rules for allowing fundraising beyond the general election, nor does it guarantee a politician the ability to perpetually raise campaign donations after Election Day, unless we are witnessing the final politicalization of municipal elections by board members of the Campaign Finance Board, wherein the board members will allow the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration to decimate the spirit of campaign finance laws ? Only time will tell.

The questions surrounding Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race add to the largely unexamined role that other Super PAC's, other lobbyists, and the flood of money had in last year's municipal elections, the first time the corruptive influence that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United would be observed in local political races. None of all that is being examined. If the mayor and the City Council were truly progressive, they would be calling for a real investigation of allegations of campaign finance corruption. Unless, of course, it turns out that the elected officials occupying City Hall and City Council were progressives in name only ?


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)


Emma Wolfe

  • RELATED : Roger Bennett Adler, a special prosecutor investigating the Working Families Party's corrupt relationship with Data & Field Services, a corporation formed by the left-leaning party to provide its candidates with get-out-the-vote staffing and expertise at possibly illegal discounts, has sought an interview with one of Mayor Bill de Blasio's highest-ranking aides, Emma Wolfe, people familiar with the matter said. Data & Field Services, a corporation formed by the left-leaning party to provide its candidates with get-out-the-vote staffing and expertise. Mr. de Blasio was elected in 2009 to become the city's public advocate thanks to, in part, the deeply discounted services of Data & Field. (Prosecutor in Working Families Corruption Case Seeks Interview of de Blasio Aide, Emma Wolfe * The Wall Street Journal)

The impact of the never-ending corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics : Has it come back to bite Mayor Bill de Blasio in the ass ?

To continue the mayor's plan to extend his influence across New York City, his administration has 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 will be able to "control" 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 control 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, even as the NYPD continues to become embroiled in more racially-profiled controversies. It was reported that another political insider and lobbying firm, Pitta Bishop, helped Council Speaker Mark-Viverito with City Council staffing, and now Pitta Bishop, like The Advance Group, are being paid to lobby the same Council speaker they helped to install by gaming the city’s and state’s campaign finance system. Left out in the lurch as a consequence of the these political machinations are voters, who will have no say in what the messaging will be that comes out of the universal pre-kinder or the police reform movements that are now controlled by the political operatives loyal to the mayor and to the Council speaker.

But the mayor's reliance on outside astroturf groups that double as political operatives for his municipal agenda has its price : his political opponents also have at their disposal the same tactics, and so it was that when Mayor de Blasio sought to place restrictions on the growth of charter schools in New York City, his political opponents organized their own public relations campaign. Buying up TV ad time to broadcast political attack ads, an innocuous-sounding, pro-charter school group named Families for Excellent Schools portrayed Mayor de Blasio as deaf to the grassroots needs of the community, a campaign eerily similar to the one used by NYC Is Not For Sale against Mayor de Blasio's former political nemesis, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Whereas Families for Excellent Schools is structured as two entities : Families for Excellent Schools, Inc., a 501(c)(3) entity and Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy, a 501(c)(4) entity, NYC Is Not For Sale was set up as a Super PAC. Mayor de Blasio and his supporters decried the Families for Excellent Schools' TV attack ads just like former Council Speaker Quinn had decried the NYC Is Not For Sale's TV attack ads. 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." The Campaign Finance Board should be reviewing whether the de Blasio campaign coordinated any activities with the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, but it’s not clear if any campaign finance authority would regulate or restrict how the mayor appears to coordinate official policy with the 501(c)(4) entity that has each of lobbied for an enactment of a universal pre-kinder program for New York City and refused to disclose its contibutors and expenditures, as "the people require."

But we saw this week a news report that one of the mayor's political supporters, New York Communities for Change, opted out of a multiple plaintiff lawsuit against the spread of charter schools. New York Communities for Change, which appears to be structured as two separate entities, New York Communities for Change, Inc., a 501(c)(4) entity, and The New York Communities Organizing Fund, Inc., as a 501(c)(3), appears to take political cues from City Hall. After it became clear that Mayor de Blasio was going to support charter schools after he initially communicated that he was going to oppose their spread, New York Communities for Change decided to pull out of the lawsuit in order to stay on the same side on the issue as Mayor de Blasio. But what the charter school debacle showed was that Eva Moskowitz, the charter school administrator who helped to lead the $5 million charter school attack ads on the mayor, was able to hurt the mayor's political poll favorability ratings with her TV attack ads. A recent poll showed that only 39% of poll respondents had a favorable view of Mayor de Blasio's performance. So long as Super PAC's, independent expenditure groups, 501(c)(3) community groups, or 501(c)(4) political entities can mount million-dollar TV attack ads and city and state campaign finance regulators abdicate their responsibilities, public policy will continue to fall victim to big money donors, special interests, and lobbyists. So long as the mayor does nothing about reforming the corruptive influence of big business donors, special interests, and lobbyists in municipal politics, he's going to have to endure being the focus of political attack ads from his wealthy, big business opponents. What will it take for the mayor to follow through on his campaign finance reform promise ? Maybe his approval poll numbers need to sink below 30% ? I'm sure that there are many lobbyists and big business interests in New York City, who'd like to take credit for causing the mayor's poll numbers to sink that low. So long as the law is the law, the law appears to favor more campaign corruption.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Campaign Finance Board Penalizes NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC For Campaign Violations

Million-Dollar Anti-Quinn Super PAC Fined Pennies On The Dollar

Ushered in by the corruptive Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a Super PAC that helped end former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's mayoral ambitions was fined $7,050 by the Campaign Finance Board Thursday morning for failing to report $70,000 in expenditures, The New York Daily News reported.

Activists had spent years organizing against former Speaker Quinn for allowing the NYPD to institute a protest parade permit, for over-turning term limits, and for doing nothing to save St. Vincent's Hospital, amongst other betrayals. But then last year, the Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC. With its very visible negative attack ads on TV, NYC Is Not For Sale took public credit for defeating Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, decidedly handing victory in the mayoral race to former Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. In exchange for having received the benefit and support from the Super PAC, the new mayor helped raise money for at least one of coalition members that organized the Super PAC, and the mayor has repeatedly promised to honor the legislative request of the wealthy donors behind the Super PAC.

The fine levied by the Campaign Finance Board represented a financial penalty of about 10 cents on the dollar for the infraction amounts that the Super PAC failed to declare.

That NYC Is Not For Sale flouted city campaign finance regulations revealed how some of the long-term reform activists, who were initially excited for the Super PAC's help to defeat former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, were not fully aware that NYC Is Not For Sale represented trouble.

The Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC.

Following the Campaign Finance Board's announcement of the fine, reform activists were troubled by the relatively small penalty against the Super PAC. The whole purpose of the activism to defeat former Speaker Quinn was to reform government processes to end corruption and the appearance of corruption. Since the board members of the Campaign Finance Board answer to Mayor Bill de Blasio and the present Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, it is not known how independent the Campaign Finance Board can be in reviewing violations of groups that have relationships with the administration. Both the mayor and the Council speaker have close ties to the coalition of left-leaning unions, Democratic donors, and animal rights activists that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. NYC Is Not For Sale was advised, in turn, by the political lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which is headed by Scott Levenson. The Advance Group and Mr. Levenson have close ties to the mayor and to the Council speaker. If city campaign finance regulators only assessed this politically-connected Democratic Super PAC with a nominal financial penalty, then reform activists may not reasonably expect just outcomes in respect of complaints about other controversial electioneering work during last year's municipal elections. For example, many of the campaigns and/or Super PAC's advised or administered by The Advance Group have triggered critical press reports questioning possible financial or ethical improprieties.

Notwithstanding, the Campaign Finance Board denied John Liu any public matching dollars in last year's mayoral race over questions of the integrity of his fundraising. Yet, the Campaign Finance Board allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to keep all of her public matching dollars, even though she exceeded the spending cap by opening a second campaign finance account with the state Board of Elections in Albany during the same election cycle to fund her speakership race. Separately, the Progressive Caucus of the City Council employed their own lobbyist, Alison Hirsch, in the Council speaker race. However, the Campaign Finance Board has not indicated whether it is comfortable with allowing undeclared or possibly unpaid electioneering work made at the direction of elected officials that take place during an election cycle that subjected those same election officials to spending caps and other public matching dollars restrictions ?

The regulations for campaign finance do not guarantee that every politician is owed a right to keep raising money for post-election leadership races, like the campaign for Council speaker, during the same election cycle where there were spending caps and other matching public dollar restrictions. Every time that politicians raise money, they create opportunities for the undue influence of wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists to have even great influence over our public officials, always at the expense of the mere voter. By allowing Councilmember Mark-Viverito to exceed the spending cap, the Campaign Finance Board has now opened a backdoor to allow any public official to open up campaign accounts with the state Board of Elections that can be used for electioneering purposes that would effectively allow those public officials to game the public matching dollar system through the Campaign Finance Board and still raise more money through a state Board of Elections account. This is a dangerous precedent that the Campaign Finance Board has set. Compounding the concerns of reform activists, the board members of the Campaign Finance Board are now partly answerable to the Councilmember Mark-Viverito, because she has since become the Council speaker as a direct result of questionable electioneering work that falls under the jurisdiction of the Campaign Finance Board.

Judging by the tiny fraction of a fine levied on NYC Is Not For Sale, the Campaign Finance Board is not sufficiently independent to review complaints of campaign finance violations of parties, such as The Advance Group, Mr. Levenson, the animal rights group NY-CLASS, and others, who have as close, if not closer, ties to each of the mayor and the Council speaker than the coalition of left-leaning unions and Democratic donors that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. Indeed, as the Campaign Finance Board continues with its post-election audit, one of the very campaign accounts it must review belongs to the Council speaker, herself.

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)