Quick Takes (v47): Billionaires Buying Elections?

Quick Takes

Catchy headline, right?  Those big bad billionaires and their money making a mess of things?  Well, maybe, and maybe not. Let's take a look.

First, the 'maybe' or, more correctly, the 'actual.' This NY Post article from late December caught my eye, which shouldn't surprise regular readers who know how I feel about political advertising.

The article was about the impact that spending by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was having on ad rates for all of the candidates, including Bloomberg.

He’s a one-man stimulus package! 

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending so much money on television spots across the country that it’s causing ad rates to soar, a new analysis shows. 

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

And, the article noted that Bloomberg is "shelling out an average of $25.5 million a week" on ads since he entered the race in November, according to the Post's research. At that pace, Bloomberg will spend over $350M before the New York primary in late April; he could spend over $1B if he gets the nod to take on Trump, according to the experts. And, 

“With no end in sight for his ad blitz, we will continue to collect data on the way Bloomberg’s spending affects rates in markets across the country,” the analysis said.There’s no historical comparison to Bloomberg’s early ad spending, said John Link, Advertising Analytics vice president of sales and marketing. 

So then: it's clear that Bloomberg's spending is having an influence - the question is, does it have the hoped-for influence, the kind that swings voters from the undecided column or from another candidate's column, to Bloomberg's? 

That's where the 'maybe not' part comes in.

According to this end-of-December article from Reason.com, 

Bloomberg, Steyer Showing Money Can't Buy Elections After Failed $200 Million Ad Blitz

The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.

The article, by Eric Boehm, noted that Bloomberg and fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer have "launched themselves all the way to... the middle tier of the Democratic primary field" even though together they've spent some $200M on television ads, most of it by Bloomberg. That vastly overshadows the piddly amounts spent by the other candidates, none of whom has spent more than $18M according to a Politico report Boehm cites in his article.

And Boehm suggests that the polling performance of both Steyer, who's been on the stage in the past few debates and Bloomberg, who doesn't seem to care about the debates at all, may disprove the cry from other candidates that the billionaires are going to buy the election. 

Further, trying to buy  a nomination may not be the best way to go about driving change.

...the two billionaire candidates are providing a real-world lesson about opportunity costs by setting fire to their huge campaign war chests. They've got the means to change the world but getting involved in politics isn't the best way to do it.

It's early yet - the first votes won't happen until early February, and Bloomberg is not even paying attention to the early states, focusing instead on the Super Tuesday states where there are a boatload of delegates up for grabs, but if things hold true, Boehm may be right when he says that

Yes, it's certainly true that money can buy access and influence in the political process. But when it comes to campaigns, money is only as good as the results it can produce...

And if they can't buy the election, couldn't these guys do more by not running for president?

Focusing on comments made by Tom Steyer, Boehm points out that "you don't need to be president to create jobs" but you need capital to do it - which the billionaires have. And he notes that the private sector, not government, will likely be the impetus for the new ideas and products that we'll need to really tackle the climate crisis, which is Steyer's number one priority. And, Steyer's in a position to support the companies that will be on the cutting edge of that innovation - a better way to burn through cash, it seems, than buying political ads.

Similarly, he points to opportunities Bloomberg has to spend his money on things like "a $100 million campaign to inform Americans about health eating" instead of "the Big Gulp ban President Bloomberg would likely try to sign."

Finally, Boehm makes reference to what I think is a primarily a Sanders push to severely restrict how the Democratic National Committee can raise money (with no impact on its GOP counterpart) and implement public funding for federal elections and national conventions, among other things - and the irony of what that would really mean for other billionaire Mikes and billionaire Toms.

It's also worth noting that the post-Citizens United world that Democrats who actually stand a chance of being elected president want to build would be a place where self-funding billionaire candidates would enjoy a relatively easier path to electoral success. By trying to reduce everyone else's ability to speak, Democrats would let the future Bloombergs and Steyers dominate the airwaves even more than they do now. And those guys could use all the help they can get, it seems.

Definitely something to think about.

As an aside, it's also worth remembering that, back in 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to refuse federal funding - before the Citizen's United decision truly opened the floodgates. And, he also was the guy who got rid of public financing for national conventions. Why? Because there was so much money in the system already, there were plenty of creative ways to get even more money into it, including campaigns to attract small donors,  and, honestly, because the Dems suck at raising money compared to the Republicans.

Quick Takes (v42) - State AGs Take Money from Opioid Lawsuit Defendants

Quick Takes

If ever you needed an example of why we need to get money out of politics, you're going to love this one.

I've talked about this a few times, including in this August 2013 post, when I was at my rantiest, and again in August of last year, when I was calmer but just as strong in my belief that we need to really change how this all works.

And here's the story I'm sad to share with you today. Sad, but unsurprised, I guess. It comes from NBC News.

WASHINGTON — The top legal officials in dozens of states are suing drug companies and retailers for their role in the opioid crisis, but as of June both the Republican Attorneys General Association and its Democratic counterpart were still taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from some of those companies.

RAGA, which represents 24 GOP state attorneys general, got a total of $385,000 from defendants and the pharmaceutical trade association PhRMA between Jan. 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019, according to late June filings....

DAGA, which represents 27 officials, got a total of $365,000 from defendants and PhRMA during the same time period...

Really?  The associations of AGs for both parties are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies they're suing for pushing drugs that have killed or addicted tens of thousands of Americans annually?

Really?

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v30)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Most of us are familiar with how what passes for legislating these days gets done in New York, right?We cram all of the key legislative items into the budget, which is negotiated by the three leaders in Albany, of course. Isn't that how everyone does it?

Probably not, but that it totally muddies the budget waters, cuts most of our expensive legislators out of the process, and negates most of the limited opportunities we voters have to interject our voice into the legislative process doesn't seem to matter much.

This year those three people - Democrats Andrew Cuomo, the Sonofa Gov, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Leader Carl Heastie - have moved quickly on many reforms, but they're currently struggling on public campaign financing. Some of the opposition, it seems, is coming from Heastie's Assembly; while they've passed similar laws in the past when there was zero chance of passage by the Republican-controlled Senate, now that it might actually happen it seems there's some foot-dragging going on. According to a report from the State of Politics blog,

...some lawmakers have raised concerns with the effect of independent expenditure committees, or super PACs, and the potential of fines levied under a public campaign financing system. 

And Heastie himself says his chamber is all for matching small contributions, except for paying for the match, I guess.

He added that his members "are not ready to support the NYC model for the entire state" - but did not say what they would support as a statewide program, not did he suggest where the matching funds would come from.

The New York AFL-CIO also has come out against doing it as part of the budget, noting that they supported the package of reforms that was passed earlier (and that didn't have any potential negative impact on union influence, which this change likely would).

Let's look at what the plan would include.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v29)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

We've talked about the new high-speed legislative agenda here in New York this session, now that the Dems are in charge of the whole shebang that is NY's state government.

One of the items in that agenda was a tip of the hat towards campaign finance reform. Recently, in that regard, our Sonofa Gov signed legislation that closed the LLC loophole, from which the governor and many other elected officials have benefited greatly over time. LLCs now are stuck with the same $5,000 limit, and there's also additional transparency required. Other changes to how we vote in NY were also made.

I say tip of the hat, because there's so much more that can be done, in my opinion, and as I was catching up on last week's newspapers, I saw my state Senator Rachel May's commentary in the op-ed section of my local paper talking about campaign finance reform. And while that reminded me that I'm still waiting for a response on a few questions I sent her 10 days ago on the failed Amazon deal, I was interested in what more she thinks needs to be done on one of my favorite topics.

She referenced two additional things we need: reducing the amount of money individuals can give, and "amplifying" the power of small donors.

Let's take a look.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v27)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

In Thursday's post, the first in a series on our Sonofa Gov's State of the State, we looked at the accomplishments of the Cuomo administration, covering a whole lot of bases.

Today, we start looking at what's on the new progressive agenda Andrew Cuomo and the Democratic majorities in the Assembly and Senate plan on bringing to us.

Some things have already been delivered, as the legislature got right to work as soon as they were sworn in. Here's what was called for in the SOTS:

• Reproductive Health Act
• Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Updating the SAFE Act
• Voting Reforms
• Passing the Equal Rights Amendment
• Child Victims Act
• Dream Act
• Legal Adult Use Cannabis
• Campaign Finance Reforms
• Green New Deal
• Sports Betting
• Pro-Labor Protections
• Tax Reforms
• Rent Regulation Reform
• Continuing the Build New York program
• MTA changes

Cuomo appreciated that there's a lot of stuff in that wish list.

It's a lot. No doubt about it. But there's been a lot that has been bottled up for many, many years that we couldn't get done. And in many ways I feel the state is now liberated with the Senate Democratic Caucus and we can get these things done and we can get them done together and pass a new budget and I believe we can get them done within the first 100 days to show this state a new reality.

Some of it already has been done, or will be done soon. Let's take a look.

Quick Takes (v29): Walking the Talk

Does anyone remember that fateful day earlier this year, when a political action committee announced that it would not accept corporate money? Let's refresh:

Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC (CPC PAC) announced its commitment to campaign finance reform by rejecting contributions from corporate PAC, making it the first major Congressional PAC to reject corporate donations.

Progressive organizations, including End Citizens United, were thrilled. Here's a statement from that group's president, Tiffany Muller:

The CPC PAC's decision to reject corporate PAC money demonstrates their leadership and commitment to unrigging the system. The Caucus has been a longtime champion of everyday families and this move underscores their dedication to giving all Americans a voice in our democracy. Their decision is part of a growing movement to refuse corporate PAC money, we we look forward to working with Representative Pocan, Representative Grijalva and the leadership of Congressional Progressive Caucus to end the influence of big money in politics so that Washington works for all of us.

And Representative Mark Pocan himself added

If we are going to end the influence of corporations and special interests in government, we have to start by not relying on their support.Only by being fully independent of their financial influence can we prioritize people over corporations.

Pretty lofty, for sure, and something I could wholeheartedly support (here's a link to my posts on campaign finance reform for background) -- and something I knew nothing about,. I would have promoted it had I known, even though I'm not a progressive by any stretch.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this headline the other day:

NEARLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS 

STILL TAKES CORPORATE PAC MONEY

Yikes! Nearly every member of the caucus? Even Rep. Pocan? Yep. And it's a challenge for the caucus, and for the candidates themselves.

The new push to go cold turkey on corporate cash is creating tension within the caucus, as progressive members take offense at the implication that their votes might be influenced by big money.

According to Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of a handful of returning House members who have pledged to refuse corporate money,

People just feel like you're saying they are bought and sold - and some are, but many aren't. It's not like everybody who takes corporate PAC money is bad or only does what the corporations want... But that's not what this is about. It's about re-establishing trust with voters, changing the system, working from multiple angles. 

The article is a good read, as it gets into some of the nitty gritty on the variety of challenges to getting corporate money out of the picture, and also the challenges faced by incumbents who run up against very aggressive, more progressive opponents who use their campaign finance 'purity' as a weapon against the 'establishment' progressives. 

I can appreciate the challenges the candidates face - and that it's hard to go cold turkey on big money designed to buy influence, especially when the other side is not doing the same thing.

But as a long-time believer that corporate money doesn't belong in campaigns, I have to say I'm more impressed by candidates who refuse corporate money than I am by PACs that do.

And I'm much more impressed by candidates who walk the talk than I am by candidates who walk the money.

Collins to Run Again After All

Buffalo-area congressman and Trump first responder Chris Collins is going to be on the ballot for his congressional seat in November after all.

Unfortunately, it seems, trying to get off the ballot under some grand scheme being worked on by Erie County Republicans and Collins could jeopardize his defense against the federal criminal charges filed against him mid-summer, and could have led to a lawsuit by NY Democrats fighting against the plan to replace him on the ballot. It might even have jeopardized his bail, attorneys thought, which negated his earlier statement that he would suspend his campaign:

After extensive discussions with my family and my friends over the last few days, I have decided that it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress.

Part of this is because of NY's convoluted election law; he'd only get off the ballot if he was no longer a resident of NY, or nominated for another office, or dead. Something we might want to think about changing in the future,  fellow NY voters...

Speaking of attorneys, it probably shouldn't be shocking to learn that Collins had used campaign funds to pay legal fees related to the insider trading. From this report  in August, we learn (emphasis added)

Since July 2017, Federal Election Commission records show Collins' campaign has been paying up to $60,000 per month in legal services to prestigious law firm Baker Hostetler. The firm is representing Collins in the case.

While it is legal to use campaign funds to pay for legal fees, it's not clear whether Collins' constituents and supporters were aware that donations were being used to assist his legal fight.

Those legal fees covered the time period of two separate House probes, including one by the Office of Congressional Ethics and another by the House Ethics Committee. 

A spokesman for the Collins legal team confirmed that the payments from the campaign were for the investigation by the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics and an ongoing inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Going forward, the congressman will pay for his legal bills out of his own pocket, the spokesman added. 

That's right -- like a lot of other ridiculous expenses, including steak dinners and golf outings, legal fees can be paid out of campaign funds.

I mean, from an ethical perspective, isn't Collins using campaign funds to pay legal fees kind of like the president using donations to his charitable foundation for his own selfish purposes?

Collins recently did an interview with a Buffalo TV station, noting that he welcomed the FBI when they showed up at his house early one morning back in April, and that he thought when he was talking to them that it was related to the ethics investigations (that started in 2016, he noted). In the interview, he was asked whether he thought he had let his constituents down.

No, again, no allegations against me have a thing to do with my role as a member of Congress. Nor did I ever sell any stock, so I'm holding my head high.

He's right on the latter point -- as his stock is in a trust, he couldn't actually sell any specific stock.

But on the former, I can't disagree more: with two separate ethics investigations, the first finding good reason to refer him for the second one, his ethics have everything to do with his role as a Congressman.

 And voters seem to understand that, apparently; for example, residents in Eden, the likely spot to drop Collins so he wouldn't have to run for his Congressional seat, were not at all excited about that idea.

Car horns honked, eliciting cheers as they drove past the group of protesters standing outside the Eden Town Hall. Signs labeled "fraud," "Collins is a swamp monster," and "Eden not bossed, not bought, not Collins," waved in the air as the crowd marched down to the intersection at Route 62 and East Church Street... The protest is the latest in a series of protests revolving around the Republicans' attempts to get Chris Collins off the November congressional ballot after the congressman suspended his campaign following an indictment for federal insider trading and fraud charges. 

Hopefully, voters in the 27th district will do the right thing in November and not give him a single vote.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v21)

(Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo)

Five years ago today, I did a post on campaign finance reform at the request of a right-leaning Facebook friend (yes, as a left-leaning centrist, I have those -- and I hope you, too, engage with folks on the other side of the ideological line on whatever social media platforms you use).

The post addressed not only taking care of things as the national level, but also at the meanwhile, back in Albany level.

I was reminded of that post and others today when I was going through my writing research pile and found an article from mid-July about the Legislature coming back for a special session to take care of ethics reform.

The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) called for the special session mentioned in the article, to get the Sonofa Gov, the Democratic-controlled Assembly and the (barely) Republican-controlled Senate together to get something done on a handful-and-a-half of proposals, including:

• the 'database of deals' that would track all taxpayer subsidies received by a corporation, how many jobs were created, the cost per job and so on -- all about transparency with this one.
• limiting campaign contributions by the governor's appointees, and from vendors and contractors doing business with the state. Notably missing? Limiting contributions by appointees of the Legislature, such as on commissions and authorities, many of which include members appointed by the Gov, the Assembly and the Senate. 
• restoring oversight by the state comptroller on spending related to the CUNY, SUNY and other 'centralized' contracts, which was removed several years ago. This bill would also prohibit state contracts from being 'passed through' state agencies or affiliated organizations.
• budget transparency, via an independent stage budget office, which would make it harder for non-specific lump sum spending to be hidden away somewhere in the budget.
• getting rid of JCOPE, the ridiculously ineffective Joint Commission on Public Ethics and also the Legislative Ethics Committee and replacing them with an independent watchdog agency. 
• closing the LLC loophole which allows campaign contribution limits to be bypassed by donating through limited liability companies. This baby's been around since 1996, and has withstood repeated attempts to talk about limitations.
• limiting outside income for legislators and executive branch employees.

In my opinion from five years ago, and just as strongly today, I do not believe they're going far enough. Several things are missing, including these:

• term limits, something I think we need at every level
• limiting fundraisers during the legislative session (here's a great read from 2016 on the same subject)
• taking campaign donations only from actual human beings, and only then from folks who live within the legislative district.
• limiting how campaign contributions can be used, including no personal use, no out of district use, and how to handle them when the politician leaves office
• limiting or legitimizing franked mail, one of my least favorite legislative perks.

Since it's been a full month since the article on the special session was published, I think they're safe -there's no chance the Leg will come back to tackle ethics or anything else. 

Instead, they can spend the next several weeks roaming around their districts, as they do every election year, telling us how they take this stuff seriously. 

Seriously. 

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v15)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Picking up where we left off on the Sonofa Gov's 2018 State of the State, let's turn again to the litany of things Andrew Cuomo wants to accomplish this session.

Here's a few quick hits, some of which are likely going nowhere, until and even after details get fleshed out:

• protecting union workers
• same day registration, no-fault absentee ballots and early voting
• closing the LLC loophole and implementing a 'true public financing system" 
• social media disclosures on who ("or what") is paying for political advertising
• cashless tolling at bridges, tunnels, and on the Thruway
• expanding investment and acreage for to parks and tourism investments
• airport modernization, investment in the Long Island Railroad, and maybe a tunnel or two
• preserving CHP, Medicaid and our health insurance industry
• expanding pre-K programs and free college tuition programs
• finding creative ways to reduce property taxes (but not the unfunded mandates that drive them)

Some of the harder stuff?  Terrorism, for one.

...lone wolves are a new threat. It is getting worse not better. The Internet companies must search their hearts and minds to determine their obligation to public safety when they know who is visiting terrorist sites, and they know who is learning to kill Americans. That is there issue. In the meantime, our issue is to protect ourselves.

That means more police, better training, state of the art surveillance - and, restructuring Penn Station, which is particularly vulnerable - even if it means using eminent domain if private properties near the Station need to be included in the mix. Cuomo calls for Amtrak, the feds, and city officials to come together to make the necessary improvements. This might be tough with Trump in charge, especially since the feds just stepped back from a new NY/NJ tunnel plan.

Rethinking taxes, another hard one. Cuomo mentioned the federal government's "assault on New York" and the three ways we'll address it. First, challenge the new tax bill it in court - it's unconstitutional, it's double taxation, it violates states' rights and equal protection. Then, we'll develop a 'repeal and replace' effort for every state, every taxpayer.  Finally, we're going to look for a different way to fund New York, reducing our reliance on income taxes, such as a payroll tax.  And yeah, carried interest would be a thing of the past, too.

There was a bit more in there, but then the Sonofa Gov tried to find his father.

As the greatest Republican president Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But our obligation as leaders is not just to say what we are against, but also what we support. Our obligation as leaders is not just to criticize, but to offer an alternative - and we do. New York follows a different path. New York believes that there is no future through division, but only through unity. The New York Way is to believe diversity is not a liability; it is the exact opposite. Diversity is our greatest asset. We celebrate it. The New York Way is that tolerance is expected from all and inclusion is our operating principle, and forging community is our ultimate goal...

And maybe, just maybe, to fuel the fire for 2020.

Gay and straight, white and black and brown, upstate and downstate - all working together focusing on what unites us rather than divides us and then building on that commonality. Now, this is not a new principle. It's not a democratic or republican idea, nor is it even uniquely New York. It is an idea proven over 240 years. It is the nation's founding premise and enduring promise. Is it our Founding Fathers' essential wisdom summed up in just three words: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. So fundamental to the American idea that in 1782 they stitched the words on the great seal of the United States, and that seal and those words are on a flag that has hung in the Oval Office everyday since. Right behind president Trump's desk. To find the way forward, the president only needs to turn around. 

And then, back to New York.

That, my friends, is the true formula for what makes America great. That is the simple yet profound idea that made America the greatest country on the globe. And New York - New York was the laboratory for that idea. We proved that it worked in 1782, and we proved that it works today. This year, let us show what New York is, at its best. Let us show this nation the New York lesson: that at times of trouble and anxiety, the premise that made America great still guides us. That we do not seek to raise ourselves by pulling another down, but rather we believe we succeed by raising each other up. 

That is the New York Way.  And the New York Way is true north. And our true north is to follow the credo on the great seal of the State of New York: always reach higher, always hear our better angels, always aspire to unify, and always point up. 

Excelsior!

To infinity - and beyond!

No, seriously - there's a whole lot of stuff in here, and a lot of it is going to cost a ton of money that we simply do not have. Even Cuomo admits we don't have any money.

It's going to be an interesting session, for sure, starting with Cuomo's budget, due in the next ten days or so.

Grains of Salt (v26): Paychex Paychecks

Well, how about that!  It seems Joanie Mahoney, our County Executive, actually does know who her

Grains of Salt

campaign was paying all this time. 

For some time now, going back at least to July, Mahoney has been hiding the identity of the person or people her campaign paid almost $60,000 over the past year, even though Mahoney last ran for office in 2015 and is not up for re-election again until 2019. 

Now, when I say hiding, I mean that on her campaign finance disclosure statements, Paychex is listed as the payee. For those who may not be aware, Paychex handles payroll processing for businesses and, apparently, campaign committees. But in the case of Mahoney's filings, they are not the payee, they are merely the pass-through.

Early on, Mahoney argued that her filings were OK, they were compliant, and of course they were ethical, because it wasn't "government money" being used. The State Board of Elections disagreed, as we were told by John Conklin (on behalf of the Board).

The point is, the thing that needs to be disclosed is who is ultimately receiving the payment, who the payee really is. The payroll processor is not the one who is really the payee. It's the employee who receives the wages, and that should ultimately be disclosed.

Mahoney, a lawyer, would only say the money was for her campaign staff, pointing out that

I have people who continue to do work on behalf of the campaign. I have disclosed everything the way I am required to do.

She further noted

We will discuss with the Board of Elections to ensure our filings continue to be compliant in the future. Our campaign committee has always taken pride in our timely and accurate disclosure filings.

Moving ahead a few days, the Board was advised by Syracuse.com that Mahoney's campaign was not the only one - there were others too, from across the state - who were filing similar disclosure statements. An eye opener, it was for them -- because the people who review filings had never questioned it before. Here's our friend John Conklin again

There was not a consensus that it was a common enough deficiency to spend limited staff time on the issue.

Later in August, the Board ordered Mahoney's campaign, and the others, to amend their filings to accurately reflect who was the actual end recipient of the wages paid by the campaigns.

Finally, we arrived at the outcome that was ordered back in August.  Earlier this month, Mahoney released the name of the person who was being paid almost $60K to work on the campaign: Lesley B. Dublin.  Dublin is the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for Onondaga County - so while she's not an elected official, she works for county residents. In that capacity, she earns around $79K.

In her spare time - nights and weekends, we're assured - she earns $57K as she

organizes special events and fundraisers for Friends of Joanie Mahoney, and coordinates the campaign's charitable contributions.

Mahoney pats herself on the back for paying one of our employees to be her campaign's employee:

Most elected officials expect their government employees to do campaign work for free and I have never done that. I have always believed that anyone, particularly county employees, who perform campaign responsibilities on their own time should be compensated by the campaign.

I guess we have to give Mahoney credit for her generosity with campaign workers, even if we disapprove of her pretending that it was compliant, or ethical, to hide their names.

Grains of Salt (v24): Fitz and Starts

I find it hard to believe it's been almost nine full months since I last talked about William Fitzpatrick, our District Attorney for Life in Onondaga County.

Fitz has been a frequent topic of conversation around here, most of the time in posts about ethics, campaign finance reform, and, I have to admit, possible over-exertion in the line of duty.

The latest activities bringing him back to these pages fall into the first and last of those linked buckets.

According to this report, Fitzpatrick apparently went door to door with Derek Shepard, candidate for Onondaga County Legislator, who lost in Tuesday's primary to Ken Bush Jr. Fitz also also made a robocall on Shepard's behalf.

Both of these actions would at least appear to be conflicts, or appear to be ethical violations, or at the very least, appear to be examples of poor judgment. After all, The Right Thing: Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors states, in part:

District Attorneys and their assistants may not endorse political candidates, except that in some counties assistants may be permitted to engage in political activity in support of the re-election of the District Attorney by whom they are employed. 

And, Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors and Other Government Lawyers (Amendment Effective July 1, 2012) notes, again in part:

...Thus, it is reasonable and proper for District Attorneys and members of their staffs to engage in activities that do not compromise their office’s efficiency or integrity or interfere with the professional responsibilities and duties of their offices.

District Attorneys may engage in the following conduct (emphasis added): 

1. Register to vote themselves, and vote. 
2. Have membership in a political party
3. Contribute money to political parties, organizations and committees.
4. Attend political/social events. 
5. Participate in community and civic organizations that have no partisan purposes.
6. Sign political petitions as an individual. 
7. In order to demonstrate public support for the nonpartisan nature of the District Attorney’s office, a District Attorney should consider accepting the endorsement of more than one political party when running for office. 
8. District Attorneys are entitled to criticize those policies that undermine public safety and support those policies that advance it, by freely and vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues.

Fitz believes his actions on behalf of Shepard, a County Legislator representing the towns of Elbridge, VanBuren and Baldwinsville since 2011, meet the requirements of number 8 in the code, in that promoting the candidacy of one person over another is "criticizing policies that undermine public safety and supporting those policies that advance it" or else it's "vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues."

Specifically, (again, emphasis added) 

Fitzpatrick said he considered Bush a threat to public safety because as a legislator Bush would likely fight against funding for the DA's office. "I consider that a danger to the office in terms of our budgetary needs."

And I laughed, and laughed, and laughed.   But wait - there's more!

Note that Fitzpatrick's son was involved with Shepard's campaign, and also note that the DA threatened to sue Bush because of a Facebook page that, according to the DA, could have confused someone that they were looking at the official Town of Elbridge page, when in fact they were looking at a page Bush has maintained for years. About Bush's Facebook page (which he had been maintaining for years), Fitz said

While the page did not claim to have an official affiliation with the Town of Elbridge, it had that appearance, and it did not disclaim affiliation.

Rolling on the floor laughing now!  Hold on... Hang on... OK OK - sorry. Had to catch my breath...

Let's review:

• A candidate running against the guy the DA's son is consulting has a social media page that is truly not something it that it does not claim to be, but in the DA's eyes it could possibly be confused with some other page (with literally thousands of fewer friends, by the way), so the DA threatens to sue the candidate.
• The DA goes door to door with the candidate his son consults for, greeting voters and all, and also does a recorded message for that candidate, which was paid for by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, and which launches the day before the primary, but that's not an endorsement of the candidate.

Seriously - I laughed and laughed.

At the zeal with which the DA protected voters from the outside guy running against the candidate supported by the Republican party leadership (and Fitz's son).

At the nonsensical nature of Fitz's concern for my personal safety as a resident of Onondaga County.

At his apparent lack of appreciation of the irony in threatening someone over the appearance of a conflict, while participating in not one but two very 'conflicting' acts himself.

At the insanity of designating someone who might cut the DA's budget as a threat to public safety, a term previously reserved for gang members, predatory sex offenders, and drug kingpins. How things have changed.

At the absurdity of him thinking we'd actually believe that he wasn't endorsing a candidate.

At how little he understands (or cares) how the crap he does undermines public trust in elected officials.

At how glibly he's able to justify his behavior at each and every turn, from a legal perspective, while being completely tone deaf to the optics, and the ethics.

At how stupid he must think we are.

(Oh, crap --  I hope he doesn't consider me a threat to public safety for disagreeing with him... )

Wondering on Wednesday (v86)

Are you enjoying your spring break? You do have a spring break, right? I confess, I took a mini-break from the blog for a week, but now I'm back and wondering, this Wednesday, about all sorts of stuff.

For example, should I wonder which country we're going to bomb next? I mean, three countries in not quite three months in office -- we're off to quite a start, no? Seriously - I'm just kidding. I do wonder though, how many of those Mother of All Bombs things we have in our arsenal. We dropped that one on those Afghani ISIS tunnels last week, but I thought America dropped that particular bomb on November 8th?

Last week the president said in an interview that we were sending an 'armada' to the Korean peninsula as a show of strength against North Korea, to show them that we're not messing around as they continue to test missiles in the hopes of having one capable of reaching our West Coast. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Trump News Network, we heard this:

We are sending an armada. Very powerful. We have submarines. Very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you.

The thing is, we're just now sending the armada  however many days later. Because at the time we heard the powerful...very powerful message, the armada was in fact heading away from the Korean peninsula. That might have sent a very powerful message that (a) he doesn't know where his armada is, or (b) his people don't know what he's saying, or (c) it could be a very sneaky way of continuing his approach to not telegraph his plans. Either way, like the dropping of the 20,000,000,000,000 pound bomb on the ISIS tunnel network in Afghanistan, keeping people guessing can actually be considered a foreign policy - as long as someone knows the plan. Someone does know the plan, right? I don't need to know who, I just don't want do wonder if there is someone orchestrating all of this.

Speaking of keeping them guessing, we will have to wonder no more about the fate of Bill O'Reilly, the host of The O'Reilly Factor on Trump News. It seems that the network, after having gone through the embarrassing 'Ailes Factor' last year, had little tolerance for O'Reilly's peccadilloes once it came to light that five women had been paid some $13M to settle complaints of sexual harassment. O'Reilly was let go today.

Probably to no one's surprise, given his history, Donald Trump came to the defense of Ailes last year, noting shortly after Ailes left the network

It's very sad because he's a very good person. I've always found him to be just a very, very good person. And by the way, a very, very talented person. Look what he's done. So I feel very badly. I think it's so sad. He's such a great guy. Roger is - I mean, what he's done on television, is in the history of television, he's gotta be placed in the top three, or four or five. And that includes the founding of the major networks. So, it's too bad. I'm sure it was friendly. 

And, again to no one's surprise, he was in O'Reilly's corner as well.

I think he shouldn't have settled; personally, I think he shouldn't have settled. Because you should have taken it all the way. I don't think Bill did anything wrong. I think he's a person I know well -- he is a good person.

Perhaps there's no reason to wonder any more whether the old "it takes one to know one" adage applies to creepy white guys.

One thing I do wonder about is the race to replace now-HHS Secretary Tom Price, who represented Georgia's 6th district before being tapped to help dismantle the Affordable Care Act in the Trump administration. Yesterday's special election featured 18 candidates: two Independents, five Dems, and a boatload of Republicans. The main Dem, Jon Ossoff, won 48.1% of the vote; because he didn't get at least 50%, he'll face Republican Karen Handel, the distant second-place finisher (19.8%) in a knock-out round in June.  So why do I wonder about this one?

Well, let's see. For starters, Ossoff doesn't even live in the district, he lives down the road with his girlfriend who's in med school at Emory University. And, while he raised more than $8M for the race, the vast majority of that money also doesn't live in the district. In fact, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity,

When the candidates' own campaign money is excluded, the Georgia 6th special election has attracted about one Georgia penny for every $10 in national cash.

I don't know about you, but I wonder where Ossoff's loyalty would fall, should push come to shove: with the constituents of the district, or his moneybags? Do we need campaign finance reform, or what?

CNN photo

And finally, I wonder, what the heck is up with Reince Priebus?

Are things so bad at the White House that he's pretending to be a Secret Service agent travelling with Mike Pence over there in South Korea?

I really wonder about this one.

The System is Rigged (Part One)

Is your perception that "the system" is rigged?

Donald Trump tells us the system is rigged, especially the tax system, and only he knows how to fix it. That's what he told us at the Republican National Convention back in July. The tax system, mind you, which allowed him to legally take a $900M loss and erase his federal tax obligation for maybe eighteen years or so.

Trump has said half of Americans don't pay taxes despite crippling government debt. He has complained about hedge fund managers not paying taxes, people 'leaving the country' to avoid paying taxes, companies lobbying to not pay taxes, companies moving business outside the US to avoid paying taxes, deductions that allow people not to pay taxes, complained that 20% is not enough tax for President Obama to pay, and has even said that the more money you earn, the more taxes you should pay.

And yet, even as he has complained about OPT (other people's taxes) or the lack thereof, he took his $916,000,000 single-year loss, stretched that across many years, and then proclaimed himself a genius for doing so.

You follow that, right? He's a genius for taking advantage of something on his personal taxes but when other people take advantage of legal mechanisms to reduce their tax burden, those people are, well, I guess, the equivalent of poor people who don't pay any taxes at all because they don't make enough to live on. He's a genius, but everyone else needs to pay up?

Not only does he proclaim himself a genius, the one who knows more about our tax system than anyone -- anyone! -- but he accuses other people of doing the same thing, taking the crazy huge deductions, as if they all do it, those rich people.

Like Warren Buffet, currently the planet's fourth richest person, according to the Forbes real time calculation as I write this. (Trump is currently tied for #324, in case you were interested, with an estimated $4.5B, or around half of his announced wealth.) Trump said that "Warren Buffett took a massive deduction" however that appears to be a comment with which Buffett would beg to differ, as noted by his response.

Answering a question last night (note: referring to Sunday's debate) about his $916 million income tax loss carryforward in 1995, Donald Trump stated that "Warren Buffett took a massive deduction." Mr. Trump says he knows more about taxes than any other human. He has not seen my income tax returns. But I am happy to give him the facts. 

Trump hasn't seen them, but it's not because Buffett won't show them -- in fact, a couple of months ago, he offered to sit down with Trump, and have a chat.

I'll bring my tax return. He can bring his tax return...Just let people ask us questions about items on there. Nobody is going to arrest us. There are no rules against showing your tax returns. 

Back to Trump's comment in the debate, implying that he's not the only one who does this - as if that matters at all, since Trump is the one who's running for President and he is the one who has chastised others for not paying taxes. And are you noting a trend here? Trump admits to sexually assaulting women (even though he denies that's what he said) and apologizes for it, by saying Bill Clinton was worse. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he takes a tax break and 'justifies' it by saying others did too.

Here's the rest of Buffett's statement on his own taxes.

My 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11,563,931. My deductions totaled $5,477,694, of which allowable charitable contributions were $3469,179. All but $36,037 of the remainder was for state income taxes.

The total charitable contributions I made during the year were $2,858,057,970, of which more than $2.5 billion were not taken as deductions and never will be. Tax law properly limits charitable deductions.

My federal income tax for the year was $1,845,557. Returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates.

I have paid federal income taxes every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year). I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward.

Finally, I have been audited by the IRS multiple times and am currently being audited. I have no problem releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump - at least he would have no legal problem. 

Why is it that politicians who think something is 'wrong' or 'needs to be fixed' feel compelled to take advantage of the very same wrong, broken thing? And yes, folks, Donald Trump is a politician. Don't be fooled when he says he's not.

Here's another famous New Yorker, our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo, who is a lot like Trump when it comes to saying one thing and doing another.

Cuomo, too, has told us the system is rigged. He has told us over and over that we need campaign finance reform in New York state, and particularly that we need to do something about the LLC loophole (allowing every LLC to contribute $150K annually to politicians and campaigns - in essence, encouraging people to establish multiple LLCs so that almost unlimited contributions can be made to elected officials, you know, to 'get their point across').

He says that, and he has proposed legislation to fix it, but it fails every time, in part, I'm sure, because while he's railing against the loophole, he takes millions from LLCs -- because it's legal to do so.

That's right. Just like Trump, Cuomo has a history of complaining about the very thing he is so adept at using to his advantage. With both of them, we are supposed to listen to the ire in their words, all the while ignoring the irony of their actions.

They tire me out, these glib politicians. Had they the courage of their convictions, they would not be taking  the 18-year carryforward or the $6M in LLC money, nor would they do any of the myriad other things they say are bad for us and need changing.

They tire me out.

More Money is Not the Answer

Common Cause New York has released the latest information on outside income for New York's legislators. There's a lot of it for some of our elected officials, who make a minimum of $79,500 for their part-time jobs (those in leadership positions make quite a bit more).

The chart at right shows where the outside money comes from, by industry. Not surprisingly, the majority of members with outside income are lawyers; after all, they're lawmakers. 

Common Cause notes that, on the plus side, some 60% of legislators elected before 2014 report no outside income, and they surmise that "many, if not all" of the new class of legislators no longer hold their day jobs. 

The group also believes that, in light of the recent guilty verdicts for former State Senate leader Dean Skelos and former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, the time is now to make some changes.  And up to that point, I agree with them -- we differ, however, on how to fix the problem.

Common Cause would like to see the following changes

• A ban on outside income
• a full-time legislature
• a pay raise for members

Their thinking is, if we turned the legislators into full-time employees of New York taxpayers, and gave them a raise, they wouldn't need to have outside income. And if they don't have outside income, they can't be 'bought' by outside interests.

My thinking is, if they're ethical people, it doesn't matter whether they're paid more or work full time or are allowed to continue earning income as veterinarians or funeral directors or owners of ice cream stands. I don't think it's necessary for them to figure out ways to convert their businesses into trusts or whatever it is they'd need to do in order to remove themselves from their 'real' careers while they served part time as our representatives.

We need our elected officials to stop looking at their seats as permanent possessions, as jobs for life instead of what they should be: short-term opportunities to serve the public. I want them to have jobs and families and careers and lives outside their public service - because I think they'd be better public servants. I want there to be teachers or auction house owners and all the rest, working part time for the citizens of New York. I'm perfectly OK with that.

What I do have a problem with, is how long some of these folks have been in office. 

In the Assembly, Gary Finch, the funeral services guy, was elected in 1999. Will Barclay was elected in 2002. Stephen Hawley, the big winner in the outside income game, was elected in 2006. 

Over in the Senate, it's even more glaring. Kenneth LaValle was elected in 1976, the year I got out of high school.

Skelos, one of the Three Amigos our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo giggled about earlier this year at his economic speech, was elected in 1984. Kemp Hannon, 1989; Mike Nozzolio, 1992.

Is it the outside income that's the issue, or is it the amount of time these folks spend in Albany?

Is it outside income, or simply that some of them can't resist the benefits that come their way, the money to keep them in office, or jobs for their kids -- benefits that come to them because of the power they have, the power that comes with longevity?

Is it outside income, or is it the unending need to raise money for the next election, money from big donors who stand to benefit from laws passed by the people who receive the donations?

If you ask me, we do not need full-time legislators with bigger salaries and bigger pensions. We need term limits and we need real campaign finance reform.

• If a legislator is not worried about the next election, and instead is focused on serving the public for the term of the election they just won, we'll be better off. 
• When a legislator doesn't need to protect a pension, and instead is focused on protecting the environment, or jobs, or dwindling tax dollars, we'll be better off.
• When a legislator knows that they can't use campaign funds for whatever they please, we'll be better off. 
• When a legislator knows that they have an equal opportunity to participate, and that their constituents will have equal representation, we'll be better off. 
• When we elect people who know what the rules are, know they're going to be held accountable to the rules, and know that there will be no personal nest-feathering allowed, we'll be better off.

It all starts with term limits. 

The Update Desk 10/21/15: Joe, Paul, and Dough

Back on September 13th, I suggested that Joe Biden shouldn't run for President. Today, he agreed with me.

In a brief Rose Garden speech, Biden conceded that it was now simply too late for him to mount a realistic campaign, as his family's grieving process took the time that Biden would have otherwise spend building a campaign structure, raising money, and getting everyone's skin thickened up for the inevitable landslide of attention, both good and bad.

I'm glad he's out - and I appreciate his intention to not sit idly by, but to speak out on issues as his term as Vice President winds down.

While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. 

He might not be in the race, but at this point I'll take help from anyone who can help shape the debate.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has decided to put his hat into the ring to be Speaker of the House, a job he does not want, does not need, and won't take unless the entire Republican contingent in the House agrees to his terms.

Which is kind of funny, when you think about it, given that Crying John Boehner is out and the heir apparent Kevin McCarthy is out because they did not agree to the terms of the alleged Freedom Caucus, a group of some 40 hard line conservatives who are trying to shift the House to, oh, I don't know -- what's further right than the Pacific Ocean?

One of his big 'requests' is that he needs more time with his family, including his three young children. The Speaker historically has spent a lot of time criss-crossing the country raising money for the party and House members, something which Ryan will not do in the traditional way, should he be selected for the leadership role.

At least in that regard, he has something in common with Biden.

And now for that guy Dough. In my post Big Money in Little Politics earlier this week, I shared some info from a NY Times article on a relative handful of folks, some 158 families, who (through June 30th) had given $176,000,000 to candidates or their super PACs, and lamented, as I have before, the role that money plays in taking folks like you and me out of the political game.

That little $176M is a mere drop in the bucket, folks.  According to OpenSecrets.org, there are huge sums of money going to candidates in the 2016 cycle.

As of October 21, 2015, 1,207 groups organized as super PACS have reported total receipts of $303,520,383. 

Here's just a sampling:

• Right to Rise USA (Jeb Bush): $103,167845
• Unintimidated PAC (Scott Walker): $20,022,405
• Conservative Solutions PAC (Marco Rubio): $16,057,755
• Priorities USA Action (Hillary Clinton):$15,654,457
• Keep the Promise III (Ted Cruz): $15,000,000
• Keep the Promise I (Cruz): $11,007,096
• America Leads (Chris Christie): $11,003,304
• Keep the Promise II (Cruz): $10,000,000
• Opportunity and Freedom I (Rick Perry):$10,000,000

$303,520,383. So far. And that's just this bucket of contribution, it's not all of it.

It's kind of fun to note how much money has gone to folks who are either doing poorly (Bush, Rubio, Christie and even Cruz) or are out of the picture completely (Walker, Perry).

What's that saying about a fool and his money? 

Big Money in Little Politics

veritable pastiche photo

Think of the last holiday party, class reunion (or even a family reunion), or offsite (business meeting) you attended. Think about the hotel conference rooms or banquet rooms you've been in, and try to picture what a room full of 150 or so people looks like.

Now that you've got that picture in mind, picture this: according to a story in the New York Times a week or so ago, 158 families, along with their companies, have donated over $176 million dollars  -  just through the end of June  -  to presidential candidates.

That's an awful lot of money, for what's really a small pool of beneficiaries - the two dozen or so folks who are running for president.

One hundred fifty eight families. One hundred seventy six million dollars.

Almost half of all of the money contributed to the candidates through June 30th came from just a few more people than attended the average wedding last year. Eight families from the same elite Houston neighborhood donated $7,780,000.  I wonder whether the ones that only coughed up $250,000 feel overshadowed by their neighbors, three of whom have already given $2M each?

One fracking-rich family in Texas ($15M) and a NYC family, hedge-fund rich ($11M), gave $26M in support of  Ted Cruz, currently in fifth place. Another family gave $5M to Scott Walker, who is now on the sidelines. And yet, they're hugely successful in business - heck, they've probably already made enough to cover these bets.

Does this much money, this early, from so few, bother you?  Is this what you consider a 'representative democracy' or is this something else entirely? Is this 'freedom of speech' or is it trying to buy an election? How can any candidate pretend that there is not something in it for these huge donors?

I'm sure the folks who want to be president are all like New York's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo, who sleeps well at night knowing that he's pure of thought and deed and can't be bought. But, as I noted back in 2014, this kind of money buys something, or else it wouldn't be donated.

The little people -- me and everyone I know, for example --  cannot compete with the likes of a Russian-born billionaire who became an American citizen two years after I got out of high school with close to $2M to burn trying to influence the presidential election, or a Hollywood studio magnate or a Northern California tech mogul, or sports team owners (including the Walker supporters mentioned above), whether their money is going to Republicans (138 of the families) or Democrats (the remaining 20).

We can't compete with these folks, and we shouldn't have to. Rather than pricing you and me out of the market, however, we should have priced them out of the market.

A listing of the families, and their contributions, is here. 

More Term Limits, Please.

Governor Cuomo is using his executive budget-making powers to force the legislature into a corner on ethics reform. Among other things, according to his 30-day budget amendments, he would:

• eliminate the $172 per diem paid to each legislator when they're in Albany, and instead have them file expense reports just like state employees are required to do;
• disclose all outside income over $1,000; not allow any compensation in connection with a bill or resolution; not refer lobbyists to any business the lawmaker is affiliated with; require lawyers, real estate agents and some others to provide a description for and the source of compensation; disclose any compensation of over $5,000 from a client/customer, as well as disclosing who the client/customer is, the work performed, and whether the services were related to any pending legislation; 
• change the rules so that pensions can be forfeited by those folks who were elected before the pension forfeiture law was passed in 2011; and make it possible for prosecution of legislators for filing a false instrument (such as their disclosure statement), including a ban on holding office for five years or more;
• expand the disclosure requirements on communications made with a certain number of days of a general, special, or primary election.

These budget amendments are in addition to or add clarity to changes the Sonofa Gov outlined earlier in February. And, in theory, these changes are fine.  I'm all for disclosure, and I've long been a proponent of eliminating the per diem  After all, we pay these folks $79,000+ per year; do we also have to pay them for showing up?

I have a few issues, however, with his approach.  This is the same governor, after all, who set up a fake Moreland Commission on ethics, and shut it down as soon as it got close to his end of the hall.  He's ignoring existing ethics venues that are already in place, which he could easily work to strengthen rather than ignoring them.

Further, I have a strong distaste for politicians who link unrelated items together (ethics and the state budget?) and for those who think that they're more important than the process as a whole, which is exactly what Cuomo is doing. I mean, what's your tolerance for a CEO who threatens to shut down the whole shebang if he doesn't get his way?

And have we been shown, in any way at all, that ethics reform is more important than the business of New York?  I don't believe we have.

Not only that, but his changes don't get at the heart of the issue, which is this: entrenched politicians, the ones who are around year after year after decade after decade, are really the cause of the ethics problem. It's the power that goes with all of that time in office, the power which is so attractive to outside influencers, and so susceptible to outside influence. If you have no power, you're harder to bribe.

Someone like Shelly Silver, for example, with his decades-long career, his big staff, fancy office, ability to bring legislation to the floor (or keep it from the floor), the ability to 'motivate' other members of the legislature to go along, and in return get nice assignments, bigger lulus, and so on -- that's the guy you want to have your hooks in if you're unethical, or as some like to say, "playing by the rules."

How do we stop them? Term limits.

Itemizing campaign contributions is good, eliminating the per diem is good, forfeiting pensions is good, but those things won't stop the madness that is inherent with entrenched politicians.

These were not intended to be lifetime jobs; people who think they are, are the problem.  And when they've been there so long that even the strongest made-in-New-York shoe horn is not enough to shake them loose, we need more than Cuomo's suggested reforms.

We need term limits. We need level playing fields so that all of the people who are elected to serve have a chance to do that, on equal footing with their gentle brothers and sisters from districts across the state.  We can no longer continue to have the system turned on its head by people who are allowed to stick around forever, who accumulate and wield a ridiculous amount of power based simply on longevity.

As we learned in seventh or eight grade, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More term limits, please.