The senior member of the New York State Senate upstate Democratic delegation, Bill Stachowski (pictured, at left, with Senator Chuck Schumer), is vulnerable. The race in 2008 was proof of that. He hasn't been helped by the leadership deal made this time last year that led to Stachowski losing the Finance Committee chair he was in line to receive (he was the ranking member while in the minority) and the same committee chair post that he was telling voters he would receive once Democrats are in the majority.
The Democratic challengers in the 58th Senate District are lining up, citing the need to reform Albany and Stachowski's long tenure in the Senate. The list, according to the Buffalo News, includes the following names:
"I thought he just ran for re-election and told the people of his district he would be serving them," Stachowski said. "He hasn't even been sworn in yet, and he's looking to leave."
Kennedy has said he would welcome the support of Tom Golisano and Responsible New York. Kennedy does have the backing of Steve Pigeon, who helped orchestrate the Senate coup. The irony there shouldn't be lost on anyone. A guy who is trying to run a reform platform running with the support of the guy who was the main player in throwing the Senate into disarray.
- Another county legislator, Daniel Kozub, has also expressed interest in running. Kozub previously served on the Lackawanna City Council and is a fiscal conservative. He would be similar to Stachowski in that respect.
- Other names include: Sean Cooney, an attorney from Buffalo; Lackawanna Mayor Norman Polanski; Cheektowaga Councilman James Rogowski; Hamburg attorney Dennis Gaughan; Michael Kuzma, a legislative assistant to Buffalo Common Council President David A. Franczyk.
The Buffalo News article indicated that Kuzma would run a "left-of-center" platform. What that is exactly remains to be seen. A good progressive candidate would be nice in the district, but a moderate might make the best possible candidate to not only beat Stachowski but win the general election.
The key in this race is to find someone who can do both. Defeating Stachowski in a primary and then losing in the general is not the goal. But we also need someone who might be more of a liability (Kennedy) than an asset. While it is good to primary an incumbent senator, especially one who has worn out his or her welcome, there needs to be a strong candidate to replace the ineffective one. Kennedy's candidacy raises plenty of questions. His dealings in the past with Republicans and Chris Collins make him a questionable choice. There is a long time until Primary Day so this battle will play out. If Kennedy shows he can be a reformer, he might be worth a look. But the other candidates are worth a look too.
There will be plenty of action in SD-58 this year between the primary and general election. Stachowski is in real danger, not only among members of his own party, but in the general election as well. That's why the primary is important. If the right candidate wins, then the general should not be difficult.
I was among many in the netroots who worked hard on behalf of a certain group of candidates last year. One of those candidates was our presidential nominee (and now President of the United States) Barack Obama. The netroots, since 2006, has worked hard to elect Democrats and bring a progressive majority to the United States after decades-long rule by conservatives. We had hoped that Obama winning in 2008 would bring that change we need (after all, that was his campaign slogan).
But as we have seen in the health care debate and other issues, progressives are being pushed around and told that they should cave to conservative Democrats. As Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York said recently, we have "compromised our compromised compromise." We asked for a compromise (the public option) from the start and somehow that got whittled away to expanding Medicare. But now both aren't options in the Senate because of one member of the Democratic caucus - Joe Lieberman - who campaigned against Obama last year.
That's right: The Democratic President is caving to a man who supported the Republican candidate.
I know. It doesn't make sense to me either.
But here is another point I will make on this issue. Chris Bowers puts it in intelligent context, but I'm going to make it a much simpler and condensed point.
Conservative Democrats can be replaced. Progressive Democrats cannot.
The reason I say that is based on common knowledge. If a progressive Democrat is in office, chances are that Democrat is in no less than a moderate district and more than likely a progressive one. So the chances of electing a Republican (look at the many congressional districts in the New York City area) are slim to none.
But the districts where there are conservative Democrats tend to be conservative-leaning (or full-blown conservative) and they tend to have Republican enrollment advantages. So where there are conservative Democrats, there could be a conservative Republican to replace them. You aren't going to install a conservative Republican in a progressive district or a progressive Democrat in a conservative district. It's rare and highly unlikely. So where progressive Democrats are in place, it is very hard for them to lose. But conservative Democrats are walking on egg shells and, in the right election, can be swept from office.
The point is not so much about Lieberman but about conservative Democrats. The President and the congressional leadership has caved to these conservatives. Why? To try and call any sort of reform "victory" in hopes that it leads to gains and not losses in 2010.
But the President and the congressional leadership is making a mistake. A huge mistake.
If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work. President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.
But who gets caved to? The guy who campaigned against Democrats (and progressives) in 2008 and who has vowed to do so again.
- Gillibrand's favorable rating is 31 percent, which is a decrease from last month's 34 percent rating but still keeps her above 30 percent. Her unfavorable rating is 22 percent - the lowest it has been since August. Those who don't know or have no opinion come in at 47 percent and while that still is a lot of ground to cover, it is still below 50 percent of the respondents.
- Bill Thompson's favorable is lower than Gillibrand's. He comes in at 25 percent and his unfavorable rating is 17 percent. There are 58 percent of respondents who don't know him or have no opinion of him, so he's behind Gillibrand in that respect.
- In a primary featuring Gillibrand, Thompson, Harold Ford Jr. and Jonathan Tasini, Gillibrand wins with 32 percent of the vote. Thompson is second with 23 percent, Ford nets seven percent of the vote and Tasini is last with three percent. That part of the poll makes it clear that, at least today, Gillibrand is the top of the Democratic crop of candidates. She is the strongest of any of them.
- In head-to-head matchups with with Gillibrand and two top Republican candidates, Gillibrand fares well. While she would lose to Rudy Giuliani 49 percent to 42 percent, she would defeat George Pataki 46 percent to 43 percent.
The Gillibrand-Giuliani matchup is especially good for Gillibrand since in October, she was 17 points behind Giuliani. Now, she only trails by seven points 11 months out from the general election and nine months out of the primary.
- Giuliani and Pataki both have favorable ratings over 50 percent (Giuliani is at 58 percent while Pataki enjoys a 53 percent favorable rating) but neither get over 50 percent against Gillibrand.
Gillibrand has plenty of work to do to make herself a favorite for the general election next year. But one thing is becoming clear. She is the option for Democrats next year. If she can do this well in a poll against Thompson, who is coming off a battle for mayor in New York City (a place where Gillibrand hasn't run a full-blown campaign as of yet) then that is a good sign for her.
Another good sign is beating out Pataki. She was ahead of Pataki by one percentage point in the last Siena poll so increasing that lead to three points is a good sign that more and more voters see her as a better candidate than Pataki. Of course, Pataki doesn't want to run for Senate, but considering his name recognition (he was governor for 12 years), beating him in a poll isn't a bad thing.
Jon Cooper has been pondering a primary challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for months now. In an interviewed I conducted with him in the fall, he outlined a number of reasons why he would mount such a challenge while adding that he would make a decision on whether or not to run by year's end.
Today, Cooper held a press conference announcing the he will not run against Gillibrand. In addition, he announced that he is endorsing Gillibrand for Senate believing her to be the best candidate for the job.
In a tweet, Gillibrand said she was "honored" by the endorsement.
I am honored to receive the endorsement of one of Long Island's great leaders and champions of LGBT rights, Majority Leader Jon Cooper.
Cooper was considered a long-shot candidate because he would enter the race trying to make the leap from county legislator to U.S Senate. He would be in a better position than Jonathan Tasini, but still would face long odds.
Cooper's exit means that no elected officials from New York will face Gillibrand (unless something changes over the next several months).
The 2010 election season is upon us and one of the most interesting stories will be the fight for the New York State Senate. Democrats hold on to a narrow majority (32 to 30) and Republicans are going to put up a huge fight to retake the upper house.
This fight for the Senate will have many battlegrounds and one of those battlegrounds will be Long Island. And for Regina Calcaterra, the 1st Senate District will be one district where the incumbent will face a serious challenge.
Calcaterra is a corporate fraud lawyer who has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including the fraud cases involving Merrill Lynch and WorldCom. She has protected the pensions of employees whose futures are threatened by the fraudulent actions of Wall Street.
She also is the Democratic candidate challenging Republican Senator Kenneth LaValle in the 1st Senate District.
"In 2008, there was only one candidate on the ballot for the state Senate's First District - a 32-year incumbent who had experienced only nominal opposition during his entire tenure," Calcaterra said. "With so much at stake in state government, and with growing dysfunction in the Legislature, I decided to run for the seat in next year's election."
Calcaterra's childhood is, in itself, a profile in courage. She experienced homelessness and poverty growing up and credits a certain group of people with making her the person she is today.
"Through the help of very hard-working people in government - teachers, social workers, librarians, police officers and even crossing guards - we got through it," she said. "They inspired me to take the path that got me here today, through public school, college and law school, and convinced me that government can absolutely do a better job than we see today."
Calcaterra took time to answer questions submitted via e-mail about her candidacy, where she stands on important issues and provided a general idea of what her platform will look like.
QUESTION: You make it a point on your website to list "Prosecuting Wall Street, Protecting Main Street" as, if I may presume, a priority. As it pertains to your district, why is protecting Main Street a high priority while ensuring that Wall Street is regulated?
CALCATERRA: Our current economic downturn might have been avoided had regulators been more vigilant and those on Wall Street were held to higher standards of transparency and honesty. Big companies like WorldCom and AIG took investment dollars from the pensions of hard working people like cops, firefighters, teachers and other civil servants. My job as a corporate fraud lawyer is to fight to get that money back so those hard-working people or taxpayers aren't out hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars. I have done this effectively on behalf of retirees and New York's taxpayers.
It shouldn't stop there, though. We've learned many lessons from what happened on Wall Street to cause the economic meltdown and a lot of it can be applied to Albany. Quarterly agency and authority budget reporting, certified audited year end agency financial statements, investigations that include legislative subpoena power, and agency head accountability can get government to work effectively again for everyone.
Q: After the defeat of marriage equality, you appeared at a pro-marriage equality rally. Your opponent, Senator LaValle, voted against the bill along with the whole Republican conference. Is it safe to say that you would be a "yes" vote for marriage equality? Why do you support marriage equality?
CALCATERRA: I will vote for marriage equality without hesitation. I do not believe in "separate but equal" treatment of any group in society, as Sen. LaValle proposed with favoring civil unions over legal marriage. I also believe we should not discriminate against families - - any families, any children - - for the reasons marriage equality opponents like Sen. LaValle suggest.
Q: Property tax reform has been an issue in the past that is still largely unsettled. Governor Paterson and other advocates have supported a property tax cap that would cap taxes at a certain percentage rate. Others have supported a circuit breaker, which would set your tax rate based on the money you make. Do you support either of those proposals or do you have other ideas for property tax reform?
CALCATERRA: Long Island has a deep problem with property taxes that can't be solved overnight. A major step toward fixing high property taxes has been taken by allowing voters the option of consolidating local government and getting rid of some unnecessary special benefit (and tax) districts at the local level. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo proposed that legislation last year, the Legislature passed it and Gov. Paterson signed it into law. It is unfortunate that Sen. LaValle voted against this measure; the first step toward reducing property taxes is reducing waste and redundancy in local government. Residents now have that opportunity in spite of Sen. LaValle's opposition.
If these efficiency and consolidation measures do not address the problems in the near term, a property tax cap should be part of the discussion. However taxpayers must be assured that schools and localities would receive adequate funding so it does not have the effect of forcing school districts to fire teachers, or municipalities to lay off law enforcement officers.
The ultimate tax cap is the voters' ability to hire new legislators who will force government to be efficient and effective.
Read more from Calcaterra about reform and analysis below the fold.
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
1.If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
2.If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3.If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
I actually think the problem isn't related to any of that. You can't look at local and state elections through a national prism. As a friend said about NY-23, everyone in the nation can talk about health care, but they are talking about jobs (up there).
You have to start with the candidates. Jon Corzine was weak. His popularity was not there and he was suffering similar to how Governor David Paterson is struggling. In these tough economic times, it is hard to be governor of a state. States and municipalities are feeling the heat of the economic recession. As a result, voters feel the need to change things.
Virginia was odd. It reminded me of NY-26 in a way. Here you have Creigh Deeds (Alice Kryzan in NY-26) winning the Democratic primary by surprise only to lose the general election. Deeds didn't poll particularly well at all throughout the race, so his loss was expected. When that is the case, who is going to get excited about that?
The three points Kos came up with are great for a House or Senate race, but not for a gubernatorial race or for other local and state races. We are talking about a whole other set of issues. Instead of health care, we are talking budget cuts. Instead of Blue Dogs, we are worried about the Hiram Monserrates and Pedro Espadas of the world who seek to throw a legislature into disarray.
It does not surprise me that a national blogger has such a take on a state-level race. While I think the issues listed are important, I think they aren't relevant to Corzine or Deeds. We lost New Jersey because of the economic state of the state. We lost Virginia because the candidate that won the Democratic primary was running second the whole race. States are facing tough times right now. We know that in New York and no other state is closer to New York in terms of issues like New Jersey is. We can relate. And we see New Jersey as a red flag for our own elections in 2010.
It did not take long for the NRCC to announce their support of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman after their candidate, Dede Scozzafava, abruptly dropped out of the race. They made the announcement earlier today, with Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX), head of the NRCC, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority WHIP Eric Cantor (R-VA) releasing a joint statement calling on Republicans to support Hoffman in the 23rd congressional district.
Here is part of the statement (H/T to TPM):
"With Assemblywoman Scozzafava suspending her campaign, we urge voters to support Doug Hoffman's candidacy in New York's 23rd Congressional District.
"He is the only active candidate in the race who supports lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and opposes Nancy Pelosi's agenda of government-run healthcare, more government and less jobs.
"We look forward to welcoming Doug Hoffman into the House Republican Conference as we work together for the good of our nation."
But this is a different tune that the Republicans are singing. It wasn't long ago that they were defending Scozzafava and attacking Hoffman, saying he lacked "integrity" and "cross party appeal" to win.
Here are some quotes from the NRCC giving their assessment of Hoffman:
"Fortunately, the local Republican county chairs had the foresight to see that Doug Hoffman lacked the integrity and qualities needed to be elected to anything - let alone Congress," Lindsay added. [The Hill, 9/28/09]
The national GOP acknowledges Hoffman and his moneyed supporters make their job harder, but they emphasize Scozzafava is still the favorite.
Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Hoffman's political calculus doesn't add up.
"We're pleased that the Republican county chairs in New York had the foresight to not even consider Hoffman among the final three candidates, and the Washington-based endorsements and misleading political ads that are meant for his benefit will ultimately backfire on his futile sour-grapes campaign," Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/03/09]
The National Republican Congressional Committee bristles at Mr. Hoffman's campaign, with a spokesman arguing that he's "running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that has absolutely no path to victory and is based entirely on Washington-based endorsements that carry no weight among voters in central and northern New York."
NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said Mr. Hoffman doesn't even technically live in the district and also said Mr. Hoffman had promised to back the Republican candidate before withdrawing that support and deciding to run.
"At the end of the day, we could not be more pleased that Dede is the only candidate who possesses the principles and cross-party appeal that is needed to win in this swing district," Mr. Lindsay added. [Washington Times, 10/06/09]
"There is still a path to victory, and we will continue to support [Scozzafava]," NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/26/09]
Some conservatives support Scozzafava, insisting that a one-size-fits-all strategy isn't a good approach to districts such as New York 23.
"Outside endorsements will not change the fact that she's the only candidate with the cross party appeal that can win this swing district," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. McClatchy, 10/30/09
Amazing what one day will do to the NRCC's approach. One day they are backing their candidate saying she can still win while standing by their past opinions of Hoffman and the next day, they are already welcoming Hoffman to the House GOP conference.
David Sirota has become something of an expert when it comes to the Working Families Party and the impact the "minor" party has on politics in New York (both in the city and state). He dedicated a chapter in his most recent book, The Uprising, to the WFP and how fusion voting impacts politics in New York.
According to the New York Times, the most recent election proves that the Working Families Party "is now the pre-eminent political force in New York City politics." The WFP has achieved this status not through the usual celebritized/glamorized channels of big money television ads and endorsements, but through old-fashioned grassroots work that too much of the much-ballyhooed Washinton-based progressive "infrastructure" ignores/laughs at. The result is that not only have they built power, but they've built durable power - and that scares the bejesus out of both major parties in the Empire State.
As I showed in my latest book, conservatives, led by Rudy Giuliani, have long vilified the WFP. But a few has-been washouts in the old Democratic machine are freaking out as well. What's so hilarious, of course, is that because these washouts are so overcome with rage, they've forgotten some of the most basic lessons of Economics 101. Specifically, check out this op-ed by former New York Mayor Ed Koch (who endorsed George W. Bush) and former city comptroller candidate David Yassky (whose candidacy just got crushed by the WFP's candidate) using McCarthyist "threat" language - and more specifically, check out the crux of their argument about why the WFP is supposedly a "threat":
"We see danger when narrow agendas overwhelm the public good. That happened this spring in Albany, when the WFP masterminded a whopping 9% increase in state spending in a year when the state's economy is actually contracting."
The danger? Really? I mean...really? Are you out of your friggin' mind?
Sirota concludes his piece by giving this summary of what the attacks on the WFP mean:
Indeed, being attacked - and in particular, being attacked so dishonestly and spastically in such hysterically McCarthyist terms - is the tell tale sign that something has built the kind of genuine power that is feared by the status quo. That's what the WFP has done - and it should serve as a model and inspiration to all of us working in progressive politics.
To add onto what Sirota said, other aspects of the WFP that are different from the major parties include their focus on certain issues. Take, for example, the push for Green Jobs legislation. The WFP was at the forefront, but they shared in the glory with the Democrats who saw the Green Jobs bill pass the Assembly unanimously and pass the Senate overwhelmingly. They worked hard and the bill passed, even though some Republicans tried to take jabs at the WFP in the process.
This is why the major parties (in particular the Democratic Party) finds it so difficult to pass huge legislation like health care reform. The Democratic Party wants health care reform, but for the party, there is not an individual proposal that they want to see passed. They have the "big tent" and welcome all ideas, which is great, but leads to a stalemate.
The Working Families Party is more than just a political party. They are a think-tank and policy-based party that isn't afraid to address major (or minor) issues.
And that's why they scare the major parties. They have had a lot of legislative success, especially here in New York. That's not something you see from a minor party anywhere. But thanks to fusion voting and a strong infrastructure at the WFP, we have such an institution here in New York.
Bill Owens isn't a Democrat (not officially, anyway, until he votes in November) and since he wasn't an elected official, much isn't known about him. I started looking at Owens and came up with a number of different positions, but there were more questions that came from that post.
Obviously, health care is a big issue. There has been some debate about where Owens stands. But now, at least to me, his stance is clear.
The question about Owens and his support of a public option might seem complicated, but it really isn't. Owens isn't opposed to a public option. That, to him, isn't the biggest piece.
He has outlined his ideas for health care reform already. If a public option is in a bill that meets his objectives, he will support it. That has been repeated to me over and over again. It's not the public option that he is opposed to. He wants to see a strong comprehensive bill. I think we all can agree that there is a such thing as a weak health care reform bill even with a public option. Because if we don't reform the whole system and just throw in a public option as a deal sweetener, that's not much of a reform package.
Owens wants a strong comprehensive bill. I think that's something we all want.
The Owens campaign also confirmed that Owens supports climate change legislation. When asked specifically about the bill that passed the House earlier this year, Owens said he would have supported (and supports) that legislation.
It is easy to look at Owens and say he is going to be a "conservaDem" or a "Blue Dog." He doesn't see himself as conservative or progressive. He seems himself as a moderate independent. Is he going to be the next Alan Grayson? Probably not. But I don't see him as the next Mike Ross either.
With Bill Clinton and the Working Families Party getting behind Owens it is time that we get behind him. Is he the perfect progressive? No. But he is a moderate that we can work with. He's a vote for climate change and for health care reform. He is for job creation and ending regressive taxation and wasteful tax cuts. Those are all good things we can get behind.
Plenty of good news on the campaign trail for Democratic candidate Bill Owens. A key minor party backed him and a key Democratic figure sent out an e-mail blast for him.
The Working Families Party announced today that it has endorsed Owens in the 23rd congressional district race featuring Owens, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
The importance of the WFP endorsement will be known later, as the party is still plotting its course forward with the New York City elections just around the corner (although, it's hard to imagine that any of the candidates they have backed in the city have the task ahead of them like Owens, but I digress) and a number of issues they were going to be active on. It is key that they endorsed Owens when you consider that in 2004 and 2008, they supported Scozzafava. Of course, Scozzafava ran unopposed in both elections and there was no alternative.
Also helping Owens out today is former President Bill Clinton, who sent out a fundraising e-mail for Owens.
Here is part of the e-mail:
Every once in a while, a special election comes along that's bigger than just one candidate or one office. Such an election is taking place right now in Upstate New York. It can expand our Democratic Majority in Congress this year.
With the media closely watching this race, victory or defeat will also be seen as a referendum on President Obama's agenda for health care and on our entire progressive agenda. So it's critical that we stand together as Democrats behind our candidate, Bill Owens.
With just 26 days left before the November 3rd special election, Republicans and their conservative outside groups are expected to spend over a million dollars attacking Bill. Our top strategists just briefed me on this race. They said that Bill needs to raise $83,000 before Friday to stay on the air combating the more than $500K Republicans have already spent attacking him.
There is a lot going on in NY-23 today and in recent days. I'll have more on this race later.
As John reported over the weekend, Assemblyman Greg Ball, the Republican candidate challenging Democratic incumbent John Hall in the 19th congressional district, is on the receiving end of an FEC complaint that was filed because of alleged violations of campaign finance law.
- On June 5, 2009, Ball's "Congressional Exploratory Committee" hosted a golf outing at Hudson Hills Golf Course and Murphy's Restaurant. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that. But according to the complaint, Ball's committee solicited and accepted corporate contributions for a fundraising auction, which is illegal.
From the complaint:
10. On or about May 1, 2009, Jacqueline Ambrosino, a Ball representative, sent an email to a distribution list soliciting donations for the silent auctions. See Exhibit A. "We are looking for tickets to sporting events, televisions, gift certificates to restaurants and services (such as legal and accounting services), foursomes for other golf courses, trips, plane tickets, spa gift certificates, televisions, just to name a few ..." Exhibit A.
11. The May 1, 2009, email expressly asked for corporate contributions: "You can reach out to your network and try to get donations from both businesses and people. Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).
"When working with a business, you can emphasize the foot traffic that will be generated by having their name featured at our event and in a brochure to be handed out to everyone that attends." Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).
- The complaint also alleges that Ball's committee accepted corporate sponsorships and sought "excessive contributions" for an event.
Again, from the complaint:
12. On or about July 25, 2009, Ball's campaign sponsored a "Rockin' Rib Fest & Battle of the Bands." Exhibit B.
13. The July 25, 2009, event was "sponsored" by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. Exhibit B. On information and belief, both entities are corporations.
14. The Ball campaign sought additional "sponsorships" in connection with the July 25, 2009, event, including a "VIP Congressional Tent Sponsorship" priced at $2,900 - $500 in excess of the federal contribution limit. Exhibit B. Other Ball event solicitations have shown similar indifference to the $2,400 limit. See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit C) (asking for $2,500 and $4,800 contributions, without regard to the per-election limit).
It should also be clear that the event in question on July 25 was not "sponsored" (that's why it is in quotes and not stated as fact) by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association or the NRA.
As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and a member both of the NYSRPA and the NRA, I want to point out that Greg Ball's campaign committee distributed fliers which CLAIMED sponsorship by these entities, but in fact, Tom King---President of NYSRPA--- had no idea that Ball's campaign was going to make this claim. The NRA and the NYSRPA are both 501 (c) 3 organizations, and as such are PROHIBITED from endorsing candidates for election. The NYSRPA has a subsidiary, the Political Victory Fund (PVF) which DOES endorse candidates, but it is not incorporated integrally with NYSRPA. Likewise, the NRA-PVF endorses, but these are NOT the organizations advertised as "sponsoring" the July 25th event. (He also claimed that Senator Vincent Leibell was a sponsor---uh, no he wasn't.) The NRA and NYSRPA will not like the specter of seeming to have expressly endorsed a political candidate...they do not break the law. Ball did.
- The complaint also alleges illegal robocalls that were paid for by the Ball committee but not attributed to his committee and did not include who authorized the call. Federal laws require calls of that magnitude to include who paid for the call and to say that it was authorized by the candidate.
19. Ball's July 15 Quarterly Report discloses an in-kind contribution made on June 29, 2009, by Brian Callaghan in the form of "Automated Calls." Exhibit E.
20. On or about June 29, 2009, an automated call featuring Ball was distributed to voters in the 19th Congressional District. The call contained no statement indicating who had paid for the call, or whether Ball had authorized it. See Exhibit F.
- The last allegation is that Ball transferred money from his Assembly campaign committee to his congressional committee, a big no-no since you can't use non-federal monies for a federal race. To date, there have been two filings for Ball4NY, Ball's committee. Nowhere does it show payment for these items for the use of resources from his nonfederal campaign and his official New York State Assembly office.
17. Ball's federal campaign has made and is making repeated use of photos, videos and other assets from his nonfederal campaign and/or his official New York Assembly office.
See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit D). Ball's filings to date with the Federal Election Commission show no payment to his Assembly campaign, nor to the State of New York, for the use of these photos
Gary Levine, the man who has brought the FEC complaint against Ball, had this to say to me when I inquired about the complaint:
The reason for the complaint was because Assemblyman Ball violated FEC laws. If he wants to play politics he should play by the established rules and he didn't. Whether it was flagrant or unintentional it does not matter. Either way it is a violation and it does not bode well for the Assemblyman, his campaign or his current constituents.
The charges here are pretty serious. Some of these charges revolve around things that are basic. His committee should know the FEC guidelines and that there are limits on contributions. Setting $2,900 contribution levels just comes off as lazy (or intentional) to me. It's clear that either they were ignorant in regard to the rules, or they intended on trying to get by without anyone noticing. That's tough in politics, since everyone is watching.
The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos' post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.
One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a "conservaDem" and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.
Governor David Paterson has made it clear that he wants to run again in 2010. His poll numbers aren't very good. He loses to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical primary and possible Republican challenger Rudy Giuliani holds a double-digit lead.
The only candidate Paterson beats? Republican Rick Lazio, who has declared his candidacy for governor.
Steve over at Daily Kos has this analysis on the New York gubernatorial race:
NY-Gov: Is Romney Tipping Rudy's Hand?
There are a couple of different ways to read into this nugget of news out of the Empire State: apparently, 2008 GOP presidential contender (and, to many, the 2012 favorite) Mitt Romney will be heading to New York in three weeks to host a fundraiser for 2010 gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio. This could be seen as a sign that Giuliani is going to eventually demur from seeking the governorship, since Romney would be unlikely to expend a lot of political capital on a candidate who polls show would have little chance of winning the GOP nomination against Giuliani. This could also be a sign that there were some seriously hard feelings about the 2008 presidential race, and Romney feels like giving Rudy a little clip at the knees. It is worth noting that Lazio is a Romney friend, as well as an endorser of the former Massachusetts Governor's presidential campaign last year.
While I don't think Romney will have such an impact (if Giuliani decides not to run, it will be on his own, not because he isn't aligned with Romney or because Lazio is Romney's horse in this race), I do think if Giuliani were to take a pass and no other serious Republican challenger steps up to run, we could see Paterson give it a go in 2010.
For that to happen, Paterson will need some help.
- Giuliani would need to announce he isn't running OR Giuliani could run for U.S. Senate against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. That would take away the GOP's best candidate for the seat.
- Cuomo will have to pass on the Democratic primary. This is the least likely of the two. Cuomo's poll numbers show that he would win a primary. He is a very popular attorney general and would get a lot of support in a primary and general election. He is the biggest threat to Paterson.
- Lazio isn't the strongest of candidates, yet he is only within a few percentage points of Paterson. While it's too close for comfort, it's a race Paterson can win.
I don't think it's likely, but we could end up with a general election of Paterson versus Lazio. What a campaign that would be. Having a matchup like that would be like the Yankees and Red Sox losing their respective division series matchups and getting an ALCS featuring the Twins and Angels. Sure, it's still a championship, but it's not the best championship possible.
With nearly a month to go before the special election in the 23rd congressional district, Siena has released a poll showing Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava with a seven point lead over Democratic candidate Bill Owens.
Scozzafava comes in at 35 percent with Owens behind her at 28 percent. Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, who has been trying to tout himself as the conservative option to Scozzafava, stands at 16 percent.
Some of the other highlights of the poll include:
- The poll asked respondents who would be the best candidate on six different issues: The economy, health care, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, education, homeland security and bringing federal dollars to the district. Owens won or is tied with Scozzafava on five of the six issues. The only issue Owens lost to Scozzafava was the economy (25 percent to 23 percent, according to the poll). Those surveyed said that Owens would be best to address health care, the wars abroad and homeland security, while he tied with Scozzafava on education and bringing money to the district.
- An endorsement from former Congressman John McHugh might be helpful in the eyes of some voters. Of those surveyed, 40 percent said an endorsement from McHugh would make them more likely to support a candidate. Only seven percent said McHugh's endorsement would make them less likely to support a candidate.
Here are some other details from the press release:
Scozzafava leads Owens 53-23 percent, with 10 percent for Hoffman in the western North Country counties (Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence). Owens's largest lead is in the Central New York counties of Madison, Oneida and Oswego, 30 percent to 20 percent each for Scozzafava and Hoffman. The Democrat and Republican are virtually tied in the five counties of the eastern North Country (Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, and Hamilton), 32 percent for Owens, 31 percent for Scozzafava and 18 percent for Hoffman.
Scozzafava is viewed favorably by 33 percent of voters and unfavorably by 20 percent, with 47 percent not having an opinion. Owens has a 23-12 percent favorable rating, with 64 percent of voters undecided, while Hoffman has a 16-13 percent favorable rating, with 71 percent of voters undecided.
The good news for Owens is that he is still in this. He also has a good showing when it is broken up into issues. Being able to be trusted on certain issues is key and when voters trust you more than the Republican on most issues, that says a lot (even though he still trails in the overall poll).
Keep in mind that Owens has stayed out of the limelight for most of this. He has a few TV ads out, but he's let Scozzafava and Hoffman duke it out. That has its advantages. But he will need to get this party going if he plans on winning next month.
The resolution might be a little hard to read in the image below, but after the picture I have the full text:
Whereas, The New York State Democratic Committee has numerous resolutions supporting single payer; and
Whereas, any real step toward single payer must include a strong public option (no triggers, no coops, government ability to negotiate with drug companies, rates tied to Medicare rates, and uniformity across the Country); and
Whereas, insurance companies (who seek to retain their profits) are the prime opponents of single payer; and
Whereas, the Baucus Plan will make insurance companies stronger and increase industry profits by forcing everyone to buy insurance from private insurance companies; and
Whereas, it is difficult now to counter insurance companies and pass single payer, making insurance companies stronger will make the passage of single payer impossible;
Therefore be it resolved, That the New York State Democratic Committee urges Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to oppose the Baucus Plan. We must move forward rather than take a step backwards. This bill in its current form will enrich insurance companies and impoverish the American people.
This is an important resolution and a big statement by one of the largest state parties in the country. It states not only support for a public option and health care reform, but also states opposition to the Baucus plan.
It is time for real reform, not bills dressed up as reform that are written by senators like Baucus who was bought and paid for by the insurance companies.
Kudos to the New York State Democrats for taking a clear stand on health care reform.
Congressman Tim Bishop will be a target for Republicans seeking to put a dent in the majority for Democrats in Congress and try to decrease the large number of Democrats in the New York congressional delegation.
The 1st congressional district does have a Republican enrollment advantage of about 27,000 voters. There are a large number of unregistered voters in the district, which balances things out.
Bishop won in 2008 with 58 percent of the vote. He won in 2006 with 62 percent of the vote. So Bishop isn't exactly vulnerable. Obama narrowly won the district with 51 percent of the vote in 2008, so perhaps that is why the Republicans are adding this seat to the list.
Obviously, defending Bishop will be a priority. We don't need any surprises. Yes, Bishop won his last race by 16 points. But we don't want to sit back and assume that will happen again. So defending NY-1 and keeping Bishop in office will be a priority.
The Republican-conservative battle in the 23rd congressional district race is fun to watch and there is more coming out about the extent of it.
Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava's campaign passed along an e-mail to the Watertown Daily Times and in that e-mail was a message from Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman offering his support.
Jude Seymour from the Watertown Daily Timeshas the story:
Doug Hoffman pledged to help Dede Scozzafava in an e-mail sent two days after the Republican Party passed over the Lake Placid accountant for the nomination.
The e-mail, sent from Mr. Hoffman's business account on July 24 and provided by the Scozzafava campaign, states in full: "Hi Dede, Congratulations and the best of luck in your candidacy. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Doug."
...
I asked Mr. Hoffman today - through his spokesman - to explain why he told Ms. Scozzafava one thing and me another.
Here's the response I got from Rob Ryan, Mr. Hoffman's spokesman: "Like most Republicans, Doug Hoffman had no idea how liberal Dede Scozzafava is. The fact that Scozzafava has voted for higher taxes, increased spending and gay marriage proves she is way to liberal for the voters of upstate New York."
So Hoffman is one of two things: Either he is an opportunist who first promised support only to get backing from the Conservative Party in a run for Congress OR he really didn't know what Scozzafava was all about.
If it is the former, that wouldn't be surprising. It wouldn't be the first time a candidate saw an opening and realized that with the Conservative Party's help, he could run to the right of all candidates and try and rally the base for an upset victory.
But if it is the latter, it should raise questions about how just informed Hoffman is. He says he didn't realize just how "liberal" Scozzafava was and yet, she voted for the marriage equality bill in the Assembly back in 2007. Since Scozzafava has been labeled as "liberal" for only being pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, you would think that would have been a wake-up call for Hoffman. That's a vote everyone knows about, especially in political circles. He could have looked it up or he could have already know about it.
This whole battle has been all about ideology and nothing else. Hoffman, a fellow Republican, has gone after Scozzafava and labeled her as a liberal even though she isn't a full-blown liberal. Being left-of-center on two issues doesn't make her a liberal. Being left-of-center on ALL or MOST issues does.
Jon Cooper said it was an eye-opening moment for him. He was watching the press conference announcing Governor David Paterson's selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to serve as New York's junior U.S. senator. His spouse Rob inquired out loud if that was former Senator Alfonse D'Amato standing on the platform with her.
Last week, I spoke with Cooper about his possible candidacy, his career and why he is interested in running for a seat that was once held by Hillary Clinton, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert F. Kennedy.
At first, Cooper dismissed the notion that a former Republican U.S. senator from New York - the same man Senator Chuck Schumer beat in 1998 - would be at a ceremony for Republicans. But, much to his dismay, there D'Amato stood mere feet away from Gillibrand as she was introduced as New York's newest senator.
Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn't just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can't help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.
"Her past position (on gun control) was of concern," he said. "There are some people are distrustful of her evolution on this and other issues and are concerned about what they see as flip-flopping and see this as insincere or they question her character. I'm not saying I do. But there are those who do."
For Cooper, however, it is different. He is not yet a declared candidate but he is touting his own record and why, if he were to run, he should be considered a serious contender to Gillibrand.
"I have, many times over the years, took stances that might not have been politically popular with my constituents but I believed it was the right thing to do," he said.
As an openly gay and happily married man, Cooper is the father of five children he and his spouse Rob have adopted. He has served 10 years on the Suffolk County Legislature and currently is the majority leader for the legislature's Democrats. He lists two key pieces of legislation as highlights of his career. He wrote the first law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in the country. Since then, a number of states (including New York) have adopted such laws. In addition to that, Cooper also authored legislation that banned the sale of ephedra. That effort led to the federal government imposing a ban on the dietary supplement.
Jobs and the economy is an area that Cooper knows all too well. Cooper is running the family business, Spectronics Corporation, in Westbury. He said that while he is on the corporate side of things, he also is very much pro-labor and supports workers.
In the 2008 presidential primaries, Cooper backed an underdog named Barack Obama. Cooper was the first elected official from New York to endorse Obama and went on to be the Long Island chair of the Obama campaign. He said that, at the time, people asked him if he realized the political risk he was taking. Cooper said he had supported Hillary Clinton in the past but once he met Obama, he was sold. It was through the Obama campaign that Cooper met many grassroots organizers, some of whom are now aiding him in his exploratory efforts and organizing meet and greets throughout the state for people to meet him. Cooper was in upstate New York this weekend meeting voters in Buffalo and Rochester and will be back in upstate New York again, especially if he decides to run.
Cooper knows that he has a long way to go. He realizes that Gillibrand has millions in her bankroll. He realizes that she has received nearly every county chair's endorsement to date. But one thing he references to is that Obama was counted out too. No one thought Hillary Clinton could be beaten. But with the greatest grassroots campaign ever, Obama pulled it out in the primary and won the general election.
A vast majority of Obama organizers and activists that Cooper worked with in 2008 are urging him to run and are supporting him. Democratic clubs have urged him to run. Progressives are supporting him. And while he says he isn't comparing himself to Obama, the comparisons are glaring.
"The party establishment, for the most part, quite understandably is falling in line behind our Democratic incumbent senator regardless of how she got to that office," he said. "But she's the incumbent Democrat now and I expect most of the political establishment to back her. But a lot of the grassroots leaders that had been early supporters of Obama seem to be lining up behind me or at the very least, urging me to run so that we will have a choice, which is what this is all about: Offering Democrats in New York State a choice."
While Cooper doesn't have a full slate of issues on his platform yet (understandable at this stage), his platform stresses the importance of economic development, pushes for progressive values and support of the environment and the fight for health care, consumer protection, gun safety and middle class tax cuts.
So when will we know whether or not Cooper is running? He says by the end of the year he will have a decision. He is testing the waters right now to see just how much support he has and what the response is statewide. I spoke with him over the weekend and he seemed to be very pleased and excited by the response in Buffalo and Rochester. So we'll see just how far he is willing to go and if he is going to make an upset bid for the U.S. Senate.
The reaction here at TAP and in New York has been mixed. The views range from agreeing with the President to concerns about the President's involvement in New York politics.
In order to understand why the President would do this, we need to look at the big picture. In 2006, we took back the Governor's mansion and that gave Democrats the upper hand in legislative manners: The governor was a Democrat, the Assembly was still ruled by Democrats and the State Senate wasn't too far off. In 2008, Democrats took over the New York State Senate, only to have that disrupted in a matter of months by Republicans and Pedro Espada Jr. looking for more power. Espada eventually came back, giving Democrats the Senate again.
The reality is that, in 2010, we could go back to what we had before the gubernatorial and state senate wins. We could go back to having a Republican governor and a Republican state senate all because of who is at the top of the ticket in New York State.
The poll numbers show that Governor Paterson is not in a strong position to run for re-election in 2010. His approval rating at the end of August was 32 percent. That is a quick decline from where he was at in late January, when his poll numbers stood at 54 percent and an even more dramatic drop from the 60 percent favorable ratings he had in late 2008 and early 2009. We are a year out from the Democratic primary (if one does take place) and we are less than 14 months away from the general election. Unless Paterson makes a huge turnaround (which, at this point, is unlikely) he is not in a position to be a strong candidate for governor.
President Obama is a smart man. He is also a political genius. He sees New York as an important piece to the Democratic Party. His involvement in the U.S. Senate race is well documented. He has tried to clear the field for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand so that she can run a strictly general election campaign instead of having to run a possibly damaging primary election that would leave her vulnerable for the general.
In the case of Paterson, he sees the opposite.
He sees a candidate who is weak and would not serve the party well in a general election. He sees a candidate that is not well received in this state and is not someone New Yorkers support. Trying to support him for governor would be tough, not only for Obama and national Democratic leaders, but also for leaders in New York at the local and state levels.
On Paterson's end, he has made some missteps in forging a good relationship with the Obama administration.
From the New York Times:
In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor's selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.
The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama's aides.
In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama's, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton's replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.
The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama's advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.
As it stands right now, Paterson doesn't give New York Democrats the best chance to win in 2010. While I don't think he will drag down the whole ticket, including congressional candidates in upstate districts that will be running for re-election next year, I do think he will have a negative impact on state senate candidates specifically. In order to turn that around, we will need a different candidate at the top of the ticket. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be a great option. But Paterson, at this moment, is not our guy.
This race will not be easy for Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava. The Republican nominee is facing pressure from Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over her past connections to the Working Families Party, whose line she has run on in past elections.
Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party's candidate, was first out of the box with a press release that seeks to capitalize on the ACORN scandal by calling on his Republican opponent, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, to "explain her relationship with the radical left."
"Dede Scozzafava claims to be a Republican, yet, time and again, she has run as a candidate of the radical left Working Families Party," Hoffman said.
"The WFP is an organization that detests almost every principle the GOP stands for and with its sister organization, ACORN, has worked to radicalize the New York political scene."
"I am calling Dede Scozzafava to disavow her relationship with the WFP, condemn ACORN for its actions and come clean on her and her husband's dealings with the two entities."
The release goes on to note that Scozzafava's husband, Ron McDougall, is an organizer for "Big Labor" (he's a union official).
Hoffman's campaign spokesman, Rob Ryan, helpfully forwarded over a list of contributions McDougall has made to the WFP - 64 of them since 2002, all but one of which are for $10. The one is for $50, bringing his grand total to: $690.
Here's the deal: This should be a clear example of how conservatives are different from Republicans. Do they go hand-in-hand most of the time? Yes. But this is a clear instance where the Republicans put up a fairly moderate candidate (Scozzafava is liberal on social issues, but other than that, I can't say she's progressive) and she gets attacked by the conservative (and Conservative Party) candidate in the race for being a member of the "radical left." Conservatives are using the same hate tactics Democrats have seen over and over again on Scozzafava.
Democratic candidate Bill Owens got some good news today when he was endorsed by Senator Darrel Aubertine. Aubertine's endorsement could be seen as a big one, considering his stature in the district. He was being talked about as the front-runner for the race should he run. He passed on the race, which opened the door for other candidates like Owens.
The Democratic challengers in the 
Calcaterra is a corporate fraud lawyer who has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including the fraud cases involving Merrill Lynch and WorldCom. She has protected the pensions of employees whose futures are threatened by the fraudulent actions of Wall Street.
Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn't just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can't help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.
