New York Congressional Delegation Quarterly Filings

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 23:00:29 PM EDT

DISTRICT	INCUMBENT	CONTRIBUTIONS	EXPENDITURES	CASH ON HAND
NY-1	Tim Bishop	$263,189.53	$66,589.32	$710,928.46
NY-2	Steve Israel	$436,670.74	$173,169.91	$1,796,209.25
NY-3	Pete King	$89,287.00	$46,633.81	$1,341,242.55
NY-4	Carolyn McCarthy	$144,167.32	$87,679.05	$413,644.81
NY-5	Gary Ackerman	$42,178.00	$53,197.42	$1,241,122.25
NY-6	Gregory Meeks	$133,147.79	$85,059.25	$165,228.01
NY-7	Joseph Crowley	$65,998.28	$156,605.20	$1,116,438.99
NY-8	Jerrold Nadler	$111,469.86	$132,155.61	$1,071,938.73
NY-9	Anthony Weiner	$182,250.91	$69,776.52	$332,734.80
NY-10	Ed Towns	$252,311.01	$155,940.48	$187,729.28
NY-11	Yvette Clarke	$85,609.00	$97,684.01	$12,396.19
NY-12	Nydia Velazquez	$62,682.62	$29,832.88	$674,887.73
NY-13	Michael McMahon	$205,001.01	$82,926.39	$766,817.56
NY-14	Carolyn Maloney	$345,120.27	$259,630.25	$1,704,244.49
NY-15	Charles Rangel	$434,322.00	$454,669.23	$1,108,907.01
NY-16	Jose Serrano	$35,794.50	$9,328.75	$55,506.16
NY-17	Eliot Engel	$67,204.00	$49,086.25	$196,223.91
NY-18	Nita Lowey	$183,780.64	$93,564.01	$817,034.71
NY-19	John Hall	$132,363.44	$74,095.55	$350,710.38
NY-20	Scott Murphy	N/A	N/A	N/A (Not Yet Filed)
NY-21	Paul Tonko	$60,380.00	$41,823.89	$75,550.68
NY-22	Maurice Hinchey	$66,741.44	$34,272.05	$98,467.32
NY-23	VACANT	N/A	N/A	N/A
NY-24	Michael Arcuri	$136,249.10	$67,602.73	$385,080.72
NY-25	Dan Maffei	$326,254.50	$126,899.93	$784,210.52
NY-26	Chris Lee	$142,802.69	$95,665.00	$390,613.64
NY-27	Brian Higgins	$100,290.00	$96,556.25	$825,367.69
NY-28	Louise Slaughter	$139,424.00	$77,127.13	$306,497.62
NY-29	Eric Massa	$289,499.02	$122,273.64	$503,188.18

The 23rd wasn't include for obvious reasons. That race can serve as its own post, since three candidates are vying for it and there is no incumbent.

One of the things that stuck out to me was the great quarter Eric Massa had. His district - NY-29 - is a rural district that isn't really a wealthy district. So when he can bring in over $289,000 in a quarter where most upstate representatives only brought in half of that amount, it shows that he is a strong incumbent. The Republicans are gunning for him, but he's tough.

Dan Maffei had a very strong quarter - the best of any upstate representative and fourth-best of any member of Congress in the state.

If there is one thing you can say about Rangel, he is a great fundraiser. He was second to Steve Israel in this quarter, but not by much. His expenditures were high, but he still has a lot of money in the bank (not that he needs to worry about that).

For the most part, these are solid and typical numbers. As a resident of NY-26, it is interesting to see Lee's numbers. I wouldn't read too much into his mediocre quarter, but the list of donors who have contributed to his campaign makes for a "Best of Wall Street"-type list.  

2012 Congressional Map: Discuss

by: Amherst Guy

Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:36:02 PM EST

Context: NY stands to lose 2 seats this year, and by pure population, one will almost inevitably have to come from the Albany area, while the other will have to come from NYC. It is nearly impossible to draw a map without Albany losing the upstate seat, and truly impossible to draw a map where upstate loses 2 seats; there are just too many people upstate.

I took a whack at it; this map is crude: the district lines are not precise; the districts don't all have exactly 770,000 714,000 people in them (the new target number), and Buffalo, Syracuse, and Albany are all split in this map, it's kind of hard to tell. Also, I may have drawn congressmen outside of their seats, this was unintentional.

Most importantly, this map leaves Upstate with 1 Republican, as Chris Lee could not hold the seat I drew for him.

Criticize away.

10 New York Dems Vote For Lawlessness, Monarchy

by: phillip anderson

Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 14:18:47 PM EDT

There's so much to despise in the bill these 10 NY Democrats voted on today, but Glenn Greenwald tries to pick the worst:

Perhaps the most repellent part of this bill (though that's obviously a close competition) is 802(c) of the telecom amnesty section. That says that the Attorney General can declare that the documents he submits to the court in order to get these lawsuits dismissed are secret, and once he declares that, then: (a) the plaintiffs and their lawyers won't ever see the documents and (b) the court is barred from referencing them in any way when it dismisses the lawsuit. All the court can do is issue an order saying that the lawsuits are dismissed, but it is barred from saying why they're being dismissed or what the basis is for the dismissal.

So basically, one day in the near future, we're all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we're never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits. Not only won't we, the public, know that, neither will the plaintiffs' lawyers. Nobody will know except the Judge and the Government because it will all be shrouded in compelled secrecy, and the Judge will be barred by this law from describing or even referencing the grounds for dismissal in any way. Freedom is on the march.

Is that what a democracy looks like? Are you telling me that we stood down a Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed directly at us but that some half literate cave dwellers have driven us to basically gut the Fourth Amendment and bless the ones wielding the knife? And don't even get me started on how this whole vote went down.

When Democrats took over the Congress, they issued a document vowing to "end the 'dead of night' special interest provisions that turn bills into special-interest giveaways" and proclaimed: "Lawmakers must have the opportunity to read every bill before they vote on it. It's common sense."

Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."

Disgraceful.

The following Democrats should remove me from their lists:

Ackerman (NY-5)
Arcuri (NY-24)
Bishop (NY-1)
Crowley (NY-7)
Engel (NY-17)
Gillibrand (NY-20)
Higgins (NY-27)
Lowey (NY-18)
McCarthy (NY-4)
Meeks (NY-6)

Higgins Speaks On Environment, Economy and Washington

by: robert.harding

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 22:33:29 PM EDT

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-Buffalo) spoke today at SUNY Fredonia about the environment and policy in Washington D.C.

Higgins talked about the economic benefits of taking care of the environment and said that "the federal government is not responding as aggressively as we need to do." He also discussed how we are "financing both sides of the War on Terror" with oil and the money for that oil going to our enemies.

Higgins was asked about ethanol and argued that sugar cane-based ethanol is "much more efficient" than corn-based ethanol. He called corn-based ethanol "problematic" because there is no economic balance. While he hopes to see alternatives, he also hopes we can overcome Big Oil's influence in our politics.

Higgins also discussed the fact that oil producing nations no longer depend solely on the United States as a country who will purchase their oil, but other countries like China, India and South Korea are big consumers of oil.

He also talked about his two trips to Sudan and more specifically, Darfur. He mentioned how that conflict is partially fueled by natural resources and the power grab for these resources.

I was impressed with how Higgins handled himself regarding the environment. I am glad to see he is a congressman from New York. He is very smart and he is particularly knowledgeable regarding environmental issues.