DiPietro’s Campaign Finance Disclosure: Incomplete?

In late April, Assemblyman David DiPietro held a fundraiser where a bunch of guns were raffled off. Because NY SAFE Act, and it was held in North Java in Wyoming County, where gun is the only issue that seems to matter, if WNY pols are to be believed. 

One commenter at the Buffalo News’ site said it was “great” and “standing room only”. They seemed to have a lot of fun unter dem Totenkopf. 

 

Here’s the fundraiser’s flyer: 

 

So, where did the money go? How much was raised? How much did he spend?

DiPietro’s campaign committee filed its July campaign finance disclosure with the New York State Board of Elections, and it shows $14,000 individual donations through March – nothing in April or May. There’s a payment of $400 to the North Java Fire Company in February, but nothing in April or May. How much was raised and how much was spent? Where did the raffled-off firearms come from? Were they in-kind donations? If so, why aren’t they disclosed? Did the campaign pay for them? Not according to any disclosure. 

I’d love to hear a lot more from this guy about how Obama and Cuomo are totally lawless – right after he explains why he hasn’t disclosed campaign fundraising and expenditures after mid-March in his July report. 

 

Accounting is Spooky!

Campaign finance is fun. Let’s look at the accounting for the Republican candidate for comptroller. Specifically, about $2,000 in donations. The following amounts are disclosed as contributions to “Taxpayers for Stefan”: 

FRIENDS OF ELISE CUSACK	8/31/2012	$385.11
FRIENDS OF ELISE CUSACK	8/31/2012	$337.58
Friends of Dr. Barry Weinstein	9/25/2012	$100.00
MIKE RANZENHOFER FOR STATE SENATE	10/2/2012	$250.00
HUMISTON FOR ASSEMBLY	10/3/2012	$350.00
COMMITTEE TO REELECT JUDGE HOWE SURROGATE	10/16/2012	$250.00
Friends of Dr. Barry Weinstein	10/17/2012	$150.00
FRIENDS OF RON PILOZZI	9/4/2013	$150.00
TOTAL:		$1,972.69

Oddly enough, not a single one of these donations turns up in the “other monetary” disclosure section of Mychajliw’s campaign account. 

Cusack’s donations from 2012 show up nowhere in Mychajliw’s reports from that time. (11 day pre-primary, 10 day post-primary). 

Weinstein’s late-2012 contributions show up in his January 2013 report, but not Mychajliw’s January or 10 day / 27 day post-General reports 

Humiston’s Assembly campaign fund reveals its donation in the January 2013 report, but not in any report of Mychajliw’s. (10 day post-General)

Same with Ranzenhofer’s 2012 money. As for Pilozzi’s 2013 money, 

In June and early July, there is $198 from the campaign funds of Judge Howe, $250 from Guy Marlette, and $5,500 from ECGOP and the West Seneca town committee. 

In July 2013, we have a $250.00 contribution from M&T PAC. 

In August 2013, there is $250 from Ranzenhofer’s campaign, and another $300 from Howe’s. 

In late August and early September, there is $300 from the Clarence and Boston committees, and $150 from National Fuel Gas PAC. 

Later in September, we have $250 from John Mills’ campaign, and $100 from David DiPietro’s campaign, and $100 from an Amherst political club. 

Mid-October brings a contribution of $500 from Guy Marlette’s treasury, and $1000 from the ECGOP. 

I have omitted some unreported donations (Kevin Hardwick, Tom Wik) because they were under the $100 threshold for reporting itemized donations. However, the amounts shown above are disclosed by their donors, but not disclosed by the recipient, as required by law.  

Sacha Testifies

As you already know from this week’s print edition of Artvoice, former Erie County D.A. Mark Sacha gave testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption which is charged with, among other things, investigating chronic and widespread violations of the election law and corruption in political campaigns. Sacha is speaking truth to power, and if anyone should be paying close attention, it’s this particular commission with respect to this particular problem. 

I am here to advise the public and the voting citizens of New York of the “elephant in the room”, the hypocrisy which has not yet been addressed before this Commission. Election fraud and public corruption are not prosecuted properly, not because of a lack of laws in this State, but by a lack of will. The sad reality is that District Attorneys are political. Many have horrible conflicts of interest, which affect their ability to act. In order to reach their position, they make alliances, accept money and cut political deals with other politicians. They reach their goals through these people.

The public has the right to know the truth based on my own personal experience. In 2008, I conducted an investigation that uncovered widespread criminal election law violations by a number of individuals, including Steven Pigeon, a person who has close political ties to Pedro Espada, Governor Cuomo, former Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark, and present District Attorney Frank Sedita, who is also a member of this panel. I personally handed Mr. Sedita a 53 page memo outlining the facts surrounding my 2008 investigation.

As a result of my attempt to do the right thing and hold Mr. Pigeon accountable, I was retaliated against by his friend, Frank Sedita. When I informed the public of Mr. Sedita’s hypocrisy and misconduct, I was fired.

Now four years later, the same pattern of misconduct is occurring in Erie County. The September 22, 2013 edition of the Buffalo News contained a lengthy article detailing new allegations of illegal conduct by Pigeon. Current election campaigns are wrought with allegations of false filings, straw donors and donations which exceed contribution limits. This Commission has received a complaint about Mr. Pigeon. These allegations of corruption in Erie County have gone on for years.

Prosecuting the powerless is easy. The real test is when you are asked to investigate the powerful. District Attorney Sedita has failed the test.

Chronic, widespread illegality that no one investigates or prosecutes. Ever. This is the stuff of banana republics. The only things missing are the gold cars and epaulets. 

Campaign Disclosure: 10 Day Post Primary

If you were a candidate for election involved in a primary earlier this month, your campaign finance disclosure should include a 32 day pre-primary report, an 11 day pre-primary report, and a 10 day post-primary report. For instance, here is Lynn Dearmyer’s list of reports: 

Rick Zydel: 

But the victor of that three-way battle, Pat Burke, is late. As of this morning, his pre-primary reports have shown up. 

They weren’t there yesterday – the pre-primary report was 6 weeks late, and the 11 day was a month late. That’s either the negligence of a crap treasurer or something intentional. I asked him on Twitter:

.@ElectPatBurke where are your 32 day / 11 day pre-primary and 10 day post-primary disclosures?

— Alan Bedenko (@buffalopundit) September 24, 2013

@buffalopundit They were submitted. I have the email receipt to prove it. Trying to find out why they haven’t been posted.

— Pat Burke (@ElectPatBurke) September 24, 2013

@ElectPatBurke who is your treasurer?

— Alan Bedenko (@buffalopundit) September 24, 2013

The last question wasn’t answered. 

Looking at the newly appearing disclosures, in the 32-day, Burke reports $625 in unitemized proceeds from a mid-July fundraiser, which cost about $100 for pizza and beverages. Burke’s campaign bought him $113 pair of shoes for walking door to door, and $213 for “campaign attire” at JC Penney’s – those are new ones on me. He ended the period with $2660 on hand. 

Burke raised another $823 in unitemized contributions at an August fundraiser, and got $50 from Mark Schroeder’s campaign fund, and $250 from Savarino. Robert Sroda donated $1,000 in mid-August.  He pulled in about $3,000 in that period, and spent $3551 on direct mail with Zenger Group, which does tons of work for all sorts of candidates. 

But we don’t have the 10 day post-primary report, which will show everything that Burke spent in the days leading up to the election. There’s nothing controversial in Burke’s disclosures – no one’s going to make a stink about the suit and shoes, funny as it might be – but the lateness is troubling. 

Turning to this year’s breakaway nominal Democrat shit-stirring, the WNY Progressive PAC finished this year’s primary election cycle with -$18,000. Negative eighteen thousand. 

Steve Pigeon donated a little over $6,000 for stamps and Robocalls – (remember the pro-Fruscione, anti-Hamister mailers in the Falls had stamps on them?) Tim Kennedy ally and cancer peddlers AJ Wholesale gave another $10,000.  Tim Kennedy’s own Senate account ponied up another $40,000 – that makes a total of $125,000 from various open and closed Tim Kennedy campaign accounts.

On the expenditure side, $25,000 was paid to “Landon LLC”, which sounds a lot like Pigeon’s own Landen Associates.  Robocalls were done for $600 by “Van” in “Summerville [sic] MA”. Gia Marketing was paid, as was a Michael Darby, who was paid about $20,000 for a month’s worth of “consulting”. 

Pigeon himself “loaned” the committee another $70,000, leaving total liabilities of $90,000. Forget for a fact that these are the people who brought us the good government activism of Pedro Espada, here’s how they ended up the cycle: 

 

They have Dick Dobson and Barbara Miller-Williams to show for it. One could credibly fund at least 20 successful county legislative races for that kind of money. 

 

 

Fact-Checking McCarthy’s Story About Grisanti’s Money

Courtesy Tom Dolina at Tommunisms.com

Bob McCarthy reports in Thursday’s Buffalo News that State Senator Mark Grisanti (SD-60) reported receiving “nearly $247,000” and that, of the 85 reported donors, only one was from western New York.

The insinuation here is that Grisanti’s local support is slipping, and that he’s dependent on money from outside the region to mount next year’s re-election bid.  It’s an insinuation that is false, and McCarthy is deliberately ignoring or confused by the fact that Grisanti has chosen voluntarily to follow an unnecessarily stringent financial disclosure pattern for a State Senator in a non-election year.

1. All of the checks from outside the area arose from a fundraiser that New York Mayor Bloomberg held in October for Republican Senators who voted in favor of the same sex marriage bill last summer. At that fundraiser, most donors pledged money, and the pledges were fulfilled in early December, and reported in January.

2. When Grisanti files, he itemizes every single donation – even if it’s under the $100 threshold – in order to maximize transparency.  He files to make sure everything is out there, because he has nothing to hide.

3. Grisanti held several local fundraisers during previous reporting periods, but none during the time covered by the January periodic, which would have started in mid-December.

4. If you look at Grisanti’s disclosure (and compare it to that of Maziarz, Kennedy, and Ranzenhofer), he filed pursuant to the tighter election year schedule despite the fact that 2011 was not an election year for him.  In his unnecessary 32 day pre-primary filing, most of his individual donations came from within WNY.  All of the individual donations in the 11 day pre-primary disclosure were from WNY.  In the 32 day pre-general filing, only one individual donation came from outside WNY.

5. Had Grisanti, like his colleagues, opted not to follow that tighter election-year cycle during the last half of 2011, all of those pre-primary and pre- and post-general election disclosures would have been contained in the January filing that McCarthy wrote about.

6. The shorter version is, Grisanti’s January disclosure only covers December 2011. The other Senators’ disclosures covers July – December 2011.

So, McCarthy’s insinuation about Grisanti’s support coming almost exclusively from outside the area, and that this is somehow out of the ordinary for a State Senator, is not a fair representation of the facts in this particular instance.

 

Governor Material

The Buffalo News found several people to go on the record and accuse Carl Paladino of being a deadbeat.

(What is it about megalomaniacal western New Yorkers with Napoleon complexes packing heat?)

The Buffalo News today reports that recent gubernatorial loser and wealthy local malcontent Carl Paladino allegedly owes thousands of dollars to myriad campaign staffers and vendors. The man who pledged to spend $10 million apparently borrowed $3 million from “unnamed sources”, owes thousands to average people trying to make a living, and has apparently reacted to them in malicious and unfair ways. At least a few promise to sue, and one threatens to dime him out to the state bar grievance committee.  He allegedly owes $8,000 to Michael Johns, who worked Tea Party outreach, he reportedly owes William Rey about $5,000 for video production. He allegedly owes Tim Suereth $6,300 for expense reimbursement.

Others due money in amounts ranging from $1,200 to about $35,000, include an attorney, a researcher, and a half-dozen campaign staffers and media producers, according to the former campaign aides, consultants and vendors.

Several of those owed money described a frequent pattern of behavior by Paladino when he was approached for payment.

Paladino at first failed to respond, and then offered a disputed history of the terms originally agreed upon. Paladino sometimes contended that, regardless of terms, he paid people what he felt they were worth, the former aides and consultants said. And, they added, Paladino often became insulting and confrontational.

“He seems to be picking fights with people he owes money to and not paying,” Suereth said. “He’s looking for every reason to not pay people he owed money to at the end of the campaign.”

Perhaps the lede was buried, because Paladino‘s own former campaign manager, Michael Caputo, claims that he’s owed $38,000, but more importantly:

Caputo has said in the past that most of the fees he received were subsequently spent on legal, research and media services related to the campaign.

I’m no expert on New York State’s campaign finance laws, but that doesn’t seem completely Kosher. Disclosure rules exist to promote disclosure.

Paladino, who has become a bizarre and paranoid local cross between Sarah Palin and Charlie Sheen, took to Facebook to excrete the following:

You received a message on your blog from an unidentified, disaffected campaign malcontent who has no regard for truth or facts and you think you have a scoop.  You don’t.  There are people who didn’t get paid for good reason.  Everyone who deserved to be paid was paid.  They can go to court if they have a complaint.  What business is it of yours?  It’s a civil matter.

Well, what “business it is” is that these people went to the News to voice their complaints, and they were particularly brave in that they used their own names and accused Paladino of very specific charges. Paladino ran for governor, and the conduct of his campaign is newsworthy because of the public nature of campaign finance laws and disclosure, but it details his demeanor.  You can tell a lot about a person about how he conducts his business, and how he treats those who work for him. Paladino treats his vendors and campaign employees like disposable pieces of garbage whom he can cheat, and force them to sue him to be made whole.

Remember if you write something and have actual knowledge that what you write is not true, it obviates the need to prove malice even for a public person.  In any event I believe we can prove malice.  I caution you to be careful.  Don’t for a minute think that I won’t haul you into court and subpoena every e-mail and document you, spineless and Evans ever wrote about me.  I can’t wait to depose the three of you.  You better not destroy the records.  Judges don’t like people who do that.

Naturally. The bully with a law firm threatens to sue. The problem here for Paladino is that “malice” in defamation jurisprudence isn’t defined as “being mean” or “hating Carl”.  He’d have to prove to a jury that the Buffalo News published false facts in an article without regard to their truth or falsity.  The article itself reveals that this charge must fail, as the writer spoke with people who got stiffed and proved it, and did so on the record.

Furthermore, discovery runs both ways for Mr. Paladino, and at the heart of any defamation litigation is the supposition that the plaintiff’s reputation has been harmed or assailed.  Therefore, Mr. Paladino puts his reputation at issue in the case, and it is itself subject to discovery.  I’m sure the News’ lawyers would likewise relish the opportunity to depose Mr. Paladino, and he had also better not engage in any spoliation of evidence; not because “judges don’t like people who do that”, but because it’s improper and illegal.

You sit in a big room with many people who don’t respect or like you or your fearless editor and publisher and they watch what you do.  They are good people with integrity and honor and they want the best for their community.  They don’t like elitism nor do they like editorializing on the front page.  Truth is truth.  Give it up Jim.  You are a messed up dude.

Well, no. Jim Heaney isn’t a “messed up dude”.  He’s a local reporter who got a juicy tip, followed up on it, verified the facts, and printed them. Just because Mr. Paladino doesn’t like the content of those articles doesn’t make them editorials. Also contained in Paladino‘s clumsy threat-letter is dicta explaining that the author appreciates the coverage he gets from Business First and Buffalo Rising. Yet it’s becoming clearer by the day that Paladino “leads” by threatening people. He surrounds himself by sycophants, and bullies everybody else.

Until now, western New Yorkers were happy to say Carl was like their crazy uncle. As the facts come out, it would appear that his personality is more sinister than that. Refusing to pay vendors, unilaterally abrogating agreements, forcing people to sue him to be made whole, then making threats against those who complain, aren’t the ways in which legitimate businessmen behave. It’s not how your crazy uncle behaves. It’s more sinister than that. Frankly, if Paladino is on speaking terms with Buffalo Rising and Business First, then those two outlets aren’t doing their jobs.  On principle, I don’t knowingly or intentionally do business with this person.  The rest of western New York, now knowing how he operates and how he treats his underlings and vendors, should do the same.  The same goes for anyone seeking or receiving political support or funding from him. Choices matter.

Related articles

• What’s New York Scumbag Carl Paladino Doing At A Buffalo Gay Bar? (queerty.com)
• Billboard near 190 bashing Buffalo News sponsored by Paladino (buffalo.ynn.com)
• Carl Paladino Has Lost His Feeble Mind [Politics] (gawker.com)
• County executive endorses Paladino for governor (buffalo.ynn.com)
• Case of Paladino advisor accused of stealing from Bloomberg back in court (buffalo.ynn.com)
• Carl Paladino Says Threat Wasn’t Real, Denies Claiming Cuomo Had Affairs (politicsdaily.com)
• Paladino Lashes Out at Another Reporter; ‘Can’t Wait to Depose’ You (observer.com)
• Crazy Ass Carl Paladino Gets No Love from Hometown Newspaper [Snubs] (gawker.com)

Change Congress Now

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission), the US Supreme Court eliminated restrictions on corporate spending that went into effect with the McCain-Feingold legislation passed in 2002.

[HTML3]

There is a lot of teeth gnashing and worry floating in the country about what this decision means not just for our elections, but for our republic. It is a sea change in the way we elect our leaders, but there is an effort underway to fundamentally change that process. It’s simply a new wrinkle to an old problem.

Corporate money and influence clouds our government at a very fundamental level. Politicians, regardless of party, are recipients of campaign finance largesse courtesy of the lobbying organizations organized to influence those politicians and in turn, the legislation they create. It is an economy of opportunity that lobbying groups have created which distracts from intelligent and reasoned discussion about policy which effects us all.

It is exceptionally clear to me that our legislative system is fundamentally broken. Our Representatives and Senators are not able to properly and logically address significant problems facing our nation due to the influence of money in politics. Until we can trust that our representatives are making the right decisions, for the right reasons, sensible legislation is impossible and the public trust compromised.

It’s time to publicly fund state and federal elections. Eliminating the dependence on lobbying money and focusing our legislators on the tasks at hand is a necessity if this country is to prosper. It was an idea first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago and it’s time that it be considered once again.

[HTML1]

Limiting campaign donations to an amount between $100-$250 with built in increases (tied to inflation) over time and allowing for access to public funding once a certain level of electable credibility is achieved through petition signatures and measured support is where we begin.

It will not be an easy job to build a new system, but it is the only way in which we can return sanity to our government. We will also need to address and perhaps limit the power of incumbency to avoid franking abuses and influence gained through seniority. We now have professional legislators who are simply waiting for the opportunity to become professional lobbyists and trade on the influence accrued while in office. At the state level, we have hangers-on like Steve Pigeon who can bring to bear the financial resources of one man to essentially throw an entire city, county or state into gridlock. Is this the way we want to be governed?

It should be clear to all, right or left, that the system is fundamentally handicapped. Monetary influence from unions, corporations, industry associations, PAC’s and other niche lobbies are crippling our ability to tackle the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. Corporate donations and industry authored legislation inhibits the proper measurement of costs and consequences when we attempt to address long term deficits, military largesse, foreign policy, climate change, infrastructure, urban planning or skyrocketing healthcare costs. Considering yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, the problem has never been so obvious.

This video is about the economy of influence and the trust gap between Americans and Congress. It’s worth the time, please watch it.

[HTML2]

Finally, this is Lessig’s response to the Citizens United decision. He’ll have more detail to come, but this message does highlight the need to act now, while the momentum is behind the idea.

[HTML4]

Do you agree with this idea to change the system? If so, head over to Change Congress and voice your support.

You should also call your Representative and Senator to let them know you support the Fair Elections Now Act which would establish citizen funded elections.

In WNY, Reps. Slaughter, Massa and Maffei are co-sponsors of H.R.1826 and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, S. 752. Rep. Higgins has voiced support for the bill in previous interviews and I will call his office tomorrow to confirm his support, the same goes for Sen. Schumer. Rep. Lee has not signed on nor has he voiced support for the bill.

The Trust Gap In American Politics

If you’re like me, you’re tired of the the anecdotal arguments, misinformed positions, corporate feeding of astroturf organizations and the general “deluge of dumb” in the current debate about healthcare reform.  It’s a disservice to an issue that will determine the future and perhaps survival of our republic.

Corporate money and influence clouds the issue at a very fundamental level.  Blue Dog Democrats, Republicans and other opponents of a public option are recipients of campaign finance largesse courtesy of the medical and pharmaceutical lobbies.  It is an economy of opportunity that the lobbying groups have created which distracts from the discussion about the health of our people and the best way to provide access to health care.

It is exceptionally clear to me that our legislative system is fundamentally broken.  Our Representatives and Senators are not able to properly and logically address significant problems facing our nation due to the influence of money in politics.  Until we can trust that our representatives are making the right decisions, for the right reasons, sensible legislation is impossible and the public trust compromised.

It’s time to publicly fund state and federal elections.  Eliminating the dependence on lobbying money and focusing our legislators on the tasks at hand is a necessity if this country is to prosper.  It was an idea first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago and it’s time that it be considered once again.

[HTML1]

Limiting campaign donations to an intial amount of $250 with built in increases (tied to inflation) over time and allowing for access to public funding once a certain number of petition signatures are collected is where we begin.  The idea is loaded with details that need to be addressed due to the hundreds, if not thousands, of loopholes in our existing system.

It will not be an easy job to build a new system, but it is the only way in which we can return sanity to our government.  We will also need to address and perhaps limit the power of incumbency to avoid franking abuses and influence gained through seniority.  We now have professional legislators who are simply waiting for the opportunity to become professional lobbyists and trade on the influence accrued while in office.  At the state level, we have hangers-on like Steve Pigeon who can bring to bear the financial resources of one man to essentially throw an entire state into gridlock.  Is this the way we want to be governed?

It should be clear to all, right or left, that the system is fundamentally handicapped.  Monetary influence from unions, corporations, industry associations, PAC’s and other niche lobbies are crippling our ability to tackle the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Corporate donations and industry authored legislation inhibits the proper measurement of costs and consequences when we attempt to address long term deficits, military largesse, foreign policy, climate change, infrastructure, urban planning or skyrocketing healthcare costs.

This video is about the economy of influence and the trust gap between Americans and Congress.  It’s worth the time, please watch it.

[HTML2]

Do you agree with this idea to change the system?  If so, head over to Change Congress and voice your support.

Obama Opts Out

[HTML3]

As most everyone knows by now, Barack Obama has decided to opt out of the public financing system, eschewing federal matching funds so that his overall fundraising is not capped, and he can effectively battle against what is likely to be a brutal Republican onslaught from McCain, the RNC, and various swiftboat-flavored 527 groups.

[HTML2]

Some people are upset about this because they demand doctrinal rigidity in a candidate, rather than pragmatism. I think Bush has shown us that doctrinal rigidity in the face of changing factual reality can be quite counterproductive. Others are upset because Obama had pledged to work out something with the McCain campaign whereby both would opt into the public financing system. McCain is, notably, upset, and going on the attack on the issue. It won’t be very persuasive, however.

Why? Josh Marshall explains:

McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain’s lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn’t really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC — a Republican — says McCain cannot do this on his own.

[HTML1]