Like Putin, Like Bloomberg

From The New York Times :

Like Putin, Like Bloomberg

October 4, 2011, 8:44 AM
By CLYDE HABERMAN

Political ploys under way in Russia could almost serve as an instruction manual for the leadership at either end of New York’s City Hall. You have to slap your forehead in wonder that the New Yorkers didn’t think up comparable high jinks for themselves.

In case your idea of foreign news is a revised menu at the International House of Pancakes, allow us to explain.

Dmitri A. Medvedev, who is Russia’s president but not the guy in charge, plans to step aside so that his place can be taken by Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, Mr. Medvedev’s predecessor and still the true power. Once Mr. Putin is installed anew as president, Mr. Medvedev will move in as prime minister. In some countries, leaders swap political favors. In Russia, it seems, they swap jobs.

The reason for this folderol is that Mr. Putin, though not thrilled with the idea, yielded the presidency three years ago in accordance with a constitutional provision limiting him to two consecutive terms.

In other words, this former K.G.B. man, known for strong-arm tactics, was more scrupulous about observing the niceties of term limits than were New York’s political leaders: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his Medvedev equivalent, Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker.

You will recall that Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn could not bother themselves with observing the letter, let alone the spirit, of a voter-imposed city law limiting them to two terms. With the help of complaisant council members, they simply changed the law to reward themselves with third terms. Generally speaking, it’s not a good idea to look less faithful to democratic formalities than Vladimir Putin.

There is no need to belabor the wobbly nature of this third term. Names and phrases like Cathleen P. Black, the 2010 blizzard, Stephen Goldsmith and the CityTime scandal tell you at a glance how things have often gone.

For the privilege of presiding over all that, Mr. Bloomberg distorted campaign financing beyond all recognition — yet again — by spending $108 million in 2009.On Monday, he was forced to testify at the trial of a political consultant accused of stealing $1.1 million from that campaign. Theft, if proved, is bad, of course. But Mr. Bloomberg tosses around money so freely that his losing a million dollars is like an average person’s having coins slip between the sofa cushions.

Nor are finances the only area of distortion. The normal balance between the executive and legislative branches in this city has been knocked askew in the Bloomberg-Quinn era. Theirs is not quite the Putin-Medvedev relationship, but it bears a certain resemblance, sort of a second-rate Moscow on the Hudson. Not unlike the Russians, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn are trying to make sure that power remains within their alliance.

He leaves no doubt that he wants her to take his place after 2013. His administration goes out of its way to include her in news conferences even when the Council’s role is close to nonexistent, whether the issue is Hurricane Irene or, as was the case last week, an announcement that New Yorkers were eating more fruits and vegetables.

In turn, Ms. Quinn often acts as if she were not the Council speaker but, rather, the deputy mayor for legislative affairs. The latest example came a week ago when she bottled up a bill loathed by the mayor. It would have required mayors, including the wandering, Bermuda-loving Mr. Bloomberg, to let the rest of us know when he strays far from the city — certainly when he leaves the country, as he did before the 2010 blizzard. Ms. Quinn made sure that the Council would not even debate this proposal.

There is, however, such a thing as excessive coziness. A NY1-Marist College poll last week confirmed that, for now anyway, Ms. Quinn is the Democratic front-runner in the 2013 mayoral election. But it also showed that nearly half of Democratic voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had Mr. Bloomberg’s support.

How does that aphorism go about being careful what you wish for?

2009 Campaign Payments Fraud - Update

The New York Times reported :
''Suit Suggests Political Party Knew of Fraud''

UPDATED !
In contradictory new developments in the trial against GOP operative John Haggerty, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office allege that ''Mr. Haggerty lied to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party,'' according to court documents released on February 17 and reported about by The Times.

How did Mr. Haggerty lie to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party, if the campaign to reëlect the mayor (CREEM) knowingly used Mayor Bloomberg's private banking accounts to ''wash in'' money in order to deliberately funnel the Independence Party donations to Mr. Haggerty ?

What is more, the reporter Aram Roston from PolitickerNY has raised questions about Mayor Bloomberg's pattern in using private donations for campaign-related activities. Indeed, in court filings made on December 15, 2010, in the criminal trial against Mr. Haggerty, defense attorneys made assertions that CREEM "intentionally chose the least transparent way possible to conduct ballot security....It was Mr. Bloomberg who chose to hide payments, not Mr. Haggerty," reported The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's article added :

Mr. Haggerty's attorneys suggested the district attorney's office should "commence an investigation immediately" into the possibility that the mayor violated laws by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party for the direct purpose of helping his campaign with a ballot-security operation. If Mr. Bloomberg "made the contribution directing how it should be spent, he would be in violation of both the New York State Election Law and the New York City Campaign finance Law," Mr. Haggerty's attorneys allege.

According to New York State law, contributions in excess of $94,200 to a state political party are prohibited from being used to promote a candidate, The Journal reported. Furthermore, New York City law requires politicians' electoral campaigns to report and disclose campaign-related expenditures, and The Journal added that Mayor Bloomberg's ballot-security operations expenditures were not reported or disclosed by CREEM.

Adding to the lack of transparency about Mayor Bloomberg's intent in structuring the expeditures by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party is the fact that the Mayor's Office refuses to release all related e-mails about campaign-related activities. After The New York Post filed a Freedom of Information request, demanding more information about Mr. Haggerty's involvement with the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's Office release only "nine e-mail exchanges" between Mr. Haggerty and "mayoral aides" during 2008 and 2009. "There were other e-mails that the mayor's refuses to release on the grounds of 'personal privacy,' " The Post reported.

Meanwhile, back to The Times's own report about the February 17 court documents : this is the first time that prosecutors have said the Independence Party may have known about the alleged fraud. But The Times seems to be continuing with the storyline that the ''fraud'' committed was that the act that Mr. Haggerty used the CREEM payments for personal use, not that CREEM failed to disclose Mr. Haggerty's work as campaign-related activities.

''An extensive review of records and campaign documents by The Observer, as well as interviews with witnesses, indicate that Mr. Bloomberg funneled money to Mr. Haggerty, who claimed to be a 'volunteer,' sidestepping the political committee the mayor had promised to use to finance his election campaign. By deploying Mr. Haggerty and an unrelated political party, the mayor's team avoided drawing attention to a controversial election day tactic. But even more serious, experts say Bloomberg may have broken campaign finance laws,'' reported Mr. Roston.

The way that CREEM structured the payments to Mr. Haggerty allowed CREEM to avoid having to legally disclose the payments (and controversial activities), and the structure troubles some legal experts. "This is clearly an attempt to evade the purpose of the law," John Moscow, a former white-collar prosecutor in Manhattan, told Mr. Roston.

Meanwhile, the artist and blogger Suzannah B. Troy offers a slightly different political analysis. Mr. Haggerty is a "fall guy," she wrote. ''I have been saying all along Haggerty is innocent ! John Haggerty is as innocent as Mike Bloomberg,'' wrote Ms. Troy. ''Technically there is no doubt Haggerty broke the law but so did Mike Bloomberg by wiring money from his personal account, 1.1 million dollars the day before the election !''

The controversial campaign reëlection-related services that Mr. Haggerty was hired to provide have been described as a ''ballot security operation.'' In Mr. Roston's article, the impression of the ballot security operation was to presumably discourage or fend off the voters of Mr. Bloomberg's opponent, Controller Bill Thompson (D), an African-American. Although alluded to, left unsaid was whether the ballot security operation was intended to deliberately turn away Mr. Thompson's African-American voters from the polls.

Halt To Inquiry Into Bloomberg Campaign Finance Violations Raises Questions

The New York City Campaign Finance Board is suspending its investigation into whether the committee to reëlect Mayor Michael Bloomberg violated disclosure rules ; the suspension is coming on the orders of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, sources have told The New York Post.

Presumably because oral arguments in the District Attorney's criminal case against John Haggerty are being heard tomorrow, Manhattan DA Cy Vance's office has asked the Campaign Finance Board to hold off its review of Mayor Bloomberg's financial disclosures in connection with his 2009 reëlection campaign.

Mr. Haggerty is accused of misusing approximately $1.1 million in undisclosed money from Mayor Bloomberg's personal-private accounts, which had been paid to the Independence Party ; it has been reported that Mr. Haggerty bought a house with most of the proceeds of Mayor Bloomberg's political donation.

Meanwhile, one questions why Mr. Haggerty is being charged with misusing a political client's money, if he can continue to be hired for his political and campaign services. If Mr. Haggerty was, indeed, a thief, then he would not have been hired to work for 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.

If the intention for Mr. Bloomberg's off-committee donation to the Independence Party was always meant to be a way to funnel money to Mr. Haggerty, then it was Mr. Bloomberg, who failed to disclose the campaign payment, not Mr. Haggerty, who misused the proceeds.

That Mr. Vance has asked for the suspension of the Campaign Finance Board's investigation makes one question his motive. As The Post reported, ''If the CFB decides the mayor was trying to hide spending that benefited him directly, he could face a significant fine.''

200,000 Missing Votes Found In New York City ; Mayor's Accountability Remains Missing

One month after the November mid-terms, the NYC Board of Elections reported 200,000 more votes that had not been previously counted on Election Day.

Every time something important happens in this city, there is Mayor Michael Bloomberg, showing up to demonstrate domination and authority. At every major fire house closing, schools chief waiver application, or term limits extension. Yet, here, after these 200,000 uncounted ballots are found in New York City, he is nowhere in sight.

The largest stash of the missing votes (about 80,0000) were found in Queens, The New York Times reported.

Meanwhile, look at the Queens Crap blog and read the comments triggered by this election scandal.

2 sets of campaign books

The New York Observer finds a pattern to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's secret campaign payments.

The journalist Aram Roston has reported that in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaigns in each of 2005 and 2009, the mayor paid money out of his private accounts that were ultimately funneled to the political operative John Haggerty.

If we are to accept that the mayor has a track record of spending money for his political campaigns out of his private accounts, in addition to his official campaign committee accounts, then the amounts that the mayor has reported and certified as being his campaign finances cannot be either true, accurate, or complete.

Add to that the fact that it has been alleged that Mayor Bloomberg has paid millions to charitable organisations in exchange for their political support, and you begin to realise that we really don't know how much money he has spent on campaigning or electioneering to be mayor.

We can only guess that the reason the mayor has used his private accounts to pay intermediaries for campaign-related services like ''ballot security'' was to evade the reporting and disclosure requirements of the campaign accounts. Meanwhile, for his part in the money funneling operation, Mr. Haggerty is facing criminal charges for how he spent the campaign payments.

MTA ruins lives

Since every hard-working taxpaying citizen of NYC depends on the MTA to get to work, what does Mayor Bloomberg have to say about how the MTA keeps jerking us around ? While the mayor goes around slashing the budget of the office of the Public Advocate, and goes trolling around the office of the Manhattan District Attorney, it is the MTA that keeps “surprising” New Yorkers with its “unknown” yet “constant” budget shortfalls. It is the MTA, which has the biggest potential of ruining the family and household budgets of the average worker, this during the worst financial recession in my lifetime. Mr. Mayor, you ran for a controversial 3rd t3rm, now do something for the benefit of all New Yorkers. Raid the 2 sets of books that the MTA keeps.

Bloombo Dicto

Originally posted February 18, 2009 by Economist.com : The mayor and the dictator :

ERIN EINHORN of The New York Daily News deserves some sort of award for this question. Last year Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, got the city council to repeal the law that prevented him from seeking a third term. This week, Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, won a vote (insofar as the polls there can be trusted) allowing him to run for as many terms in office as he likes. Cue Ms Einhorn:

Q: Mayor, it’s hard to compare New York City to Venezuela but as you know, Hugo Chavez did his second effort - this time sucessful - to extend term limits. You chose to go through City Council. Do you have any second thoughts about this? Do you wish you should have had a chance to take to the...

A: I don’t understand your question. What on Earth do we have to do with Hugo Chavez?

Q: Well, like you, he wanted to extend his term.

A: If you wanted to ask Hugo Chavez, call him up! Maybe he’ll take your call. My suspicion is he doesn’t have press conferences and let people ask questions or if they ask questions, he probably throws them, I don’t know what he does with them...Who knows? (Laughs). I still fail to see a connection.

Mr Chavez doesn't throw too many press conferences, but he does host hours-long radio shows and TV shows where citizens can toss questions at him. No one's suggesting that Mr Bloomberg should do that.