Text Us: #30930
Phone: (800) 616 WBEN
Business: (716) 843-0600
| More
WBEN NewsRadio 930>Audio & Video on Demand>>Prof. Peter Yaccobucci & Reporter Dave Levinthal - Campaign Finance

Prof. Peter Yaccobucci & Reporter Dave Levinthal - Campaign Finance

Apr 6, 2014|

Related Audio:

+

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

Takes its hard line. On news radio nine. And why do we it is to talk politics earlier this week the Supreme Court weighed in heavily. -- something that is debated and touched. And in most every campaign. The idea of financing of campaigns the idea of donors unions corporations Coke Brothers anyone like that. Spending a lot of money on campaigns they looked at limits and those sort of thing we'll look at that are coming up to exactly what his Supreme Court -- also. This was the week where in Albany they finally signed on the state budget just in time for the April 1 deadline. In that budget there is a pilot program there's a small step toward public financing of campaigns in New York State. We'll talk about that coming up at 1030 we also a story that I think we have to shoehorn in here and I did -- topple over more about the state budget in this. But it comes down people's vulnerabilities there is another story that happened this week that we have to get in here the shootings at Fort Hood we'll talk to a veterans advocate on that. And then in the 11 o'clock hour today. Nothing but the buffalo school districts Sam Bradford will be here ready to take your calls. From the buffalo public schools parent coordinating council basically. He's the guy that is in charge of advocating for the parents making sure that. What they what they say is in fact hurt and acted on throughout the region. We'll be taking some calls with him but I did wanna start out with the Supreme Court earlier this week wealthy -- that is the decision came down wealthy donors will be able to give money. To his many political candidates and campaigns as they want. The court's conservative majority 54 decision voided the overall federal limit. On individual contributions. If you want those people that thinks that perhaps corporations and unions have too much money involved in the political process. You're the one we want to hear a little bit from today 803 on 930s and number. That decision is a fresh declaration on limits on big money contributions. When it came out. US senator Charles Schumer had quite a bit to say about this and before -- bring in our two guests -- wanna go back to his comments on the day of the decision let's listen to that. The Roberts court has yet again turned back the clock on our democracy. -- eliminating the cap on overall donations to federal candidates political parties and pacs. This in itself is a small step. But it's another step on the road to ruin a nation of our political system that the Supreme Court is clearly headed down. They wish to dismantle all limits on gift -- piece by piece until we are back to the days of the robber barons. Went anyone or anything. Could give unlimited money undisclosed. And make our political system seems so -- to. That every one lose interest in our democracy. So the implications of this this decision are huge. Even though the individual questions before the court -- small. He says a lot there deploy on the table and talk about let's bring in SUNY buffalo states Peter Yucca blue cheek he studies the Supreme Court. Peter I wanted to start with -- thanks for being here by the way. I one -- start by one -- start with his premise that this is the latest step. -- road we've seen them go before talked to me historically about the trend here. Well I think if we go back a couple of years is that. Of the united case. That the court decided that allowed corporations and unions as you mentioned -- they intro to. Bring money in and essentially protected them as individuals under the First Amendment speech right. This is another step. In that direction. What this says that the smaller. Individuals step in that. This just simply lit lists the aggregate limits on what an individual thing again they're still at the limit on what an individual can give her candidate. But that individual can now give to his many candidates as they weren't up to that limit. What about his his contention there and and the and the comments senator Schumer had. That the conservative majority once again. Is this a trend that we seeing the court in any way coalesce around a five to four conservative. -- -- I think definitely that's true I think if you read the majority opinion written by chief Justice Roberts. There are these within that opinion that simply strike down any future campaign finance regulations. That is not specifically designed to stop played pro quo that purchasing -- specific vote. Any other former corruption in the majority opinion simply says it is not government interest this should be restricted is that not allow the government. To restrict money to campaign unless it's specifically that by a specific vote and and we know that that normally is not the case. Talked to me than about that this whole idea of free speech is that there. Is that the pillar on which they support the argument. Well let the court long ago that back in the 1970s when it first trip around the campaign finance where. And and I comprehensive reform act they felt Buckley vs the -- The courts said that the ability to give money to a candidate in the form of speech protected under the First Amendment -- political speech which is the highest level. A speech that can be protected so the court's gonna look at any restriction of that. With a very very difficult I hate toward the government restriction. What the court did allow back in the 1970s. Is restriction on how much you can get the idea that. If you give a tremendous amount of money to a candidate that certainly that candidate is -- can occur -- -- do favors for that that contributor. And the Buckley decision was clear on that. What the court did. This week is especially say we're simply pushing Barkley a step further. But they've actually expanded the definition. Of what Buckley was meant to restrict instead of what the court said in this week. Is that only if a contribution is directly tied to a specific vote -- it can be restrictive. Especially if it isn't that then there is no real reason that they everything it can violate the First Amendment restricting individual. Speech right. I think you were talking about -- global finance the one person we do have to bring into the conversation is Dave Leventhal. He's with the Center for Public Integrity. Little bit before that he was a senior political reporter for Politico before that he was one of the researchers behind open secrets dot org. At the center for Republicans. Excuse me the center for responsive sore today. The Center for Responsive Politics basically am trying to build the case here Dave that your guy who for years has watched. The back and forth flow of money into campaigns. Tell me what you think this decision does because to my reading it it really. What it says yes to is something were already doing a net. It -- -- got the -- -- a lot of people -- this case up to be it sort of pays Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission in the number two part two and that some experts about and in it to go back four years the Citizens United case. What the case that allows corporations. And labor unions and special interest groups who raise and spend unlimited amounts of money epic. Directly for -- against politicians they couldn't get that money directly to politicians. Advocates say OK well we like Saturday act is a Democrat or Arabic why is -- Republicans. And now we're gonna get -- rich buddies together and and spend billions of dollars on their behalf or of that mattered to attack -- under. So it is important note it's going to be or let's say it again this does not affect the amount of money that you can as an individual putrid individual candidates. It's a 2600 dollar limit at the upper level. That remains in -- but you know -- system appears to be. Have big implications for although is very small group of people -- talking about hundreds certain eighty. Thousands of people who have so much money that they can get millions of dollars to go to politicians are. For a band already big player and now because of the aggregate limits. Going away and that their ability to donate to as many politicians that they want feel that's going to be a big whoop them so they're gonna be even bigger players and it was before. Are we gonna have more clout. Where candidates and the political parties. -- -- before so some of the critics of -- listeners -- are saying well you know it's sort of like this. Giving the oligarchs and the hypocrisy more power etc. etc. but you know become a point that Q and John Roberts wrote this. Effectively -- has decision. IE you've had you know or less in my view is a pop audience is so there's a very good local angle he said he it would sort of be like oh and newspapers that they could only endorsing certain number of candidates. Why should we help people who got a lot of money that they can only donate to a limited amount of camp it's. If I have there really huge checkbook. I can still only write a -- to support an individual candidate for 2600. What changed as a result of this ruling and I now. Write a bigger check to a path. Cup committee. Wait a couple of things number one the cap was about 443000. Dollars and at that went up. Every election cycle because. Of inflation and closet in the law that would allow you to -- more recycle. What that basically does this situation -- -- okay that's out. Where you can only get a certain amount two and a certain number candidates. Or certain amounts to political party committees that goes away so instead of -- donating serial. -- as -- 620 candidates all across the country. Political party committee here political party committee error. -- got into it many if you want you can donates hundreds sales are actively consider -- captives that the amount of money around that. Or 2030000. Dollar mark you can get into the billions because you can just simply give more money to more people more political party committees. Both import and note here that this does as it global implications. Although it doesn't. Directly speak choose states across the country. More or less than that we it was important for him once you -- -- because it's better than me but. You know you can bury Gary here you can present right now at states that -- aggregate limits and there are more than a dozen. And the District of Columbia that he had these similar types aggregate. Campaign donation limits but those limits are gonna ball Q because of the weight of the supreme court's decision. -- -- Let's bring in Peter what do you say to that is this something that will affect the way things play out specifically in New York State. Yes as your best -- -- part of their there's a limited number of states that have aggregate limits as well. But it seems to me and reading the opinion it would be very difficult for those aggregate limits to stand under the opinion. There doesn't seem to be a constitutional difference between this state limits the most prevalent. Are we gonna take a break on the other side we'll take some phone calls they don't 30930s. The number. Peter Yucca -- is here from SUNY buffalo state Dave Leventhal is here from the center for public integrity and this is Dave -- Dave Leventhal is still whether she's from the Center for Public Integrity he's a guy that's looked for most of his career. At the amounts of money that people spend on campaigns he of course is our regular Tuesday political contributor Tuesday mornings with -- Susan -- Buffalo's early news. And this past week we've got him on because this past week the Supreme Court. Ruled to avoid the overall federal limit on individual contributions to campaigns. 8030930s. Number earlier we did have Peter -- -- from SUNY buffalo state with us. He's no longer here but if you have a question for neighbor comment for anyone. -- -- -- -- -- -- Real quickly -- before we get to the cause there's one more thing I had to ask you. Which party gains here because I think some of the conventional wisdom is that. -- unions are liberal and all their money goes to Democrats. Big rich business folk are conservative all their monies go to Republicans. But I'm also thinking there's George Soros out there on the left there Sheldon -- and on the right can can we generalize and say that this is. Who the winner is who the loser is in this decision. If you look at that's what twelve election cycle in parents get in particular. Republicans definitely were on top among all the people who -- Max thing out it's so what as aggregate contributions that now gone away because of the supreme court's decision. About its third of those who were sitting mapped out where Republicans felt yes conventional wisdom would say that Republicans and the benefits. From the more than Democrats. Yes it would be safe to say that at least initially. The right hand Republicans are going to be a little bit quicker to the -- of reacting -- this decision. But they've made a mistake about that Democrats are gonna get quickly wise it is decision. It's become a little while it's -- after the Citizens United decision whites and and that's the system that electrical raised its settlement amounts of money advocates for or against candidates. Well we're gonna complain about it a lot Al. I mean you're going about it it'll probably do so philosophically going forward. I think they know better than anyone better they don't use this this decisions that are -- They don't play the game as the rules are written in the country right now politics -- national level. And the state level you're going to be adding major major disadvantage against. So rich Democrats that there were liberals out there they are also gonna use this decision and expect to see hundreds of them go ahead and spend more than they have. And previous election cycles when they were capped the amount of money that they could get aggregates your candidates and the parties that -- that they want to support. To the calls we go let's bring in Mike in Cheektowaga you're on the air -- Good morning. There's been good morning you know addition of -- and to -- courtroom and have gone and the kindness. While a corporation. Note equal access to people in the market and industry now shut children's rights. The child is part of the problem these career politician. It is this year it is encouraging but -- -- our -- statement to commandeer. Look at education that controlled by corporations. Where it's stop. Dave I know that the national review online posted something this week. About Schumer crying out against this but at the same time taking lots of donations and -- Absolutely and Democrats serves some of the -- fundraisers out there by large and by and large are Democrat. So again it goes back to an urgent that. Even those Democrats that on balance are more philosophically opposed to. That's a book lays its air campaign finance landscape that were entering -- the past few years. They're not where it is and I finally let Republicans. It's just stated it's. Taken the town and in the elections. That there are also going to play the game to. And they in fact -- when he thirteen and we wrote an article recently that showed that. Among super -- that that Republicans to prepare for actually being out but rates by democratic super -- during the off election year. Senate Democrats are probably be period where and when it comes to this decision. While the same time saying they don't like the decisions that things -- change and even if they think things should change there's not a whole lot of action that's going on by anyone right now. In congress or for that matter the Federal Election Commission. Which oversees campaign finance laws this. Country but they're very very bitterly divided. And and it's it's not a whole lot desire or appetite really for. Other entities to go to try to regulate or legislate. In a meaningful way it will change it sure their bills that are there. But they're both far and that that's just the nature of politics right now where you're looking for some sort of you know legislative remedy is it's or any type of Supreme Court decision. Then don't or depressing much because it's -- a lot going on period what comes legislation. Standing righteous let's bring you -- now hi you're on the air. I am talking about 2012. Voter apathy is done in these people don't care John McCain got more votes than that Romney. If you want a correction of this let's go for a taxpayer funded. -- campaigns that I read and being first of all you have ordered to party. What they do that day you can have fifty party only -- -- going to the election. They're limited with their funding meaning they're not what shall before they even get an office. This is for sure they'll allow these are political system is awful it's really it's all about money and we got a corrected you can't work it this way. And expect people to be happy and you can't afford to run for office until you're ready in the minor. And by the time they get to -- -- and paying for you all of them it's been. All right very good day about can you stick with us after the news frequent architect couple more calls here. Great let's bring in one more before that and then we'll move on to of the news and pick up buffalo couple on the other side Tom in buffalo it's your turn now -- A gentleman I don't think at Sonoma I haven't heard it -- by John Roberts on. About newspapers and how was it not just and different and effective that's more analogies to Citizens United a newspaper endorses. Based on what's good for its leadership or its community not a Michael corporations do for their community that there endorsing. If you will this. If individual it was good for me and that's the big difference and do you think it was important to get a committee before when you're elected to congress. Now it's going to be like a nice site because people are gonna. Look in pick who got what many in my entire committee and that's where the rubber meets the road. I area lets us -- -- Davis say go -- we've only got about thirty seconds left before the news. Well they're brick I think the caller makes very very good point that says this is going to affect that people are very very well see -- be that Republican or Democrat in a major way. Not only -- -- -- implications during election season opener can give more money but there's a payback elephants. -- -- -- -- -- players and they used to be because for giving so much more money than they used to here. When it comes time for legislative session with. When it comes time what congress -- back together and activities are perfect example of those. Are these are going to be the guys who really are gonna have the ability to make -- phone calls that -- -- answered. Net meeting was -- their -- time my you know. When people operators are not a poor people make their money yeah but rich people. Rich people with influence -- which are all right back on hold more after this it's hard line on news radio 930 WB yen. Dave Leventhal is with us stick just couple more calls 8030930s. Or number if you'd like to join us were also before the segments going to be done. Talking about the state budget and a little bit of a pilot project that they threw in there. Dealing with campaign finance reform. But let's get back to the calls -- by the way is with the Center for Public Integrity. He's basically guy that for almost all of his journals and career has studied the interface between. Donors and campaigns 8030930s. Is numbered shot in Rochester thanks for waiting time. They gave me Dave you know this could be a double edged sword or conservatives. And Democrats because you've got. You know everything everybody mentions the cobra -- -- thought about it George Soros and Zuckerman and Bill Gates sort of collapsed just an accent yeah. And in -- so I think it could be a double its short but I think it's really needed at this point because. What are your previous coach mentioned the media. Be a factor in these -- elections and you've got. Publication like the local news and -- democratic crackle here in Rochester there were very biased the last. So you're. Your argument is that -- the money can counterbalance. A biased overall mainstream media. It all right what do you say they've. The other biases. Is speech. Went underground the unions generally public unions especially our -- what way. And over corporate how critical thought what the county executive race because. Boots on the ground to ship people up from the downstate. To campaign against Chris talented group called plot if you can't make it monitor that organization. And this is important. Or other conservatives who make -- what do you say -- I would agree with the -- points at Democrats and Republicans stand to benefit from and we talked about this sense but senate. Little while ago that Republicans seem to have an inherent advantage going into the McCutcheon the sincerity host -- decision Eric here. Democrats are gonna quickly responsibly as and they're gonna use this decision. So what have a way to possibly stand ordered they have the benefit. They -- political -- prospects -- -- not only in the 2014 election cycle or a congressional mid terms coming out but of course between sixteen. Presidential election cycle and beyond and beyond. Your vote that this is something that's going to -- correct the fact it's short sorrows or the Coke Brothers or -- and adults and or. The folks like that I don't want to overstate the importance of this coaching decision. In that regard it is an important decision is going to allow very wealthy people to directly. Donate monies is a much greater level -- -- -- -- -- -- candidates and number of candidates. And number the political party committees. But a really really wealthy folks who are very politically active they really have their shackles removed in 2000 intent with the Citizens United decision. That allows them into. Effectively fund organizations. That are standing up sometimes into the hundreds of millions of dollars epic export against. Presidential candidates congressional candidates -- state level candidates -- itself. The the company that built upon what is stand over the past several years just say -- direction that's pointing toward a much more deregulated. Political system here in this country and certainly much more he regulated. Elections system and that doesn't seem like the aero Irish as any signs supporting back the other way we keep going in this correction what do you like -- felt like. And as two point that the left will evolve and certainly fire up their own kind of donation machine. I think to have Karl Rove super -- wasn't them modeled over after. Something similar that the Democrats already had in place both sides seem to sort of get the idea and and adapted make it their own correct. It was actually put a little bit Kirk crossroads -- super pac that your -- thing that was that the one that was. Inspired in part by Karl Rove has been one of the biggest players on the super acts seen ever since 2000 and at -- experts. And it's that sense it was a big moment in when he twelve and that's when President Obama himself. Effectively -- is what's -- two Democrats to say. What we understand that we don't like we we understand all of us that. We think that the Citizens United decision of about saying that. Or money in politics roads. Democracy in their opinion that many arguments as to why is this is a bad situation. But Obama. Pretty much said what we were operating and -- right now -- perhaps he'll swim or what can say you know and that that's went on number of super pacs. There are left leaning super pacs that are democratic super. He camp this spring -- altitude nonprofit organizations that. You're not have to disclose they're -- -- like super pacs actually do. Are they began to proliferate and when he twelve and more so 12013 announced today in 2014. Republicans by and -- are still pumping more money into the political system through these vehicles. And Democrats over all of as we discussed before even in 2013. Republican super pacs were raised by democratic people's accept that they shifting of the -- at least a little bit. In the momentum in the directions that Democrats are taking those. Because -- all this goes back to win an election. If they don't use the tools that are there for ever wanted to use and they put themselves but the disadvantage. And you may want Democrats for Democrats the Democrats are actually using that that -- other -- it's about the -- can't. All right let's bring in one more call with you Dave and we'll move on to discussion of some in some similar things happening at the state level here. Add in buffalo you're on the air. And I -- Unlimited amounts of money to -- that has been influenced you couldn't buy a Karl -- about -- across the country they've -- but I think about it Supreme Court ruling in the middle class. They're getting further and further. He wrote if you know that speed between rich support that's where it broke out to get my opinion days. Closing comments Dave what do you think. And any that appear on the other side the people who think that the coaching decision as a bad decision and they're here at bat. If you're in out of their home and you're trying to make ends meet maybe your working two jobs it's certainly don't have much money that. It's -- anything political that you care about politics. Arafat to communities. This is a scary -- recently potentially because. You feel like the -- which is already just say it's small you know small whimper and make cacophony of political speech out -- The treatment can be drowned out more. I even agree with better not agree without -- bad as the prevailing sentiment among a lot lobby groups in interest rates. You're certainly are watching in BC -- that that there are very much against its decision. Unless for a few more -- -- local level we talked about this a little bit earlier near eight also as an aggregate when -- -- eight election. I think -- an annual limit of 5000 dollars for. Operations -- 150000 dollars for individuals again. Africa it's your nation that to political candidates so prospector. So it's very unlikely that that's going to go awaits you -- that. New York stayed at the state level is going to be affected by this decision may not be immediately but all indications are pointing toward. State level aggregates. Absent aggregate limits of the sort that were being discussed with the federal level those state level I aggregate limits are also going to go -- -- All right very good Dave thanks for joining us this morning. -- -- that's Dave Leventhal for the Center for Public Integrity now let's then bring in bill Mahoney with -- -- They've been watching similar issues emerge on the state level bill thanks for joining us. Talk to me a little bit about what the state budget does in terms of setting up some sort of pilot project just the comptroller's race with a test at least of public financing in New York. Unfortunately it doesn't throughout all we've been supported public financing for years with the idea. Public financing system would help counter the big money that you received federal well I'm very much but it's Spain's Opel. Started to be encouraged to reach out to configured the bears as small -- would be matched. And this would you waiter brings middle and working class back in the political it's not just got to billionaires on both sides of the IO. But instead of having it be state wide and and launch a whole big campaign public financing program. What happens now in the comptroller's race under what was passed in the state budget. Governor Cuomo had on the it for her partner and your statement but oh in the past but it Pacific composers and -- you're on or eat some comments iron December. After the election. Which we can turn into just the ridiculous system is gonna have time to get an optimal and influence on our view options actually run in the art. But is that more candidates are being urged than what since -- that you're under -- -- the actual people without having no lie and act. Mean we have more participate in the political process but that escape the barrier Howard -- of the regulations so this system in place until summer. But I don't think that there haven't been in effect and actually bring him in one or the other. I understand you don't like it but I'm still having trouble grasping what it is lay out how -- work. So -- this group of guys and we are all out because a lot of -- before the election figure out how important footwork. But this is going to be -- candidate for the office of state controller. On it they've raised money from small donors that money will be not spend money from the but it unclaimed funds. -- and the slow and hear your current the current work for are optimistic it will with your. This means and it's that that will be great and small speck from people who actually live in your state of boots would be mass public funds. This means that there they would have to rely on the money under the ultimate you eat your candidates without act that they actually run for office. And the theory is I think you touched on an earlier Governor Cuomo but gee if I can at least get it in one race coming up. Candidates will like it and they'll opt into and it will expand from there. Theoretically. Yeah I'm that your controller monopoly here. It's making -- you might not going to happen because this is so last minute and it's going to what's the process so much not. Change anything in -- and support for this for years. And on the other side of the they'll inferior -- -- more Republicans aren't raised the money to you to take on the incumbents of color. But it -- go out there but I don't think many viable candidates are. Sitting back and look where it's filtered through that the the most potent and they -- off my coverage or an election that's going to be a couple months away. What's the alternative what was initially proposed by the governor. And I'm sure as mentioned earlier it's something you guys kind of advocated for but didn't get what would they have done. Well they could have for more races that they both persons or are usually caused -- a lot of if they go outside money. And they could have waited a little bit to make sure this wasn't lessons they kind of equipment back went under and didn't go public -- efforts. We've got legislative election coming up again and -- it in the there's no reason it's not over until that elections that what you're before the election cycle starts to work out all the problems in the true. It says well -- as possible before we actually start spending the public taxpayer money. Bill Mahoney is here from -- we're talking about a little bit of an experiment that was put into the state budget to have some sort of public financing of elections in New York State. Talk to me about the the politics of it bill. Is it something that. He went for this this smaller portion of because the governor knew he wouldn't get it I'm abroad statewide big basis. In the senate especially has never passed their public financing program like this look forward. Yeah assembly has passed them -- and they're often as well rounded that he's been persecuted -- -- So -- -- enforcement mechanism that would guarantee a public financing system at work. Problem who have -- Republicans in the senate where the most vocal in their opposition. And it was unclear there would be -- vote could not Governor Cuomo does -- in the accident I was the force program from the budget because Susan. But he chose not to do that but there. All right. They'll stay with us on the other side of -- will pick up the conversation. Bill Mahoney is here from -- we're talking now about public financing of campaigns. At least on a limited basis and perhaps a confusing -- in the State of New York something that was passed with the state budget. Earlier this week more to come it's hard line on news radio 930 WB yen. It's hard line and we are talking this morning about political campaign finance. In New York State in the budget that was passed on Monday there is a little bit of a pilot project to try out public financing. In the upcoming upcoming comptroller's race it's an alternative to the big broad based plan that the governor had initially pushed for. And quite frankly it something that the comptroller himself has not fully onboard with so we're going to see where it goes next bill Mahoney is here from -- -- They have been pushing for that bigger broader scheme the idea of taxpayer funded elections getting some of that the big donations out of the picture. What is the argument -- sticking with the -- one of the arguments that that I've read out there. Is a corruption and be cost let me read you an editorial from Brian Sampson he's executive director. On -- upstate and I'm sure you've heard this before but for the sake of molesters stick with me. He writes this in an op Ed piece for for the Syracuse post standard. The claim that having taxpayers pay for partisan political activity will somehow and corruption and Albany is a false assumption with an unknown price tag. An estimated cost is high as 200 million per election cycles and floated around Albany. At a time when taxpayers are calling for lower taxes and more investments in infrastructure. And education. Doling out a single penny of public money for obnoxious robo calls and costly political consultants is wrong. How do you respond. Well it does cost money where he as he met since about fifteen million dollars per year which isn't cheap and mean. If you look if you look at how Albany or not the Packers are are already saying a lot more than rapid weight that goes to McCain's campaign donors. The budget that passed this week from -- 140 billion dollars I'm sure in the next few months we'll be on your story about some huge tax breaks that went to developers. Or maybe portend -- two groups which happened to give some legislators. And here in Europe -- you're assuming that's the quid pro quo that that's because of donations. There's strong evidence that. There is a link between the -- drove up. Completely incorporated and thousand dollar check and I access to a fund raiser. They'll have a stronger time convincing a legislator que -- -- spears is on the taxpayer money either way. Now obviously some of that some of these tax breaks that happen on occasion. That there on its stories out there. About -- political -- -- speak to a New York City real estate developer -- here on the state budget that have been unsurpassed speakers over the years. There's a long list of stories I'm great and I used to exist going out or not -- It's just happened to -- champion contributions to what the official the week before -- it's about the budget. One of the other arguments against it has been trotted out people point to -- New York City Council races where a guy was basically receiving funds from the public. And then turning around and and paying. Huge amounts to friends and family to help from the campaign. Talk about the idea of abuse if taxpayer money is coming out of the government going to elections. Isn't that setting it up so that certain politicians if they're already inclined toward corruption and we have seen some in New York State that are inclined that way. Wouldn't it be setting it up so certain politicians inclined toward corruption -- have an incentive or boy -- is as big pot of money on the table now. That's why it's so important to couple public financing with -- very good in court and agency an independent agency which actually and which candidate Obama and -- them do it -- there is nobody business -- enough. We have that your city. For their campaign finance -- for example -- the to deny public funds to Jon -- scandal involving hundreds or -- pretty checks from its people without their knowledge. In the and and B that don't think public I have to work or your wife uses taxpayer money unless there was this strong enforcement agency which. Cuomo budget does not include in the -- -- But it does and there might be a potential for a few more scandals the president's -- as -- -- -- caught on a regular visits New York City but at the same time. It also increases the chances that. Candidates who are -- -- and candles and actually get booted out of office we've seen a few cases frequently were candidates to. -- isn't federal felony charges are able to get reelection because there are able to get reelected because they're able to drastically outspent her opponent. And -- on its discount rate the -- need to run our real campaign. But there was -- public fund system. And their clients would have an easier time getting -- basic amount of money that each to open up the district profit about -- And that should bring a more viable candidates in the process the truth that. Reduce the current stack of people who are there -- encryption we've got many legislators who are there for thirty years in some cases reported in others. And this would help bring more qualified candidates into the that. I'm all right got to catch -- we are bomb -- a time bill thanks for joining us this morning. Thank you bill Mahoney is with -- it's news radio 930 WB and more after this.

Poll
Overall, are you satisfied with the government response ot the lake effect storm?
  Yes
  No
 
View Results

Get it Now

WBEN iPhone App

Perks

Contests

Photo Galleries

RSS Center