One of the more bizarre and rambling speeches we have seen in quite some time as Sarah Palin goes Galt. Let the waves of krazy wash over you as you try, and fail, to look away:
It seems that Pedro Espada didn't campaign in 2008 ... or at any rate he didn't spend any money during the crucial months.
Espada's primary campaign committee, "Pedro Espada, Jr." (A39657), has yet to file a July 2008 statement, but all statements following that merely show "no activity." In other words, from July 12, 2008 through the end of November Espada neither raised nor spent any money on his campaign.
Remarkable! I'm working on a campaign in Queens now, and I'd love to know how to run it without spending any money.
There is another committee, "Espada for the People" (A30709), which is not listed as a particular campaign committee, but which did spend money in 2008. Specifically, from January 12, 2008 until 11 days before the primary (there are no filings yet after the 11-day pre-primary filing), that committee spent $5,859.80, mostly on petitioning.
Again, remarkable! I've been supporting a "Clean Money, Clean Elections" system under which a state Senate candidate could manage by raising only a few thousand dollars, but spending of public funds, to the tune of as much as a few hundred thousand dollars, would augment that. But Pedro Espada has managed to win with far less.
Please, Pedro, tell us how you did it! The campaign finance reform that you could enact would be truly amazing.
TAP seems to have become a popular enough place that it's getting spam. Not just any spam, but the new "looks real until you investigate the link" spam that's the latest iteration of nonsense. I'm not sure if it's created by humans or by computers, but its volume is increasing.
This morning I found four comments in my feed reader that all looked real until that last "Make Money From Home", "Get Taller", or "cash advance" link.
Does troll-rating these things help? If multiple people do that, it takes them off the screen, which I think keeps them from working, but are there other costs? I'd like to think we could be self-policing on these and keep the administrative overhead down.
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), who is committed to challenging Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in a primary next year, made a big deal at a Manhattan fund-raiser Tuesday night out of Bill Clinton hosting a Manhattan fund-raiser for her later this month.
Naturally, that "big deal" was promptly leaked to a friendly Manhattan news website, and went viral within a few hours, with Google News now linking to hundreds of similar, derivative stories when you search "maloney gillibrand clinton."
Despite the obvious implication that some readers will draw from Clinton appearing at a Maloney fund-raiser, he is not endorsing her.
Nor is he endorsing Gillibrand, for whom he did a fund-raiser in March.
Statement From State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
on Paying State Senators
Shortly after the Senate leadership controversy arose, I directed my staff to stop processing any Senate vouchers, including those for Senators' travel. To date, we are holding more than 250 vouchers, totaling $560,000.
The question of withholding Senators' pay has raised complicated legal and constitutional issues. My staff has been meeting with Governor Paterson's staff to resolve those issues. These discussions are ongoing.
Out of respect for the separation of powers, I have strived to avoid inserting my office into what is essentially an internal matter within a separate branch of government. But the deadlock in the Senate is undermining the ability of state government to function. Taxpayers are paying a very high price. The stalemate is costing taxpayers across the state millions of dollars a day.
As the state's fiscal officer, I have a responsibility to taxpayers to safeguard their interests. These are difficult fiscal times. The state needs leadership and action.
I have instructed my staff to initiate the process to hold Senators' pay. I have also filed suit in Supreme Court seeking declaratory judgment to clarify the Constitutional and statutory obligations surrounding this matter.
Every elected official has a duty to serve the people of this great state. I urge Senators to resolve their differences now. The people of New York deserve no less.
Mayhaps this will bring them around, as money is one thing that Clay Davis Pedro Espada understands.
Here's the stream of the WFP's Mayoral Candidate Forum. You can also You should just watch it at their site and participate in the twitter conversation as well. Justin and Josh from Living Liberally are liveblogging the forum over at Open Left.
P.S. If the player starts to drive you crazy, you can turn it off by clicking the "menu" button.
I've been a big fan of the new New York State Senate web site. It's much more than "new and improved" - it actually offers a window into the operations of the Senate, inviting the audience not only to watch but to participate. It rightly made a splash at the Personal Democracy Forum, as a genuine step forward.
Unfortunately, it's had a bumpy few weeks. I'm very glad that they've opened the video feed so that we can see the Republican fake sessions as well as the Democratic fake sessions. (Admittedly that's only a few minutes a day.) It hasn't had the same kind of scrum as the rostrum, though it's been kind of surreal visiting it.
Today that surrealism kicked up a notch. The official Senate blog had been sticking to announcements and legal documents, even if most of these did seem to come from the Democratic leadership. The latest piece, though, is laughable:
On June 30, 2009, the State Senate convened a regular session at noon. Lisa Copeland, Deputy Journal Clerk of the Senate, identified 31 Democratic members as present in the Senate Chamber, along with Senator Frank Padavan (R-Queens). A quorum being obtained, the Senate proceeded to unanimously pass over 100 critical bills...
So what happens when an institutional site built on the premises of open government starts making claims - unsigned but "official" - that no one else in government is taking seriously, and which expose that institution to mockery?
I told you weeks ago that this whole coup by the GOP+Espada "reform coalition" was about nothing more than power and patronage.
It was always transparently ridiculous that the very people who fought against any reform at all for 40 years had had a sudden change of heart and did so while adopting and elevating probably the single most ethically challenged person in the entire chamber. Did anyone really believe any of this stuff? It was always about power, perks and greed.
It seemed obvious at the time and now everyone else can see it as well. A whopping 84% of New Yorkers (really, when was the last time 84% of us agreed on anything?) believe that the current sideshow in Albany is more about a "political power play" than a "serious effort to bring reform to Albany."
76% of registered voters statewide have heard, at least, a good amount about the current chaos in the Senate. This includes 31% of voters who have heard a great deal about the situation. And, voters say they just don't think their elected officials have their best interests at heart. A whopping 84% of registered voters report that, from what they have heard, the situation is nothing more than a political power play. In fact, just 12% view the wrangling as a serious effort to bring reform to Albany. The sentiment that the Senate dispute is for political gain transcends party lines with 88% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 82% of non-enrolled voters echoing this argument.
No one is buying the "we did this for reform" nonsense. That was always a ridiculous argument. This was a raw power play.
In these accounts, the fact that there are hugely important stakes for everyday New Yorkers in the outcome of the Senate fight is barely mentioned. Nor is the embarrassing truth that what transpired in Albany in the past month is the local version of a banana republic coup. In this case, the conspiring generals were lobbyists and one very power-hungry billionaire, Tom Golisano. Their goal was no different from that of those democracy-fearing Iranian mullahs: to overturn the results of a popular election.
The threat to power here was the slim Democratic majority that won control of the Senate last fall for the first time in more than 40 years. Consider the timeline: The plotters launched their coup on June 8, the day before the Senate's housing committee was due to consider legislation-given a good chance of passage-that would curb rent hikes on hundreds of thousands of city apartments. Worse, it was even possible that the new majority might vote to give control over New York City housing policies to the city itself. Imagine that? Home rule! For the real estate and landlord lobby, which had long held full sway in the Senate, this was an impossible state of affairs. A pair of renegade Democrats were recruited at a still undisclosed price. The rebels stepped across the aisle to vote the Republicans back into power, thus ensuring that there would be no further incursions into the business of real estate profit or any other sacred Albany cows.
Despite its often clumsy and muddled performance during its short-lived reign, the Senate's new Democratic majority became a target of fear and loathing for the state's traditional powerbrokers. That's because on the occasions that they did get their act together, the Democrats showed what a progressive coalition might achieve.
I'm glad that better than 8 in 10 of us are seeing this for what it really is. It's good to see that we are all on the same page here.
Last night, Putney Swope helped me see that I hold at least two conflicting opinions on the State Senate fiasco:
On the one hand, I have hope that some reasonably sane group of Senators, though probably not the leadership, can come together around a solution that establishes a solid precedent for a Senate that functions roughly according to the principles they suggested in high school civics class.
On the other hand, I'd like to see the whole structure come crashing down - the louder, the better. New Yorkers have been poorly served by their legislature and by their political parties for decades, and it's long past time for the whole rotted frame to collapse.
What triggered this realization that I'd been painting rosy possibilities while secretly wishing for Bastille Day? Swope's suggestion that having the Assembly and the Governor accept the "Padavan quorum" might move things forward. I think he meant it in the sense of getting on with business, but think of the possiblities:
Some part of the Senate passes bills in a session of dubious legality that's guaranteed to be mocked for decades to come if it doesn't sink beneath the waves immediately. (Mission accomplished!)
The Assembly, really trying to move New York forward, accepts the bill jackets for these votes, drinks of the poisoned chalice, and passes them to the Governor. (Not yet, not likely.)
Governor Paterson either signs those bills or lets them ripen into law by waiting ten days. (Unlikely to sign, currently dodging the 10-day question.)
Think about the possibilities! New York State can pay less attention to the Senate nonsense for a while, and all of the "Three Men in a Room" would be contaminated by a "coffee quorum" story that's pretty mockable:
A guy stumbles into a bar, looking for coffee. No, it was coke. No, V-8. Anyway, he turns to leave, but the bartender shouts out, "hey buddy! We got a quorum now!" and the patrons pass a hundred-something laws.
Maybe even that isn't enough to tear down what's left of a rotting legislature, but it's a good start. Wandering down that path might well get us an electorate angry enough to know that even their local legislator isn't quite working for them. And maybe, just maybe, the results of this coup will generate enough fury that a Constitutional Convention, in 2017 or sooner, sounds like a good idea.
(Yeah, I know - a Constutional Convention sounds peaceful and likely conservative when compared to the French Revolution. I clearly still have a few hopes for calm.)
Liz Benjamin has a document from one of the Senate Dems attorneys about Senator Padavan's stroll through the chamber yesterday. I know the validity of the session yesterday has taken quite a beating around this site since yesterday and even I thought it was kinda shady. But I think this guy makes a pretty good case:
Our legal team has concluded that today's procedures were entirely proper under the New York State Constitution, the laws of the State of New York, and long standing Senate Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, we have sent a letter to the Governor and the Speaker of the Assembly demonstrating the following:
1. The Senate Obtained a Quorum in Regular Session today
* 31 Democrats were recorded as present in the chamber. The Senate convened a regular session at noon today. Lisa Copeland, Deputy Journal Clerk of the Senate, identified 31 Democratic members as present in the Senate Chamber and, in accordance with longstanding Senate procedure and custom, marked them as present in the Chamber.
* Senator Padavan was also recorded as present in the chamber. In addition to the 31 Democratic members, Ms. Copeland identified Senator Frank Padavan (R-Queens) as being present in the Chamber at the time attendance properly and timely was recorded. Many Senators and Senate staff also observed Senator Padavan in the Chamber at this time. Accordingly, Ms. Copeland marked Senator Padavan as present.
* These attendance records are included in the day's Senate Journal in the ordinary course of Senate business, and the Journal of the Senate is conclusive proof of the proceedings of the Senate.
2. A Senator counts toward quorum if he enters the Chamber and is marked as present by the Journal Clerk.
* The Court of Appeals in 1982 held that a Senator counts toward quorum if he enters the Senate Chamber and is marked as present by the Journal Clerk. See Heimbach v. State, 89 A.D.2d 138 (2d Dept. 1982), aff'd 59 N.Y.2d 891 (1983), app. dismissed 464 U.S. 956 (1984).
* It is longstanding custom and practice of the Senate that the mere physical presence of a Senator on the floor during the proceedings is deemed to be attendance.
3. A Senator's exit from the Chamber after being recorded as present does not render him absent from the Senate for quorum purposes
* Senator Padavan, having been recorded as present for quorum purposes, is not deemed absent for quorum purposes when he leaves the chamber.
As the Appellate Division noted in the Heimbach case: "By long-standing custom, a Senator's presence is established by his actual entry into the chamber at some point during a session day and having himself marked present by the clerk of the Senate. Thereafter, his presence is presumed to continue unless he requests that he be excused or informs the clerk of his departure." Heimbach, 89 A.D.2d at 147.
4. Quorum, After Being Properly Established, has to be Challenged ... and it never was by Sen. Padavan or anyone else.
* At no time did any Senator question the existence of a quorum after Senator Padavan left the chamber.
* Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure which is binding as a matter of law in this case, holds that: "[w]hen a body has convened with a quorum present, it can continue to transact business as long as a quorum is present and it is presumed that the quorum continues to be present until the question of no quorum is raised or the lack of quorum is disclosed by a vote." See Mason's § 504(1).
5. The "Fast Roll Call" Procedure was Typical and Valid under the Law and Rules of the Senate
* Once quorum was obtained, the Senate took up non-controversial legislation by well-established "fast roll" call vote under Senate Rule VIII, § 6(b). (Under the same rule a fast roll call is actually the norm. A "slow" roll call of all Senators - where each Senator is called by name and must say "aye" or "nay" - is only conducted when five Senators demand a slow roll call. No such request was made today at any time.
* In a "Fast Roll Call", a bill can be passed after the Journal Clerk calls the names of five Senators and any negative votes are counted. Under a fast roll call Senators marked as present are presumed to vote "yes" on the bill. Accordingly, if there are 32 senators present and none vote "no" then a bill is passed.
6. The Assembly and Governor Must Deem the Bills Passed
* The Constitution does not permit the Assembly to question Senate passage of bills. The Constitution is clear that "[e]ach house shall determine the rules of its own proceedings." N.Y. Const., art. III, § 9.
* Accordingly, the Constitution requires that the Senate alone must determine and apply the rules of its own proceedings.
* The Assembly cannot legally collaterally challenge Senate proceedings.
* Once the Presiding Officer of the Senate certifies on a bill jacket that the Senate has passed a bill, the Assembly must consider the bill passed. See Mason's § 760(6).
* The Constitution and the Court of Appeals have made clear that the Assembly has no discretion but to present such bills to the governor for executive action. King v. Cuomo, 81 N.Y. 2d 247 (1993).
* The Governor must accept these bills as properly passed by the Senate. (He can, of course, veto the bills). The Constitution is clear that upon presentment to the Governor of bills passed by both Houses, the Governor must sign, veto or withhold action on such bills. These options do not include challenging the validity of legislative action on bills: the signature of the Presiding Officer on the bill jacket is conclusive proof of passage. See Legislative Law § 40.
To my eyes, it looks like they did actually stumble upon a quorum yesterday thanks to Senator Padavan. Padavan or any of the other GOP + Pedro Espada "reform coalition" types could have challenged the quorum at any time. They didn't.
Also it looks to be clear that the Assembly doesn't really have the power to decide which laws passed by the Senate it will choose to forward to the Governor.
For many years, we have been proud to support your efforts. We have long applauded your work on the issues most important to women, and just this year, we celebrated your appointment as Chair of the Joint Economic Committee and your victory on important legislation governing credit card issuers.
Despite this, we must say that we would be deeply disappointed should you decide to pursue a primary challenge to our new Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. We find ourselves wondering how you can consider embarking on a campaign that is so potentially destructive to the interests of New York State and for the Democratic Party. We agree wholeheartedly with EMILY'S LIST founder Ellen Malcolm, who recently said in an interview: "It reminds me of Bella Abzug, Liz Holtzman, Gerry Ferraro - all these women in New York who were real leaders, political leaders, on issues that were important to women. They ran for higher office, we lost them in the House and never got them back."
A new Marist poll on Senator Gillibrand's approval numbers suggests that she's gaining ground in statewide recognition, though head to head election polling is still a dead heat.
The poll groups respondents into those who have a generally positive opinion of the Senator's job performance, those who have a generally negative opinion, and those who have no opinion or won't say. The latter number declined by 10%, while both the positive and negative views went up.
May
Now
Good or excellent
19%
24%
Below average
10%
13%
Don't know
43%
33%
With 33% of the public still unwilling to commit to an opinion, it's still early, but at the current rate within a few months the Senator may make significant gains in statewide name recognition.
Marist also polled the Senate primaries: a statistical tie between Gillibrand and Maloney, and Pataki beating Peter King by about 15 points.
Polling was done on the general election assuming Gillibrand as the Democratic nominee, bearing out the idea that a moderate and substantially less insane Republican like Pataki would be a stronger general election opponent than King.
A word about election polling a year to a year and a half out: nobody cares but us. Not that that influences the science, but it does influence the public attitude. Ultimately, polls conducted right now are going to be just a measure of name recognition, and thus fairly meaningless once the campaign heats up and people are paying attention.
If polls 18 months out were accurate, Hillary Clinton would have been challenging Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race.
Moving away from the state Senate for a moment, the Daily News says that Rep. Carolyn Maloney will announce soon that she will challenge Senator Gillibrand next year.
Liz Benjamin also said she got an e-mail from a top consultant pointing out the Daily News story.
New York politics just might be getting to be more interesting to watch than California politics.
On the morning Espada appeared to make his coup official, I was on my way to interview a former New York politico, a big mover in the 1970s. I informed him that Espada was now a heartbeat away from the governorship and he told me a simple rule of New York politics: "If someone is given the opportunity to increase his power, he will take it, every time. No question."
For reformers who want to distribute power more evenly, widen the conversation, and allow separation of powers to work the way it's taught in civics class, the past few years of this maxim have been hard to stomach. We've seen Republicans tighten their grip on the Senate's rules and resources to ensure their dominance, while Democrats in the Assembly have built overwhelming power but don't seem inclined to share it, even across their own membership.
This year's collapsing Senate ran according to those rules exactly. Both Democrats and Republicans were willing to negotiate with the Gang of Four because they wanted the power of the majority. Once in power, the Democrats suddenly stalled on actually implementing the rules reform they'd wanted for decades, even voting down the very set of reforms they'd previously supported. The Republicans got a dramatic lesson in what it feels like to be out of power under a regime much like the one they'd had before.
In the coup, the Republicans were happy to negotiate with people they'd earlier denounced as criminals, so long as the power shifted their direction. Democrats were able to bring back Monserrate, I think because he realized that his power depended on local Democratic party institutions. Pedro Espada, however, is independent of that, and saw plenty of power, at least for the short term, to back him up.
How can anything good come of this deeply cynical endeavor?
For the first time since 1965, we have multiple groups with a substantial claim on power. Instead of a single power center, we have two at least, with a third (Espada) taking advantage of the possibilities that creates.
In the short term, this is terrible. We've all heard of legislation getting delayed, the reputation of the Senate being tarnished, and so on.
In the long term, though, this blind pursuit of power creates an opportunity for compromises that would make it easier for the Senate to stay multi-polar permanently. The hard question is whether either side can imagine a multi-polar Senate, or can think far enough ahead to see how it might help them.
For Democrats, demographic dominance awaits, but so does the reality of being an unsteady coalition. Distributing power might well seem like treason, but it's also the best way to ensure that the fractures within our party don't bring our plans to a crashing halt. It could ensure continuing power.
For Republicans, the look on Dean Skelos' face isn't merely a pout - it's the face of a guy who couldn't imagine losing an election, whose pursuit of power blinded him to the possibility of losing it. It's the face of a guy who's saying "Damn, I guess we really should have set precedent beyond redecorating the minority meeting room."
