NY-21: Tonko Milking the System?

Working for his district (0.00 / 0)

Paul Tonko was a leader on energy efficency and worked hard for his district.  Montgomery County is the third largest dairy producing county in the state and dairy is the backbone of the local economy.  Paul pushed for a pilot program for the people he represented, which is exactly what a good legislator should do for his district.  Dairy farmers are under an especially tough strain in the current economy and small dairy farms have been for decades.  Programs like this are one of the only ways to bring these family businesses up to environmentally friendly levels because they lack the upfront capital to invest to gain the longterm savings and keep themselves viable.  

Franklin Roosevelt said it best.  "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."   Tonko was trying something.  He was the voice in the wilderness calling for energy efficency even before gas hit $3 a gallon.  Maybe this program didn't work out, but at least he fought for it and tried.  Thats called leadership.  Thats called fighting for your district.

Also, the article is unclear on several things.  First, there is no evidence of "kickbacks."  Of course someone would donate to a candidate who wants to create and expand a program that is at the heart of the type of business they are in.  Thats not a kickback.  Thats supporting a candidate who shares your values.  This isn't a donation from Enron or Halliburton, its from someone whose company "provides agricultural producers and food processors with cost-effective ways to reduce operating costs while saving energy and conserving our nation's natural resources."  You seriously want to claim that there is something wrong with that?  Beyond that, its a company that contracts around the nation because of their speciality.  This isn't exactly an area where people are fighting to get into nor is it an area where expertise isn't very important.  Energy efficency on a farm is far different from a home or an office building.

Second, the article doesn't explain what the company got to keep the money for.  Was that money for doing energy audits of the farms and adminstering the grants?  Thats an important point because throughout the state we pay private contractors to do energy efficeny audits all the time and this is a critical part of the greening of the State.  NYSERDA regularly hires private energy efficency companies to do audits and this practice has been around at least for a decade.  For low income families, the state pays contractors to come in, check out the homes and make recommendations and then gives the families grants and lowinterest loans to actually enact the recommendations.  That is hardly a dubious practice.

Phil Steck has taken a large amount of money from trial lawyers.  He has also spent 84% of his expeditures (around $43,500) on consultants.  In a "change" election, should you really have to raise most of your money from the economic elite in large donations and spend it on professional consultants ( with most of that money leaving the district)?  Should a grassroots campaign need to spend so much money on hiring people to create its message and raise money for it?  Doesn't seem very grassroots to me.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 17:15:26 PM UTC

On the article (4.00 / 1)

You should share some of your complaints about the article with the Post-Standard, as it appears they've missed a few things according to you.  Some good points, and you clearly disagree with the lead of the article.

Still, what gets me is that even if Tonko was working hard for his district, why did he let the program slide when he headed up the authority in charage of it?  Why was a "one-time" opportunity ranked 2 out of 4 in pritority?  By a committee that included those very close to Tonko...there's more detail in the article itself.

This is what Phil Steck is talking to folks abotu when he mentions other candidates who just talk about change.  And Steck needs to compete with well-finaned candidates like Paul Tonko (who had to give back Enron contributions, but still has plenty of other sources of big money) and Tracey Brooks, who'll be getting nearly four-hundred thousand bucks from Emily's List.  

It's a good thing Phil Steck, through his years or work as a civil rights and labor attorney, knows a lot of attorneys who share his values.  The grassroots part is getting people involved and engaging the electorate, not just showing up at photo-ops and calling on a lame duck president to do this or that.  And rest assured, the front-runners are all employing consultants, I'm sure.

Good points about the article itself, though.  It probably won't make many waves in the race anyway.  If anything else comes up like this for any of the other candidates, they'll be diaried too.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 18:03:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Standards (0.00 / 0)

Steck talks about change but where is that change in his campaign is being run?  Its not in his fundraising.  Its not in his media strategy.  He has spent large amounts of money on consultants to handle these things and has raised large amounts from the economic elite. Despite being the first candidate in the race and having a headstart, he chooses to go out and hire consultants to craft his message and raise money for him.  The claim that he had to do it to offset his opponents rings hallow because he started it, it wasn't a response.  Claiming others are only giving lipservice to change and then doing exactly the thing you critize them for is simply hypocritical.  

Steck's campaign is no more grassroots than Paul's and is not an insurgency.  It is a traditional establishment campaign with a progressive message and professional consultants.  Steck has hired outside consultants to raise money for him and create his message.  Thats not change.  I don't have a problem with professional campaigns, but lets be honest.  People keep trying to claim that Steck is an outsider running an insurgent anti-machine campaign; he is not.  He is an experienced politician and a powerbroker in the Albany County committee running a traditional campaign with a progressive message.  

"It's a good thing Phil Steck, through his years or work as a civil rights and labor attorney, knows a lot of attorneys who share his values."

Lets see who Steck donors have also given to, since they share his values:

Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)
Sweeney, John E (R)
D'Amato, Alfonse M (R)

Thats only looking at the first 6 on his list.  I can continue if you want to stick to the whole "shared values" argument.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 18:52:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Digging too deep (0.00 / 0)

Take it from a Steck for Congress volunteer: the campaign being run is grass roots at the heart.  While I can see the point you are making and that you are dedicated to one candidate no matter what the facts are, that can result in digging too deep and ignoring reality.

Tonko is going after the big events, relying on his own name recognition and Albany connections.  Phil Steck is inspiring more and more voluteers to get out there and personally engage voters with almot no help from the local media, which is entirely biased towards Tonko.  Trust me: the number of volunteers and boots on the groud keeps on growing.

I'm not going to hold any of the candidate's responsible for the other donations made by their donators.  There is no rule that says a person can't support candidates of both parties and it's completely unfair and irrational to pin that on any of the candidates.

Furthermore, I've met with the consultants Steck has hired.  They are all very nice people, committed to the district, and have deep local roots.  And they are merely implementing a strategy which is entirely Phil's.  The campaign is "traditional" only in the sense that it's doig things the old, honest way, instead of the new, media-savvy, corporatists manner.

If you are truly as principled as to be pointing out where Steck donors have dontated before and critical of the hiring of consultants to shape a message, then I expect you to drop your support of Paul Tonko sometime in the very near future if you are as discerning of all the candidates across the board.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 14:36:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality (0.00 / 0)

First, it is so ironic you would claim I am "digging too deep."  Any rational person should want all the facts out there.

"Take it from a Steck for Congress volunteer: the campaign being run is grass roots at the heart. While I can see the point you are making and that you are dedicated to one candidate no matter what the facts are, that can result in digging too deep and ignoring reality. "

I know the facts.  Steck has a lot of volunteers.  Steck has a lot of connections with party organizations from his 20 years involved in Albany County politics and his many years as a powerbroker.  I am not surprised at all he has volunteers.  My contention has never been that he doesn't have a grassroots door to door effort.  The fact remains that he is an experienced politician who has a traditional campaign frame work from media and fundraising consultants to economic elite large donors.  Yes, there are some grassroots parts to his campaign, as there are with every other candidate.

"Tonko is going after the big events, relying on his own name recognition and Albany connections. Phil Steck is inspiring more and more voluteers to get out there and personally engage voters with almot no help from the local media, which is entirely biased towards Tonko. Trust me: the number of volunteers and boots on the groud keeps on growing. "

That is simply a lie.  Tonko is not going for the big events, he is a grassroots candidate and has been for over 20 years.  Why was he reelected by so much so often in a swing district?  Because the people in the district love him.  He comes to every community dinner.  He stops by at every block party.  He visits local school science fairs.  He stops at PTO and Board of Education meetings.  He did this as an assemblyman.  He did it as NYSERDA head.  He does it now as a candidate.  Why?  Because he legitimately cares about people.  He brings a progressive message of compassion and commitment to making our community a better place.  He has dedicated his life to that.  The joke is that he has at least three clones because he is seen in so many different places at nearly the same time.  He is not about big events, he is about community.  That's why the people that know him the best unanimously support him.

Paul has tons of volunteers as well.  I know people of all ages going door to door for him every day.  Paul is shaking hands, talking to voters, and working hard to get out his message.  

He didn't get into this race out of ambition.  People called and begged him to get in.  Why?  Because we know his commitment to the community and we know his record of accomplishment.  Paul is running not just on what he would like to do, but what he has already done.  From Timothy's Law to protecting dairy farmers, Paul has fought for the little guy who had no voice in special interest driven Albany.  He will continue that record in Washington.

"I'm not going to hold any of the candidate's responsible for the other donations made by their donators. There is no rule that says a person can't support candidates of both parties and it's completely unfair and irrational to pin that on any of the candidates."

I don't hold candidates accountable for who their donors give to, I was merely pointing out that you were wrong to make the argument that Steck's trial lawyer money and economic elite donors share Steck's values. I'm sure some do.  Many don't.  You are the one who brought up the shared values argument, I merely showed it's not true.

"Furthermore, I've met with the consultants Steck has hired. They are all very nice people, committed to the district, and have deep local roots. And they are merely implementing a strategy which is entirely Phil's. The campaign is "traditional" only in the sense that it's doig things the old, honest way, instead of the new, media-savvy, corporatists manner. "

Cmon, SoundPolitic, you know this isn't true.  Most of Steck's consultants aren't even from this state, no less the district.  Their own bios show they have limited if any experience in New York, no less the 21st Congressional district.  They are professional hired guns.  Please don't be so blind to reality, especially if you want to claim others are.

"If you are truly as principled as to be pointing out where Steck donors have dontated before and critical of the hiring of consultants to shape a message, then I expect you to drop your support of Paul Tonko sometime in the very near future if you are as discerning of all the candidates across the board."

I am not criticizing Steck for consultants, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing others for only talking about change and then running an identical campaign to them.  Steck was the first candidate to hire consultants.  Steck was the first candidate to begin raising money from trial lawyers and other special interests.  If he is the change candidate, the anti-machine candidate, the insurgency candidate, then why is his campaign framework the same as his opponents?  The answer?  Because he is an experienced politician and local powerbroker running a traditional campaign.

Steck has a progressive message and some grassroots support but he is also an experienced powerbroker and politician.  This idea that he is the outsider candidate is foolish.  The idea that he is running an insurgency is simply wrong.  I find it disheartening that he wants to create this false façade of the outsider rather than defend his lack of a record from his three four year terms in office.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 15:42:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So... (0.00 / 0)

So twenty years of being an insider is OK for Paul Tonko, but not OK for Phil Steck.  And there's a joke about Tonko clones because he doesn't only go to the big events, which are the only ones you list.  You'll acknowledge that people begged Tonko to get it, but will you acknowledge that the same thing happened with Phil?  And being the first to start campaigning is somehow a bad thing?

I'm not going to debate too much with you, mainly since it's clear we've both dug in our heels (and there's plenty downthread this morning!).  At least we've both done so with candidates who are running strong campaigns with a progressive message.  It's my opinion that he's running as an outsider, since no factual basis can really be set up for it.

But I'll say this: you are being very, very scrutinizing of Phil Steck and seem automatically defensive about Tonko.  I'm suggesting that if you applied the same scrutiny to Tonko as you did to Steck, you'd probably change your mind.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

System, not individual (4.00 / 2)

To me, this article rings very true.  In my previous two jobs, I worked directly with farmers, including trying to connect them to energy audits and other NYSERDA-funded programs.  Very complicated, ever-changing.  Things that were available in one county at one point were not available in another county, or were not available at a different time (and then, sometimes, available again).  Sometimes things were available in theory, but not really, from a practical standpoint, if you were not in the right location. And, it was not just energy-- the Agritourism program that operated when Nancy Larraine Hoffman was Chair of the Senate Ag Committee was basically for her region alone (NOT much of a tourist destination!), although there was always talk of it being a "pilot" and about to go statewide.... to the point that I seriously had a lot of pressure put on me by some clients and colleagues to encourage farmers outside the district to support her re-election in order to ensure that the program did not go away.  Which it did when she lost.

BUT-- it is not a legislator's job to try to get a disproportionate share of tax dollars for the people of his/her district.  It is his/her job to institute rational programs (including rational pilot programs) that meet the needs of the people of the state.  Albany's pork-barrel approach warps state programs and wastes taxpayer money, as well as confusing recipients, who end up thinking that they owe the legislator thanks or a favor, not that they qualified on merit for a state-funded program.

To me, this says very little about Tonko, but a lot about the Albany system.  That Tonko did not over-rate the program as a NYSERDA administrator strikes me as a bit more honest than some would be.  I have no horse in this race, but, in general, I question whether experience in Albany can be considered an unmitigated plus-- some of the slime rubs off onto everybody who serves there.  On the other hand, an individual must survive in the environment in which they are thrust-- not fair to expect Tonko or anybody else to change Albany on their own.

---

by: robinia @ Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 19:53:01 PM UTC

Good comment (0.00 / 0)

I agree with most of your comment though I do think we have become so cynical of Albany that the worst is assumed before evidence.  

Yes, some things are called pilot programs wrongly.  I think it would be wrong to assume it is therefore just a cover everytime we see a pilot program that doesn't work out.

It is a legislators job to make sure their constitents are better off.  Legislators are elected from districts so they can work for their districts.

Tonko did alot of good in Albany.  Lets not forget he was also battling a strongly Republican Senate and a Republican Governor.  National policy was being set by a Republican Congress.  Despite this, he still did alot of good work.  He pushed through Timothy's Law over the objections of the powerful insurance industry.  He was an important defender of family agriculture.  He advocated IDA reform before it became a popular slogan.  Those are just a couple of the important things he did.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 00:49:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

An individual within the system (0.00 / 0)

Not working against it.  I can see the reasoning that Tonko was working within the legislative system.  But I also add into the fact that New York's is one of the the most dysfunctional legislature's in the country.

Tonko was still left with the choice the whole time of either becoming a individual who worked within the system's worst mechanics, or chose principle and worked around it.  The latter would have been more admirable.

Tonko confirmed that he would rather just keep rising up the political ladder when he did not expand the program when he obtained an even greater power to do so.

When faced with the choice betwen working within a flawed system or working against it to make it work better, Phil Steck has always chose to stand an fight on principle.  While this article is not the be-all-end all, and shouldn't be construed as to totally negate Tonko's candidacy (he has plenty of good experience, of course) to me, it points out key style differences between the two strongest candidates in the race.  Tonko is showing that he is the candidate of the established process who plays it safe with pork-barrels and old poliitcs; Steck has shown time and again that he's willing to take a stand against the establishment and keep on fighting for his constituents.

Which one you go with depends on what kind of Congressman you want: one who'll just slip into the same system that gives our two houses an approval rating in the twenties, or one like Steck who'll stand and fight to increase that approval rating.  I think it's perfectly fair to expect someone to at least make the attempt to change such a system...at the very least, it's exciting for me when I see a candidate who pledges to do so.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 14:59:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Changing the System (0.00 / 0)

Paul Tonko stood up to the insurance company special interests and got Timothy's Law passed.  Paul stood up to the corporate special interests and advocated IDA reform before it became a popular slogan.  Paul fought for dairy farmers and other family owned farms despite his conference being more downstate oriented and passed important farming protections.

What has Phil Steck done?  You have yet to show how he has stood up to the system in his three four year terms as an elected official and actually accomplished something.  Bold rhetoric that Steck will increase approval ratings or that he has always stood up to the system without presenting evidence to that effect is empty.  Don't tell me to look at Steck's website or do a google search or even look at the Albany County Legislature's site.  I've been there.  I've done that.  The answer isn't there.

Steck claims he is standing up to the system for progressive change and yet accepts and promotes an endorsement from an official who campaigns against Democrats and helped elected a right-wing Republican.  That official was so out of touch that one of his own collegues and the Democratic county chair called him a "bully."  Steck promotes that he is getting that kind of support.  How is that change we can believe in?

---

by: JustAStudent @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 16:07:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something tells me (0.00 / 0)

that no matter how much I highlight Phil's career as a civil rights and labor attorney, or how he's stood up the the status quo Democratic leadership in Albany, or how he's engaged the elctorate of the larges municipality in Albany County...

...you're not going to pleased because your mind isn't open to it.

That's perfectly fine.  But just note that a couple days ago a lot of people's minds were made up about Hillary Clinton, who like Paul Tonko was running a campaign of inevitability and experience.  Hillary lost to someone who was running a stronger, more people-oriented campaign.  Someone who also had to face questions about who was endorsing him.

Just food for thought.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:52:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where is it? (0.00 / 0)

You keep promising a record of Steck as a civil rights attorney and keep claiming he stood up to the Albany status quo.  Where is the record?  Its not on his website.  Its not easily found on a google search. Its not in newspaper articles.  Its not on the Albany County website.

I have skepticism of Steck for good reason.  He is an elected official and has been a powerbroker in Albany for many years yet he has no accomplishments to run on. I want someone in Washington who won't comeback 10 years from now and say "I stood up to Pelosi, sorry I haven't actually accomplished any of those goals I talked about when I ran, but remember I once said I was a civil rights lawyer so its okay."

Hollow comparisons to national level politics is a foolish way to avoid answering questions.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 00:02:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jeez (0.00 / 0)

Comparisons to national level politics are completely valid.  They're called coattails.  And a lot of voters probably identify more with the national scene than their local one.  This presidential race will affect local elections.

If the Steck record is so hard to find, then how do you simultaneously already know it all and still demand more specifics?  And if you're skeptical of Steck for having been an elected official for just over a decade, how are you not skeptical of Paul Tonko, who spent twice as many years as an elected official in an even more politically elite organization, and then, and then became a Spitzer-appointed bureaucrat who left after nine months and virtually no accomplishments (not even on his own programs, as the article points out).

You want someone who comes back after 10 years in Congress and tells you they've accomplished something?  Well, in 15 years as Energy Committe Chairman, Paul Tonko watched New York's energy prices rise to the the highest in the continental United States.  What's he saying now?  "I was on the Energy Committee for a decade and half...oh, sorry about those oil prices on Wall Street."

You are skeptical of Phil Steck because he is not Paul Tonko.

I am skeptical of all the candidates and I am working hard to get the complete record on all the candidates in my series of interviews.  I'm sure you'll be reading Phil Steck's...Shahinfar and Brooks are coming up.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:42:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Confusion (0.00 / 0)

The comparisons aren't valid because the candidates are completely different.  Its like the claim that history repeats itself.  Any history professor would tell you its bonk because the details are the key to every event and they are always different.

You seem confused.  I don't have a problem with Steck being an elected officals or being a town chair.  I find both admirable.  I find the myth that he is an outsider or an insurgent much less admirable because it isn't true.  

Your defense of him is admirable but your overstatements are much less so.  

You claimed to know his consultants and that they had deep local roots, but that is simply not true.  They are out of state hired guns with little if any experience in New York no less the 21st Congressional District.  Obviously there are no deep local roots.

You stated that his donors shared his values.  The truth was many have given to conservative Republicans such as John Sweeney and DAmato.  

You claimed Tonko only goes to big events and relies on big name recognition but not one person who knows Paul would agree with that, even his opponents.  Paul is famous for visiting all sorts of community events and going door to door.

You claimed that Paul had viritually no accomplishments at NYSERDA which is also not true.  Paul helped lead Paterson's energy policy task force which created important programs.  He also created a huge new plan to invest in green collar job education.

You are trying to blame Paul for current energy prices.  The truth is most energy policy is set on the national level and Paul had no control over the war in Iraq which had a huge impact on oil prices.  It is also important to note that there were Republicans controlling two/thirds of the State government during Paul's time as energy chair.

Despite these issues, Paul still fought for many important changes and actually got many things done.  From Timothy's Law to protecting dairy farmers, Paul Tonko got things done.

Paul and Phil are both experienced politicans.  The difference?  Paul has a record of getting things done.  Steck doesn't, at least not one we have heard yet.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:28:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I am confused.... (0.00 / 0)

So you admire Steck for his position, but you condemn him as a "powerbroker" and an "insider" even when Tonko has twice the clout and years of experience?  I'm confused...

I meet Steck's communications director and a few other campaign workers who have family throughout the region and have been involved in local politics for decades, yet I'm being condemned for "overstatements" you you put all of Steck's team in the "out of state hired guns" category.  Very confusing...

You claim that nobody will agree that Paul goes to the big events to rely on his name recognition, and in the same sentence you claim that he's "always at the community events."  Confusion...

And you'll again claim that Tonko is "protecting dairy farmers" commenting in a diary that outlines how Paul's record is full of pork-barrel incidents in which the legislator an the lobbyist make out better in the end than the people left out to dry and try to point out his NYSERDA accomplishments when the big point is that when Paul was in the position to "protect dairy farmers" all over the state, he didn't expand his program.  Very, very confused.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Full of (0.00 / 0)

There you go again just exaggerating things...

You said you knew his consultants.  The fact is you now admit you know his communications director and some campaign workers.  There is a huge difference.

Steck's consultants are out of state hired guns with limited or no experience in New York and especially the 21st Congressional district.

Community events and big events aren't the same thing.  Paul doesn't just travel giving huge speechs.  Paul goes to all sorts of events, meets all sorts of people, and goes door to door.  You don't get more grassroots than that.

There is no evidence Paul's record is "full of pork-barrel" incidents just because you found one article that talks about one program you disagree with.

You talk all high and mighty about the people left out in the dry while you attack a program that helped many poor dairy farmers update equipment and reach energy effiency.  I have already pointed out how hard it is to do those kind of audits and the fact that it is expensive to do it.  These farms would never have been able to do it without Paul's help.  Now I realize you oppose energy efficency for dairy farmers because they aren't rich contributor like Steck's trial lawyers.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We go and go and go (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I don't like you pointing out what policies I am for or against.  I'm all for energy efficiency, so put put words into my mouth.  The difference is I'm able to discern between a program that really goes far enough and implements long term energy efficiency and a program that was obviously intended for political points for short term solutions.

You don't think Steck goes to community events?  You think Steck doesn't go door-to-door?  Or that teams of 20+ volunteers show up to help?  It's time for you to recognize Phil Steck is running a grass roots campaign or everyone here will be saying that you're the one who's full of...

I just confirmed with the Steck for Congress campaign's Deputy Campaign manager that, minus a couple of pollsters, all of Phil's staff lives in the 21st.  So cut it out with this "out of state" stuff.

I could toss that accusation into a vat, spin it around, and achieve energy efficiency for my own home off the fumes.

Why don't you hop over to my latest diary...I talk about Tonko there, too.  Defend him at all costs!!!  Or maybe someday we'll see you actually write one of your own diaries instead of hijacking mine with your exaggerations.  Have you even signed up to volunteer for the Tonko for Congress campaign?  I'd think more highly of your comments if you.

And I'm the one exaggerating?  Whaddabout you, kid?  You're repeating the lines that "Phil has no record" and "Phil is in an insider" like they were Republican talking points.  Fact is, every time I point to Phil's record, you ignore it.  Every time I point out the style of campaign he's running, you ignore it.

"There you go again," may have worked for Reagan, kid, but it ain't gonna work with me.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 22:36:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sarcasm (0.00 / 0)

Listen, I respect your view.  I know you don't oppose energy efficency, I was being sarcastic about your attempt to argue against a pilot program that benefited poor farmers and helped the environment.

I've never claimed that Steck doesn't go to events or door to door.  I claimed that Paul does too and always has.  You said the opposite about Paul.  I merely corrected you.

Phil is an insider.  He is an elected politician and a town chair.  These are facts, not Republican talking points.

"I just confirmed with the Steck for Congress campaign's Deputy Campaign manager that, minus a couple of pollsters, all of Phil's staff lives in the 21st.  So cut it out with this "out of state" stuff."

Is Phil Steck's campaign lying or did New Hampshire and West Virginia both become inside the 21st?

ALL POINTS COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA CONSULTING ETNA NH
CUNNINGHAM, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES FUNDRAISING CONSULTANT RIPLEY WV

Thats from Steck's disclosures to the FEC.  I didn't make it up, its public record.

Steck hired out of state hired gun consultants with limited if any experience in New York and particularly the 21st Congressional District.  Its a fact.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:28:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well then (0.00 / 0)

For starters, don't be sarcastic.

And cut it out making accusations about the Steck campaign that are untrue.  You're highlighting of two consulting firms that Steck used and making it seem like that's his entire campaign.  It's not.

Did I not say "with the exception of a couple pollsters"?  You're trying to make it sound like everybody is from out of state.  I expect you to now highlight the consulting firms that Tonko's campaign will seek out.

You're unbalanced view places too much emphasis on the facts you like and draws away from the ones you don't.  It's textbook cherry-picking.

If you respected my view, you wouldn't have gone sarcastic.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blind (0.00 / 0)

It says they were paid for Media Consulting and Fundraising consulting, EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID.  They are not pollsters.  So, is the Steck campaign lying or are New Hampshire and West Virginia in the district?

Also, lets stop the exaggerating.  I never said they were the entire campaign, I said he hired consultants.  I don't have a problem with consultants, I am just making the point that he isn't running an outsider or insurgency campaign.  He is running a traditional campaign.

Steck hired out of state hired gun consultants with limited if any experience in New York and particularly the 21st Congressional District.  Its a fact.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 23:44:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

grasping at straws (4.00 / 1)

Legislators are elected to represent their district, and part of that is getting funding for projects in the district. It's one thing if there were no dairy farmers in the district (but there are) or if you're opposed to energy efficiency (assume you're not). But criticizing a legislator for getting projects for the people in his district is grasping at straws.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 16:46:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope-- it is distinguishing pork from program (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, maybe I am not being clear.  What I am trying to show by my own personal-experience example is that there is a big difference between rational programs that operate by criteria, and pork (aka member items, aka "earmarks" at federal level) that is more about rewarding the rep and constituents than about a program goal.  Of course, the pork goes to worthy causes.  But, a less pork-oriented system would be better.

Also, if Soundpolitic could give an example of a NYS legislator who "at least makes the attempt to change the system"  I would appreciate it-- do you mean, like Bragman, or, like, those supporting Clean Money Clean Elections?

---

by: robinia @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 17:02:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Difference between rational programs and pork (0.00 / 0)

There's dairy farmers in the district and energy efficiency is a good thing - seems like a rational program to me.

I don't see the benefit in calling everything pork. Government does have a legitimate function on the local level. Defining pork in such a broad way obscures that.

It seems in this case either there's a disagreement over the criteria used to pick which programs to fund - but legitimate criteria were used to pick this program - or there's a desire to blame a legislator for an executive function - namely administering the program.

Of course, the pork goes to worthy causes.

Is that the case? I'm not sure. Something to think about ...

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 18:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Making an attempt (0.00 / 0)

As far as Clean Money and Clean Elections are concerned, Member of Assembly Fred Thiele introduced a bill identical the successful state laws and the Congressional Bill back in 2001.

Tonko put his name to a letter to then Governor Spitzer about supporting it last year, but when Thiele sent out his memoranda for support for the past seven years, none of our Democrats in the Assembly signed on the Co-Sponsor.  None.

I don't care if Thiele is a Republican.  He's introduced legislation that could help New York in a big way, and old politics are getting in the way.  Yet there's Paul Tonko, talking about his 23 years in the Assembly "supporting" Clean Elections.

He didn't put his name to it.  He just talked about it.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:46:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bull (0.00 / 0)

I'm calling bull on this.  

Paul has been a supporter of clean elections and a documented supporter.  Signing on to a Republican sponsored version of it not only doesn't give his position more legitimacy but would take some away.  No Democrat signed on, that doesn't mean no Democrats believe in clean elections.  An election stunt by a Republican doesn't delegitimize the committment of hardworking Democrats.

You want to bring up just talking about change? What reforms did Phil Steck pass in the Albany County Legislature?

Waiting...

Still waiting...

Yeah, there were none.

You are backing a candidate with no record despite his ten years in office and now are trying to claim that the candidate with an actual progressive record only "talks" about change?  Hypocricy.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:47:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, it won't work (0.00 / 0)

Assemblyman Thiele did not pull an election year stunt.  He's introduced the bill in the 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 sessions consistently.  And, like I said, the bill is identical to the ones have successfully passed in other states and is being considered in Congress.  It's not a "Republican" version.  Once again, no Democrat has signed on here.  This is the point at which I hold my party more accountable than the Republicans.

And it does "delegitimize" it.  Any jack in the box can sign a freaking letter and send it to the Governor.  Lot of good that did.  Putting your name to a bill as a co-sponsor is  action that results in legislation.  Supporting the actual bill would have been the way to get it passed.  But Paul didn't do that.  He must like his kickback donations after doling out the pork too much.

If Paul Tonko supported Clean Elections, he would have signed on the bill.  Any other way that support is "documented" is inconsequential.  Like all of his press releases "calling on Bush" to sign some bill he most definitely wouldn't anyway.  I want to say to every Assemblyman out there: shut the hell up and start passing some legislation.  I'm sick of the old politics of "calling on" other people to take action when they have yet to exhaust their own options.

This is what Phil Steck is talking about when referring to people who are just talking about change and still working within the same flawed system.

Steck's record?  There's the electoral record itself: energizing the people of his district and town which had always been Republican and working his way up to the Town's Party chair...without help from the Dem's establishment that I count as an accomplishment.  Because that takes hard work.  I like the fact that he stands up to both Republicans and members of his own party.

As a county legislator, Phil took a stand to support a resolution condemning the War.  I don't care that it didn't pass...that's a problem I have with the other legislators.  Phil took that stand, and that's what I want my Congressman to do.  He didn't just write a letter...Tonko supported similar legislation that met a similar fate int he Assembly, just so you know before you go biting my head off on that one.

When Steck saw that 90% of our County property taxes went to Medicaid, he drafted resolutions urging universal health care.  He's working on getting the Albany County Power Authority back to drawing clean energy out of the Cohoes Falls.  Steck is also very experienced at representing people as an attorney, having served as Assistant DA in both New York and Rensellaer counties.  And he's taken on very risky cases in his private practice, representing a variety of clients including unions and wrongly-terminated school teachers and winning.

I've pointed all these facts out before right here in these diaries, and instead of recognizing that, your still claim that someone can be a "powerbroker" and still have "no record" at the same time.  That claim in and of itself makes no sense.

You're either not looking hard enough or you have no desire to look.  I know you're going say that these reforms "didn't pass" too...but I don't care.  I care about what someone is trying to do and the action they are taking.  And I take into consideration the body they are within; the County Leg ain't exactly the most powerful or influential playhouse in the area.  Phil's ideas and convictions are bigger than that body, which is why we need someone with his drive for both policy and electoral politics to go to Washington.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:30:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

You are wrong to think signing on a Republican bill will somehow help pass the legislation.

You may think helping Republicans get reelected by signing on to their bill which will not pass with a Republican sponsor is a good thing.  I disagree.  I think that being an advocate for campaign finance reform and pushing for true accomplishment is much better.  Paul did that.  He has a record of being an advocate for clean elections.

I swear you just read what you want and skip the rest.  I've already pointed out that there were no kickbacks here.

Paul fought for a pilot program that helped the people of his district.  You might call energy efficeny pork, I call it investing in our future.  

I also pointed out that the Colonie Democrats won in many ways IN SPITE of Phil Steck.  A Republican-turned Democrat and moderate board members won over a corrupt town board and supervisor.

Steck failed to even contest many races while he was chair, denying the people of the town the right to choice in elections.

When did Steck propose the war resolution and the health care resolution?

---

by: JustAStudent @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not grasping at straws... (4.00 / 1)

Maybe you are right on the point that part of their job "is getting funding for projects in the district." Ideally though, that should not be part of their job description. There are legislators in this state who think that bringing home the bacon is enough. I hope we all can agree that it's not enough. We need excellent legislators who support excellent legislation.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 17:56:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does that mean? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you are right on the point that part of their job "is getting funding for projects in the district." Ideally though, that should not be part of their job description.

Why not? Let me ask you this, if legislators aren't supposed to represent their district then who is?

There are legislators in this state who think that bringing home the bacon is enough. I hope we all can agree that it's not enough.

Sure.

We need excellent legislators who support excellent legislation.

We agree, but what does that mean? Legislators are accountable to their district, statewide officials are accountable to the state. Even if you live in a part of the state that voted for the losing gubernatorial candidate, you're still entitled to representation. Which is why legislators should represent their district. If everyone represents the state, then a lot of people get left out.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 19:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Representing a district... (4.00 / 1)

Isn't bringing home the bacon. Any legislator has the ability to bring home the bacon. Member items total millions every year. That we know. But to say that part of their job is to bring home money for projects isn't what their job is. Their job is to be a representative, not a middleman to use taxpayer dollars for Little League baseball fields, for example.

Your question is an irrelevant one because legislators are supposed to represent their district, at least the ones in this state. You are tying their representation to getting pork for the district. If we say that this is part of their job, then Joe Bruno and Shelly Silver must be doing a good job, correct?

Legislators, however, are also looked upon to vote for measures that affect the whole state. This isn't any different than the House of Representatives. We tend to attack the Blue Dogs whenever they go against a progressive piece of legislation. This isn't these legislators representing the whole state, but how they vote does affect what happens in this state. After all, when we pass legislation in the Assembly and Senate, that impacts the whole state.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 19:49:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're always so defensive (0.00 / 0)

But to say that part of their job is to bring home money for projects isn't what their job is.

Part of what governments do is collect and spend money. If legislators get funding for mass transit in their district, or roads in their district, or schools in their district, or energy efficiency programs in their district, you think that's not part of their job?

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 20:25:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not being defensive... (0.00 / 0)

I'm just expressing my opinion. I can do that without being defensive.

You are putting too much weight into bringing home funding. Bringing home the bacon is not a mandated part of their job. Of course, we tend to measure our legislators by how much they bring home for the district. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge them by how much they bring home.

By the way, no need to label me anything. Every time you comment here it is against whatever anyone is saying. I have never encountered anyone who disagrees with people as much as you do. If you don't like someone debating you back, don't call them defensive. Debate the points that are being discussed.

Just my two cents.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 20:44:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That would be a welcome change (0.00 / 0)

You are putting too much weight into bringing home funding.

The whole point of the post is about bringing home funding. Which is what the rest of us are talking about.

Bringing home the bacon is not a mandated part of their job.

Passing a budget is. So is representing their district. So if Tonko gets an energy efficiency program for farmers in his district funded, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm just expressing my opinion. I can do that without being defensive.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 21:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I'm talking about too... (0.00 / 0)

I'm telling you that legislators should not be judged solely by funding. If you want to use that as a rating of how good or bad a legislator is, then we are missing the whole point of being a representative.

"Representing their district" to funding are two different things. You can pander to a group and give them money just because you know the person in charge. It happens. I don't see that as representing your district. I see that as taking care of your own interests before your constituents. I think others will agree.

My argument (again) is that representing a district isn't bringing home funding. To compromise, representatives to bring home funding, but that comes with the territory. All legislators are afforded member items that they can bring home to their district. It is not anything earth-shattering.

Think about it - Democrats running against incumbent Republican assemblymembers can run on a platform that with a Democrat as your representative in the Assembly, instead of $200,000 (approx.) in member items for the district, they could bring home up to $2 million.

But do they use such an argument? Not that I've seen. They mention making sure their district gets their share of funding, but all legislators have that ability. However, all legislators aren't strong advocates for progressive legislation, which appeals to me.

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 00:07:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

1-2-3 Defense! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for getting back to the article :-)  I think that was a good discussion as far as philosophical standpoints on pork go.  We can see that some people either don't mind it or go all the way to recognizing it as essential to the process; others, myself included, see it as kind of an outgrowth of a good system gone wrong.

When talking about representation, the way I see it, a State Legislator must balance the representation of the constituents who put him in office as well as the entire state which he serves.  More simply, the State Legislator represents his constituents interests as they pertain to the entire state.

Same for a County Legislator, which is an even better example because some of our counties have a Board of Supervisors.  Town Supervisors that serve a dual role in a law making body.  As Town Supervisor, they administer and represent all the interests of their Township as it pertains to the Township (though they'll certainly engage other levels of government as well).  Yet while sitting on the Board of Supervisors, they must act with the best interests of the entire county in mind.

Apply that philosophy to Paul Tonko, and you'll see my reasoning that his dairy-barrelling was no good for the state.  That was a lot of money, half of it went to the company, which later contributed to the politician, and the program was exclusive to his district; this has re-election focus written all over it, not benefit-of-the-state.  

The idea of doing something good for your district is best implemented when the entire state benefits.  Tonko's record, it seems, has him oppositie of this philosophy of mine, which I'm sure several here share.  So I do not support him to go on to representing my interests on the national level because that's what at stake here.  

I prefer Phil Steck's style.  I don't feel I need to defend that, either.  But I'm glad to debate it, and glad a good place exists to do so.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:03:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't worry, Robert (4.00 / 1)

Steve just enjoys defending the status quo.  I've gone a few useless rounds with him myself.  

He's a good progressive who posts great things from the UFT but seems to have little use for the "reform" angle we keep pushing here.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 21:51:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly I'm the one (0.00 / 0)

doing the name calling. When I'm not defending the status quo, that is.

But Simon, do you think the things I posted from the WFP weren't great?

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:08:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you lurched to " always so defensive" (0.00 / 0)

And I don't see Robert being particularly defensive there.

So yeah, while I don't think that's exactly name-calling, I definitely think it's an undeserved and unnecessary picking of a fight.  Which now you seem to be amplifying with this strange and utterly unprovoked leading question:

do you think the things I posted from the WFP weren't great?

I'm not sure why you think I'd object to the WFP, though every now and then WFP folks publish a howler like everyone else. Looking at your page, though, I see UFT, not WFP, mostly cross-posted from Edwize.

It's pretty obvious that I disagree with your take on the legislature, especially the Assembly, and that I have for about as long as I've talked with you. I do in fact think that you're basically here to defend the status quo, especially in the Assembly.  I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but I've not seen any signs of it.

At this point, though, I think you're simply trolling for a fight.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:25:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you think this (0.00 / 0)

I do in fact think that you're basically here to defend the status quo, especially in the Assembly.

then you're not reading what I'm writing. You think the problems with the Assembly lie with Silver, I think they're symptomatic of how Silver and Bruno's roles are laid out.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:32:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe reading past each other (0.00 / 0)

since I don't think you could likely write "You think the problems with the Assembly lie with Silver", if you'd actually read this, which is pretty much an explicit "let's get beyond Sheldon Silver" piece.

On the other hand, maybe I was being too harsh.  I just can't figure out why your comments in this thread are so, er, bristling.

Most of what I've seen you propose for change to our legislature is term limits, but maybe something more slipped by?  I'm not sure you really want to be defending all you're defending here, but I guess that's your choice.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:44:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Useless rounds (0.00 / 0)

I know the feeling...

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 22:43:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what's the basis (4.00 / 1)

for saying this

It is [a legislator's] job to institute rational programs (including rational pilot programs) that meet the needs of the people of the state.

We can talk about it from an ideal perspective or a practical perspective, but the idea that legislators are elected to represent their district is pretty basic and popular. I take issue with arguments to the contrary.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 16:52:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Explaining that (4.00 / 1)

In all states, legislators are expected to be particularly concerned about issue that impact their own constituents, but also expect that government programs operate fairly and do not set up systems that discriminate between citizens on the basis of Senatorial or Assembly district.  Pork is precisely like that: if you live in Bruno's district, you deserve more.  Not for any rational or programatic reason, but because Bruno is powerful.

In many states other than NY, there is a lot less of that.  Programs to help dairy farmers, or SPCAs, or bankrupt racing franchises are a level playing field, on which citizens compete fairly, with rational criteria and rules, not political spoils to the powerful and their constituents.  I want that for NY.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 17:09:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was taking issue (0.00 / 0)

with the idea that legislators are supposed to represent the needs of the people of the state before the needs of the people of the district.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 19:19:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legislators are supposed to represent their districts, (0.00 / 0)

but the state government is supposed to be about "the People of the State of New York".

There's a tension there that I think our current legislature would prefer to avoid.  Most legislators end up focusing on constituent service and a few other bits, while the leadership/conference makes its own choices.  Some People get served, others don't.

I've said before that I think member items are necessary, as there are times when good things will otherwise fall through the cracks.  New York, however, seems to leave an awful lot of cracks open, and never really gets around to filling them in.

(And if we're going to have state government paying for local concerns, I'd be a lot happier seeing that money distributed regularly to local governments rather than handed out as those huge cardboard checks once in a while.)

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 19:45:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Try thinking about it with a different example (0.00 / 0)

Let's take school aid for an example, instead.  Is it best to set up the school funding formula so that

--the strongest legislators bring in the most funding, to satisfy the needs of the people of the district before the needs of the people of the state,

--or, as a state-funded program, should every school/every child and their needs be equitably considered on a level playing field?  

Programs should have a rational, equitable way of distributing the money.  Criteria should not include how powerful (or what party) the local legislator is.  Programs that qualify as "pork" have an element of the decision about who qualifies that is dependent on politics, not policy.  It is not all state programs, but, it is more than just member items.  Nancy Larraine Hoffman's Agritoursim program was pork, as is the "bonus money" in education funds that Bruno insisted be added to the current budget for suburban downstate districts.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 21:09:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We'd make the same choice (4.00 / 1)

I agree that state funds for education should be distributed equitably. But disparities in education funding aren't limited to Bruno's district, or dsitricts represented by leadership. It's the Republican Senate strongholds, and Long Island is the easiest example, that get outsized school funding.

I don't see how you avoid legislators advocating for funding for their district. The problem is that NYC state Senators can't do the same thing because they're in the minority. I want the minority party to be able to advocate for their local districts just like the majority party can, not for all legislators to stop representing their districts.

I also agree that entrenched legislators are a problem. Term limits! :)

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:27:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Advocating" or "funding"? (0.00 / 0)

So-- for the record-- since I work with dairy farmers, not school kids: farmers should be treated equitably across the state, just like students and teachers should.

It is the job of a legislator to advocate for constituents needs, be sure they get a fair and equitable shot.  They should make sure that constituents get a fair shake from policy and programs.

It is distorting state government programs to make a criteria for getting funds be living in a district represented by the politically powerful.  That is pork.  I fully understand the LI situation with ed funding-- dispicable.  Just used Bruno as an example.  The farmers in Bruno's district also get special (to the district) programs.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 22:43:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]