Golisano To Form PAC, Not 527

Like I've said... (0.00 / 0)

All the guy wants is control over Albany. Konst and Mesi are willing to sell out to get elected so that he can have it.

It's a good investment, really. Invest $3 Million, change a tax law or two, pay $10-50 Million less in taxes - a year.

Don't support this guy.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 19:53:26 PM UTC

Amen (0.00 / 0)

None of the candidates who he plans on supporting can, in good conscience, run on a "reform Albany" platform (see: Joe Mesi) while accepting Golisano's cash. Sure, Albany will change, but only to the extent, and in the direction that Uncle Tom tells his minions to do so.

---

by: blueyork05 @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 00:11:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TOM (0.00 / 0)

STEVE PIDGEON !!! WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU !!

---

by: dukedog @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 00:52:18 AM UTC

Do the ends justify the means (4.00 / 1)

Age old question. Is it worth taking over the Senate at any cost. Honestly, it IS going to take millions to take over the Senate. Eliot messed up (as he would have brought in millions and millions to the cause). So where is the money going to come from?

What you all say about Tom is so. But is the greater need right now to just get to the end zone. He might have wanted to help the Senate Democrats but stupidly took the the mega phone approach. Think his phone line was burning up over the past 24 hours? Now he has to 'clarify' his intent. That's code for change his plans.

He should have just shut up. Waited 9 more days to be past the filing deadline and dumped it in. To be truly effective in this business sometimes silence is a virtue. Watch the quiet ones, they have a clue. Noise is a sign of stupidity.

So beat me up, that is not a progressive transparent approach for me to espouse. But this is political warfare right, not a friendly game of scrabble. It's all over in what, just 130 days from now?
 

---

by: TruBlu @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:00:11 AM UTC

However..... (4.00 / 1)

What in Golisano's agenda should be so horrifically offending to us good Democrats, Golisano's agenda consistently seems to be for property tax reform, cleaning up government corruption and fair play, that sounds an awful lot like our agenda.

Davis is different, Davis' agenda smashes right into and runs an opposite course than the Democratic agenda, especially on Health Care, Immigration and the Environment.

If were really looking for a change, why would we just look inward, if Tom Golisano is talking about the same things that we are, with the same positions that we have, and has a million dollars per person to back people whom we have common ideals with, then why should we throw up red flags?  Unless the thought is that he has some kind of secret agenda, and personally, I don't think that he does.

If someone can seriously point out a major friction point between our agenda and Tom's agenda, I will STFU, if otherwise, I'm still not sure what the problem is.

---

by: daniel.jones @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:20:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Golisano's agenda? (0.00 / 0)

The best guess I have heard yet about what Golisano might have up his sleeve is this:

lately, he has been an active proponent of (and investor in) wind energy in Western NY.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:36:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ambiguity stares you in the face (0.00 / 0)

There are arguments on both sides of this one.  I think you sound very adult-- wouldn't dream of beating you up. Noise isa sign of both stupidity and egocentrism.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:34:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I recognize he might have good intentions, but... (0.00 / 0)

I just have a problem with someone running as a progressive, reform candidate, and then taking million dollar handouts, even if it's from an individual rather than a corporation.
Look, I know campaigns are not cheap. But, as TruBlu said, we have to look at ourselves, and try to find the balance point between the old and the new. Are we far enough advanced that we can finance a campaign without huge handouts? Probably not, but then we need to ask ourselves: is it worth sacrificing our principles to get elected? If we get elected to "change Albany," but do so by engaging in the same politics that have dominated it forever, have we really accomplished anything, or are we just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?

---

by: blueyork05 @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:58:13 AM UTC

Again though (0.00 / 0)

Does that mean that people with money shouldn't use their money to help people with similar values?  Should the grassroots movement be just limited to individuals making under 500k per year.  I do think that we should ask ourselves that as a fundamental question, if someone shares our positions on the issues, should we bat them down because of wealth and party affiliation even if we agree on what we need to do to change America?  Is there really a problem, since Tom shares our positions on major issues?  Just curious on what everyone's thoughts are.

I plan on being mega rich someday....ok, well I would like to be financially comfortable, but at any rate, if I do happen to have alot of money, and I still hold my progressive values, should I not be allowed to participate, even if I'm a progressive?

Full Discloser:  I'm broke.

---

by: daniel.jones @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:12:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My two cents (4.00 / 1)

Well, two cents and a lot of communicative drive is about what I have... but, re: rich people, campaign donations and politics:

the most reasonable position I have come across is the one that the Assemblymember I worked for years ago espoused.  That is, to favor and work toward changing the rules, but play hard according to the current rules of the game.

We have the perfect tool to accomplish that, I think.  That is to have candidates pledge to support Clean Money Clean Elections, and then accept all the cash they are legally offered to run.  I really dislike the idea that a potential donor's life history and investment connections have to be vetted before some candidate accepts their money.  It is just simply not practical.  The brouhaha over "donors with links to organizations that support terrorism" and so forth is all a bunch of hooey in MO.  Nobody says that burglers or bookies or drug dealers can't buy gas at the gas station, or food at the grocery store.  Everybody running for office should be able to accept a legal-sized donation from whomever, too.  It is not up to a campaign to judge the way the money was earned, anymore than we expect that from the grocery store clerk.

Should it be legal for one person to give millions to candidates for the NYS Senate?  Doubtless it should not.  But, as it currently is, it is like tying one leg behind our candidate's backs to expect them to turn that cash down.

We can, however, ask them to clarify that there is no quid pro quo in their acceptance of the money.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:12:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]