SD-62: George Maziarz Puts Your Tax Dollars To Work

This is the garbage (0.00 / 0)

the "Working Families" Party chooses to endorse?

The "constituent update" mailer doesn't reference even ONE bill by name or number!

And all of you WFP fans are OK with that?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:56:09 AM UTC

I don't see your point (0.00 / 0)

Four parties endorsed Maziarz. There are a couple of things you should see wrong with this mailer (other than the fact that it is paid for with taxpayer money almost a month out of a primary for Maziarz).

(1) Maziarz said that their "number one priority" was capping taxes, not cutting them. Anything wrong with that picture? Capping is all great and wonderful, but cutting taxes should be the priority. Capping, when presented as a sole solution, is merely a political gimmick to make people feel as if the government is doing something to address the high taxes.

(2) The Republicans did nothing to address spending in the Senate. Absolutely nothing. So claiming that you are bringing accountability to the state's spending is false.

So I don't get where singling out the WFP comes into play. I agree that their endorsement of Maziarz is mind boggling, but that's irrelevant with this mailer.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 03:06:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is truly disturbing... (0.00 / 0)

So when is it that we (the few, the informed, the bloggers?) are going to pressure our legislators into not using our money to send us propaganda?

---

by: PineHillsResident @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 13:42:45 PM UTC

You aren't going to do that with a Republican Senate (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans love their ability to use these mailings for their own personal gain. In reality, they are there to send out for legislative purposes to talk to your constituents. These mailings do NOT exist to send out to people you want to vote for you.

Now, does it say "Elect Maziarz" on the mailer? No. But the timing of the mailer is what equates it to campaign literature.

For the record, I have yet to see a Maziarz mailer land in my inbox - until now - in 2008. He may have sent one out, but then again, he probably didn't.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 13:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regulations? An Independent "Referee"? (0.00 / 0)

And I think that it's important that, as a representative, we provide them an outlet to keep their voters informed of their work.

But can't we put some obvious regulations in place that prohibit this sort of activity? Something that would allow an individual to bring a claim against them for misuse of State resources?

In addition to a blackout period, there should be some sort of independent authority to decide if this is an update - or if this is simply empty posturing just prior to a campaign.

I don't necessarily believe in censorship, but some sort of accountability has to take place here.

---

by: PineHillsResident @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 13:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regulations? (0.00 / 0)

How about this: If you want to send out a mailer to constituents, you do so on your own dime, not the taxpayers. What we could do is allow this franking privilege only during non-election years. I say that because most politicians (state and federal) tend to use their franking privilege only during election years. That's fine under the current system because there are no rules regarding that. They can send mailers all they want and the taxpayers will pay for it.

My goal is to eliminate the privilege altogether.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 14:06:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly, (0.00 / 0)

I'd rather just the one than the Tom Reynolds approach; I had received at least 4 or 5 in 2007 before they mysteriously stopped coming when he declined to run for reelection.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 14:08:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]