Public Hearing in Albany Is Held Without the Public

Even before the hearing began, government watchdog groups complained that Republicans who led the panel would not allow them to testify.

The Senate’s sergeants-at-arms went a step further: they would not allow members of the public into the hearing room, first saying that they needed to save space for legislative staff, then saying that the room had reached capacity. (At the same time, people in the room were posting images on Twitter of empty chairs.) Some reporters were also stopped from entering the hearing room; they were later allowed to enter.

The chaotic scene came during a particularly embarrassing period in Albany. On Friday, a former Democratic senator from Queens, Shirley L. Huntley, was revealed to have made secret recordings for law enforcement. Then on Monday, a former leader of the Democratic caucus, Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn, was charged with embezzlement and other crimes.

One of the top priorities for Democrats in the legislative session this year is a push to adopt a statewide system to provide public matching funds for candidates, modeled after the city’s system.

Republicans, who have partial control of the State Senate, oppose the idea. The chairman of the State Senate Elections Committee, Thomas F. O’Mara, a Republican from Big Flats, said he organized the hearing to provide a window into “what can go wrong when taxpayer dollars are used to fund political campaigns.”

The hearing was held in a stuffy conference room on the Capitol’s first floor, occupied by senators and invited speakers, and guarded by a clutch of sergeants-at-arms. About a dozen staff members were milling about, but there were a smattering of seats available, including several at the main table, where lawmakers shared space with a few members of the Capitol’s press corps.

During the hearing, protesters pressed up to a ground-floor window that had been opened to allow fresh air into the stifling room; the window was quickly closed after protesters found it.

Government watchdog groups — including the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, Common Cause New York, the League of Women Voters of New York State and the New York Public Interest Research Group — sent a complaint to the state’s Committee on Open Government while the hearing was still under way on Tuesday afternoon, alleging violations of the state’s Open Meetings Law.

“Despite the fact that we’ve seen this recent string of scandals, it seems the Senate is more interested in holding a star chamber than actually getting to the root of these problems,” said Bill Mahoney, the research coordinator for the research group. “Until they start proposing real solutions to the plague of corruption, they’re going to be just as much to blame for all the problems that New York is undergoing.”

Senate Republicans defended their handling of the hearing.

A spokesman, Scott Reif, said the groups that advocated public financing “say they support free speech, yet they attempted to disrupt a hearing and prevent members of the Elections Committee from taking testimony.”

“This hearing was webcast live and we made every effort to get as many people into the room as possible, including every reporter who wanted to attend,” Mr. Reif added. “As the room reached occupancy, we were instructed to close the room.”

The hearing also drew the attention of a group from the Occupy movement who staged a symbolic “corporate wedding” on the Capitol’s Great Western Staircase, with people portraying a money-loving politician, the Monopoly Man and a demonic pastor. Several people were dressed as bundles of $50 bills and an oil derrick.

While the performance seemed to be by amateurs, the show drew a small crowd. After all, it was open to the public.

View the original article here

Level the field for charter and public schools

(PNI) Leveling the playing field on public-education funding is long overdue.

We must change the fact that charter schools receive public funds and can receive exemptions under Arizona's state procurement rules. These rules are in place to ensure public dollars -- your tax dollars and mine -- are spent fairly, competitively and without conflict of interest.

Recent Arizona Republic articles highlight the charter schools' administration and board members' link to quite expensive purchases. It is no wonder that administrative costs are higher for public schools; they must adhere to rules that charters can be exempted from.

It is time to level the playing field as well as protect our public dollars. Charter schools should be required to follow the same set of rules as Arizona public schools because they receive part of the same public funds.

-- Karen Havird, Phoenix

A sex-offender dilemma

Republic reporter Michelle Ye Hee Lee identified just a few of the many symptoms of the sex-offender issues that face our communities ("Unwanted, unsettled, unaccounted for," A1, Sunday).

The focus must remain on the big picture and where our continued failure to act by our current (and past) elected officials will soon take us.

Their failure, despite being informed that something needs to be done today, likely will mean some poor child will have to be hurt or abused before they do what is required to help resolve or at least improve the system.

Yes, it will take tax dollars. Yes, there are many more sex offenders in prison waiting to be released and need some place to go. So, stop wasting time talking about failures and pointing fingers and start talking about solutions and taking responsibility.

-- Michael White, Peoria

More political alienation

I write in response to Nomiki Konst's timely column, "Arizona Democrats need to update plan to grow party base" (Opinions, Saturday).

I believe the column, although directed at Democrats, applies equally to both major political parties.

The growing number of voters who register as independent certainly reflect a range of rationales, but one is a growing sense of alienation from the traditional "political-party mentality" pervasive in both groups.

I have not yet registered as an independent but have seriously considered this option because of my negative assessment of the functioning of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Political parties must reinvent themselves to become relevant and viable as voices of the people they claim to represent, rather than the established and well-financed interests currently in full control of the levers of power.

From my point of view, the Democratic Party has the right core values and perspectives; it just functions and campaigns so much like the other party that it fails to distinguish itself as a preferred choice worthy of allegiance.

-- Melvin Hall, Scottsdale

Arizona now purple state

I must disagree with Nomiki Konst's column claiming Arizona Democrats had a bad year ("Arizona Democrats need to update plan to grow party base," Opinions, Saturday). That was true only for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Democrats won all three winnable congressional seats and ran the closest race for U.S. Senate since Dennis DeConcini's victory in 1976. Further, they picked up four seats each in the Arizona House and Senate. And only two states (North Carolina and Georgia) had narrower margins for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama than did Arizona among the 24 states Obama lost. We are indeed now a purple state.

-- Gary Peter Klahr,

Phoenix

Driver's license solution

It seems there is a simple solution to the "problem" of issuing driver's licenses to young people who have qualified for work permits to avoid deportation under President Barack Obama's executive order.

Since the state can issue different types of licenses, why can't the MVD create a license that expires at the conclusion of the executive order and be clearly labeled "Not a United States citizen"?

My daughter's license before she turned 21 was clearly labeled that she was a minor to prevent her from going into bars. Why can't the same type of logic be applied here?

This would satisfy the governor's fears of the license being misused or of attempts to illegally gain benefits that the license holder is not authorized to receive. The kids need to be able to drive to work.

Why is this so hard?

-- Chip McTiernan,

Youngtown

Fed up with greedy CEOs

Regarding "Hostess done in by brass" (Letters, Friday):

I believe Americans are fed up. Not with all Republicans. Not with all Democrats. With greed.

What I am frustrated by is excess. I see the excessive salaries paid to CEOs and professional athletes and entertainers.

Maybe if they had to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on every cent they earned, it would also help fund those programs.

--Kelly Murray, Tempe

Seasonal sharing needed

You recently reported that the Harris Poll found that Americans plan to spend more this Christmas season than last but are less likely to give a charitable gift. How dismaying!

To think that another necktie for Uncle Elmer may be on the list but not a donation to help the one in four children in the U.S. who lives in poverty suggests the milk of human kindness has curdled.

As we express relief that we have not suffered the awful devastation of Hurricane Sandy, we omit a donation to the American Red Cross or Salvation Army in favor of yet another toy for little Joey.

With the unprecedented demand for emergency food, we fail to give a can of peanut butter or a donation to the Association of Arizona Food Banks and instead give a box of candy for Auntie Em.

Even your stories of real people who benefit from the Season for Sharing may be overrun by our own Season for Spending.

-- Ruth Wootten, Tempe

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

In Cash Push, 2 Campaigns Likely to Reject Public Funds

Aides and leading donors to Mitt Romney are preparing a major expansion of the campaign’s fund-raising efforts to prepare for a general election contest against President Obama, with the goal of raising up to $600 million, according to several people involved in the discussions.

Republican-leaning outside groups and Democratic-leaning unions are planning to spend hundreds of millions more.

And Mr. Obama, who raised $750 million in 2008, is likely to meet or exceed that this year, according to people involved in his fund-raising operation.

Those goals make it virtually certain that neither party’s nominee will accept public funds for the general election or the spending limits that come with them — the likely death knell for a cornerstone of the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms intended to limit the influence of money in federal elections.

Mr. Obama opted out of the public financing program in 2008, breaking a campaign pledge, and went on to outspend the Republican nominee, John McCain, by four to one.

“This is going to be the most moneyed election in the history of the United States,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, a group that favors greater restrictions on campaign spending. Mr. Edgar, a former congressman who was among the Democratic “Watergate babies” elected in the wake of the scandal, added, “There is a sense of coming full circle, of forgetting our history — the reason we installed a system for financing campaigns that didn’t rely on corporate or wealthy money.”

Mr. Obama has already held over a hundred major fund-raisers for his campaign, jointly raising large amounts with the Democratic National Committee, and Mr. Romney is moving quickly to catch up. His campaign is planning dozens of fund-raisers through the end of June, high-dollar events that will feature Mr. Romney as well as the campaign’s top allies and other elected officials.

The campaign is setting a goal of raising at least $1 million for most events featuring Mr. Romney personally.

Those efforts will be aided by a new joint fund-raising agreement with the Republican National Committee that allows Mr. Romney to command far larger checks than he has during the primaries, when his campaign was limited to increments of $2,500 or less. Under the agreement, guests at major Romney events will be able to write checks as large as $75,000 to a “Romney Victory” committee.

About half of that sum would go to Mr. Romney’s campaign or the Republican committee, mimicking the arrangement under which Mr. Obama, as an incumbent, has been raising money since last spring for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The remainder will be split among Republican state parties in Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma and Vermont — where party leaders are deemed loyal to Mr. Romney — and later re-allocated to the most critical battleground states.

“It’s going to ramp up dramatically,” said Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets and one of Mr. Romney’s national finance co-chairmen. “The response I’ve been getting, of people willing to max out on the victory side, has been very very good, very enthusiastic.”

Restore Our Future, the “super PAC” whose millions of dollars in negative advertising helped bury Mr. Romney’s Republican rivals, will also shift its focus to the general election, officials familiar with its plans said. The group, which raised more than $43 million through the end of February, is hoping to reach the $100 million mark by the end of the cycle.

The super PAC will also have help from Mr. Romney’s allies and backers: Jim Talent, the former United States senator and a key surrogate for Mr. Romney during the primaries, appeared at a Restore Our Future briefing for donors in New York on Wednesday.

And people involved with the group’s fund-raising have in recent days approached Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner whose family contributed over $16 million to a rival super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, to consider contributing to Restore Our Future. They have also approached Charles and David Koch, the wealthy conservative businessmen who founded Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.

View the original article here