Suozzi's Pay to Play...

http://www.citizenactionforspitzer.com/suozzis_pay_play.php

[NewNassau]

The Spitzer piece is so correct....Mr. Suozzi's pay-to-play
is both tip-of-the-iceberg and titanic all rolled into one!

Wait til the flow-chart is done...Don't look for it from Newsday,
they are part of the chart....New York Times will blow it up...
and many dissed contributors and supporters will line up
to fill in the blanks...BLK's? don't get me started.

[Lit Drop]

Can't wait for the Feb. 25th Suozzi announcement. You'll know who I am. I'll be the person handing out this press release laughing through the whole thing. See Tom I don't hate you, because you give me such joy.
Did someone say County Wide Mailing...Eliot!

Can't wait for the Feb. 25th Suozzi announcement. You'll know who I am. I'll be the person handing out this press release laughing through the whole thing. See Tom I don't hate you, because you give me such joy.
Did someone say County Wide Mailing...Eliot!

You go Dennis!

[hadit]

Suozzi can do it because he did it in Glen Cove.

[anti-semantics man]

Suozzi can do it because he did it in Glen Cove.

He did in in Glen Cove? Or he did it TO Glen Cove?

[why reacting]

The Spitzer piece is so correct....Mr. Suozzi's pay-to-play
is both tip-of-the-iceberg and titanic all rolled into one!

Wait til the flow-chart is done...Don't look for it from Newsday,
they are part of the chart....New York Times will blow it up...
and many dissed contributors and supporters will line up
to fill in the blanks...BLK's? don't get me started.

Spitzer people must stop reacting to Suozzi and giving him much needed name rec and legitiacy as a candidate

The Spitzer piece is so correct....Mr. Suozzi's pay-to-play
is both tip-of-the-iceberg and titanic all rolled into one!

Wait til the flow-chart is done...Don't look for it from Newsday,
they are part of the chart....New York Times will blow it up...
and many dissed contributors and supporters will line up
to fill in the blanks...BLK's? don't get me started.

Spitzer people must stop reacting to Suozzi and giving him much needed name rec and legitiacy as a candidate

One way to act when you are a well known entity like Spitzer is to sharply attack your rival and be the first person to paint the statewide portrait of him, before the newspapers spin Mr. Suozzi as the brash, upstart maverick, and declare you the staid Albany establishment. Spitzer particularly has the advantage who is known widely statewide and for the most part received positive press as a "reforme" and an "anti-Wall Street" crusuader. Spitzer and Spitzer friendly operatives, surrogates or 529 organizations are in a strong position to paint Suozzi in the negative, because there is simply so much anti-Suozzi ammo out there, and so little to nail Spitzer with at this juncture, since the AG's image has been largely set, for better or worse.

Spitzer needs to demonstrate that Suozzi is on many levels a smelly, scandal ridden politician with questionable fundraising associations. Spitzer must then demonstrate that Suozzi's smelly fundraising confederates, from donors who work for the County government for big contracts to Wall Street figures formerly or currently under investigation by the AG's office, belies any notion that Suozzi is a true "reformer." People remember negative more vividly than they do positive impressions. The more people raise thoughtful questions about Mr. Suozzi's campaign financing and governmental practices, the less likely that Democratic voters will be taken in by his rhetoric.

I think the hand out is a thoughtful, well researched piece which raises obvious questions about both Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Mejias which should have been more vigorously pursued by the local press. The idea is to strike early, often, and hard, ruin your opponent's reputation statewide, and bury him before he costs you too much time, expense and effort in a potentially divisive primary. A Spitzer counter-measures pre announcement are a smart move, especially since he is trying for form opinion within the likely voters in a Democratic Primary, most of whom are probably not sympathetic to "Wall Street cheaters."

The Spitzer piece is so correct....Mr. Suozzi's pay-to-play
is both tip-of-the-iceberg and titanic all rolled into one!

Wait til the flow-chart is done...Don't look for it from Newsday,
they are part of the chart....New York Times will blow it up...
and many dissed contributors and supporters will line up
to fill in the blanks...BLK's? don't get me started.

Spitzer people must stop reacting to Suozzi and giving him much needed name rec and legitiacy as a candidate

One way to act when you are a well known entity like Spitzer is to sharply attack your rival and be the first person to paint the statewide portrait of him, before the newspapers spin Mr. Suozzi as the brash, upstart maverick, and declare you the staid Albany establishment. Spitzer particularly has the advantage who is known widely statewide and for the most part received positive press as a "reforme" and an "anti-Wall Street" crusuader. Spitzer and Spitzer friendly operatives, surrogates or 529 organizations are in a strong position to paint Suozzi in the negative, because there is simply so much anti-Suozzi ammo out there, and so little to nail Spitzer with at this juncture, since the AG's image has been largely set, for better or worse.

Spitzer needs to demonstrate that Suozzi is on many levels a smelly, scandal ridden politician with questionable fundraising associations. Spitzer must then demonstrate that Suozzi's smelly fundraising confederates, from donors who work for the County government for big contracts to Wall Street figures formerly or currently under investigation by the AG's office, belies any notion that Suozzi is a true "reformer." People remember negative more vividly than they do positive impressions. The more people raise thoughtful questions about Mr. Suozzi's campaign financing and governmental practices, the less likely that Democratic voters will be taken in by his rhetoric.

I think the hand out is a thoughtful, well researched piece which raises obvious questions about both Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Mejias which should have been more vigorously pursued by the local press. The idea is to strike early, often, and hard, ruin your opponent's reputation statewide, and bury him before he costs you too much time, expense and effort in a potentially divisive primary. A Spitzer counter-measures pre announcement are a smart move, especially since he is trying for form opinion within the likely voters in a Democratic Primary, most of whom are probably not sympathetic to "Wall Street cheaters."

So write the piece already. Post it here and it WILL get distributed.

The Spitzer piece is so correct....Mr. Suozzi's pay-to-play
is both tip-of-the-iceberg and titanic all rolled into one!

Wait til the flow-chart is done...Don't look for it from Newsday,
they are part of the chart....New York Times will blow it up...
and many dissed contributors and supporters will line up
to fill in the blanks...BLK's? don't get me started.

Spitzer people must stop reacting to Suozzi and giving him much needed name rec and legitiacy as a candidate

One way to act when you are a well known entity like Spitzer is to sharply attack your rival and be the first person to paint the statewide portrait of him, before the newspapers spin Mr. Suozzi as the brash, upstart maverick, and declare you the staid Albany establishment. Spitzer particularly has the advantage who is known widely statewide and for the most part received positive press as a "reforme" and an "anti-Wall Street" crusuader. Spitzer and Spitzer friendly operatives, surrogates or 529 organizations are in a strong position to paint Suozzi in the negative, because there is simply so much anti-Suozzi ammo out there, and so little to nail Spitzer with at this juncture, since the AG's image has been largely set, for better or worse.

Spitzer needs to demonstrate that Suozzi is on many levels a smelly, scandal ridden politician with questionable fundraising associations. Spitzer must then demonstrate that Suozzi's smelly fundraising confederates, from donors who work for the County government for big contracts to Wall Street figures formerly or currently under investigation by the AG's office, belies any notion that Suozzi is a true "reformer." People remember negative more vividly than they do positive impressions. The more people raise thoughtful questions about Mr. Suozzi's campaign financing and governmental practices, the less likely that Democratic voters will be taken in by his rhetoric.

I think the hand out is a thoughtful, well researched piece which raises obvious questions about both Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Mejias which should have been more vigorously pursued by the local press. The idea is to strike early, often, and hard, ruin your opponent's reputation statewide, and bury him before he costs you too much time, expense and effort in a potentially divisive primary. A Spitzer counter-measures pre announcement are a smart move, especially since he is trying for form opinion within the likely voters in a Democratic Primary, most of whom are probably not sympathetic to "Wall Street cheaters."

So write the piece already. Post it here and it WILL get distributed.

The piece is a hyper-text link on the first section of this thread.

[suozzinomics]

Just how much more do these people have in their information war chest? 4 months after post this is just starting to dribble out!

OUCH, watch out Nassau County residents it seems the best is yet to come, and we will have an eveen more pissed off, dangerious individual to deal with.

One hundred and eleven million is pay backs, from Mr. NO More Pay to Play Fix it Man. That seems to be about the same amount of money being paid to his high priced, seasonal workers and political opereative from NYC and Brooklyn.

can those numbers go on the report also?

they tried and tried. Jay tried to be a political boss, leaning on employees and contractors who had business with the county.

And Tom, trying to intimidate employees and hire hacks to help him with this governors run. Problem is neither one was good at it. Jay was inconsistent, distracted and too easily swayed by the dim bulbs he surrounded himself with. Tom was too impulsive and a bad judge of just who could and would help him.

What a waste of time. With all the mistakes he has made, and all the stupid things he has said and done, Tom deserves to be at 10%.

[Anti-Censorship]

I don't know why deleted it, but Nassau County citizens deserve to know the truth, as relfected in an article published by the Times

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Report on 'Pay to Play' Cites Contracts for Suozzi Donors
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By BRUCE LAMBERT
Published: June 22, 2006
As a candidate for governor, Thomas R. Suozzi is running as a reformer, a political outsider and a foe of special interests. But critics say his own record as Nassau County executive smacks of "pay to play" campaign fund-raising.

A study released yesterday accused Mr. Suozzi of taking large campaign donations "time and again" from companies that his administration hired to work for the county, some under contracts that did not require competitive bidding.

From 2001 through 2005, his Friends of Tom Suozzi fund received at least $210,760 in contributions from 55 companies that were awarded a total of $111 million in county contracts, the study said. Many donations came within three months of when the contracts were awarded, according to public records cited. One donation came two days before the contract was awarded.

"This pattern and practice creates a significant appearance of conflict of interest," said the report, issued by Citizen Action of New York, a nonprofit group that has endorsed State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for governor. Mr. Suozzi is challenging Mr. Spitzer, who has been leading in the polls, in the Democratic primary.

Scoffing at the charge, Mr. Suozzi said: "I think that this is a bogus group. I think that this is a phony charge that they're making, and I think if they want to present themselves as being credible, honest reformers, then have them do a nice, detailed analysis on Eliot Spitzer's contributions that he has received from people who do business with the state of New York."

Mr. Suozzi's campaign manager, Kim Devlin, accused Citizen Action of having its own conflict of interest, saying the attorney general had issued more than $200,000 in grants to it and affiliated groups. "It's difficult to take accusations of pay-to-play politics seriously from a so-called good-government group that takes cash from the attorney general's office, then endorses the attorney general for governor and then turns around and attacks his political opponents," she said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, Christine Anderson, denied any conflict. She said that the attorney general's office had erroneously listed Citizen Action as having received a $20,000 grant, but that the money went to another group headed by Richard Kirsch, Citizen Action's executive director.

Citizen Action said that it supported Mr. Spitzer's policy of not accepting campaign contributions from anyone with a matter pending before the attorney general. Therefore, the group said, it did not review his campaign donations.

Citizen Action said its findings came from a partial review of county contracts and election records that was limited because not all donation entries were computerized. Major donors included Cablevision Systems, which did $336,000 of county work from 2001 to 2005 and whose political committee gave Mr. Suozzi's campaign $34,760; Smith and Salerno Valuation Services, which had $2.8 million in contracts and gave $19,250 in political contributions; and Hawkeye Construction, which had $8.2 million in contracts and gave $15,000 to the campaign.

"What is even more troubling about our findings is the very high portion of no-bid contracts that were made within three months of Suozzi receiving a campaign contribution," the report said. Under the law, competitive bidding is not required for so-called personal service contracts for companies or consultants with unique services.

This is not the first time Mr. Suozzi's fund-raising has been scrutinized. In 2004, The New York Times reported that his campaign received $67,750 in donations from people and companies related to six real estate projects totaling $177 million, for which Nassau County's Industrial Development Agency granted lucrative tax and financing benefits. An additional $87,550 was donated to his fund by politically connected consultants who were hired by the agency, often without bidding.

For example, the Crowe Deegan law firm of Glen Cove, Mr. Suozzi's hometown and where he was mayor, donated $34,650 to his campaign and received $766,787 in legal work for county agencies. A county comptroller's report later said that the work should have been opened to competition.

In another dispute in 2004, a lawyer, Andrew J. Campanelli, sued the county, alleging heavy-handed fund-raising. The county had hired him to handle forfeiture cases involving cars seized from drunken drivers, and he recouped $1.1 million. He said that the county Democratic Party chairman, Jay Jacobs, called to say he "expected" a $10,000 political donation, and that within 20 minutes Mr. Suozzi made a follow-up call for a donation.

Mr. Campanelli charged that after he declined to contribute, the county cut off his services and even balked at paying for work he had already done. Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Suozzi denied the allegations. The suit was settled for $323,000.