Skip to comments.Cuomo Accepts Millions From Interests He Assails
Posted on 06/24/2010 5:43:44 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, declaring his candidacy for governor of New York, could not have been clearer.
The influence of lobbyists and their special interests must be drastically reduced with new contribution limits, Mr. Cuomo said last month. We will be taking on very powerful special interests which have much to lose. We must change systems and cultures long in the making.
But as he delivered his announcement, Mr. Cuomo was sitting on millions in campaign cash from the very special interests whose influence he said he wanted to limit.
An analysis by The New York Times shows that of the estimated $7.1 million that the Cuomo campaign has received from political action committees, associations, limited liability corporations and other entities, more than half has come from the biggest players in Albany: organized labor, the real estate and related industries like construction, the health care sector and lobbying firms.
In the spirit of reform, Mr. Cuomo pledged in 2007 not to accept donations over $10,000 from most categories of contributors during an election cycle. But he did not stick to that vow and has at times received amounts five times as great.
The donations underscore the awkwardness of Mr. Cuomos effort to run against Albany and its insiders at the same time he is benefiting from their largess and, in some cases, his long relationships with them. He drew a similar proportion of his campaign money from special interests in his failed 2002 campaign for governor and his 2006 bid for attorney general.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Can someone explain to me why these gutless, overpaid morons passing as “executives” continue to fund the very scumbag socialists that attck them on a daily basis? I swear, if just ONE of these gutless wonders would stand up to these politicians and government bureacrats, the people would back them wholeheartedly. Instead, they finance the very activities that increase costs to their businesses. Idiots.
If a candidate believes in leaving business alone, you don't need to pay him protection money. It may be in your narrow self-interest to contribute to crusading politicians, in the hope that they will target someone else if elected.
“If a candidate believes in leaving business alone, you don’t need to pay him protection money.”
Possibly, but by financially supporting the candidate with a more laissez faire view toward business, are you not “protecting” your business and potentially reducing the likelihood of legislation/regulation that in turn increase your costs?