Comments on: Ursa, Unions behind smear mailers

By: freewheelin

freewheelin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:35:06 +0000

That paper is also written and edited incredibly amateurishly. I’ve seen more sophisticated reporting in high school papers. The number of typos is staggering, information is often wrong and the aforementioned biases are laughably obvious. And the letters section is a complete joke–they seem to publish anything they get, from bad poetry to politicians pumping up themselves and their cronies to illiterate locals venting to crazies going on about national affairs that need not be discussed in a local rag.

By: mooshu

mooshu — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:06:18 +0000

Forgot to add that the graphic is great!

Keep up the excellent work, 411 and estevens .

By: mooshu

mooshu — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:59:29 +0000

Why does anyone read the Hoboken Reporter? It has two big stories plus an endless stream of plugs for developers, real estate and insurance honchos plus letters to the editor and that random psychologist lady.

Why? That paper isn’t helping our community at all. It’s mostly doing advertising for the greedy.

By: CalGard

CalGard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:35:49 +0000

I agree that estevens has done a great job. It took me a while to absorb what he wrote here, and now wish I could retract some previous posts. Thank goodness that POG pushed for the Pay-to-Play ordinance in Hoboken. Shame on the state and federal governments for making it so easy for this ordinance to be by-passed by the use of IRS approved 527 non-profit political groups.

URSA (or a partner, ie. Michael Sciarra) and unions (like NJ Carpenters), who benefit from prodevelopment allies, can give money to these 527 groups registered outside of NJ who then can then transfer the money to political marketing machines to produce campaign advertising for or against any candidate.

As estevens points out – adding to the insult is that in the case cited here, the person responsible for setting up the non-profit political group is the same person who funnels the money he collects to his own political advertising firm so he to profits directly from the activity.

And this is legal as long as a candidate’s campaign is not demonstrably directly involved in what is happening. Evidence of a candidate’s involvement is obvious but unfortunately circumstantial.

The frustrating fact is that the IRS has all the data we need to do a thoughtful and thorough investigation and uncover all sorts of dubious connections between individuals and organizations. If I could access the complete database without having to navigate the cumbersome interface provided by the IRS, I would have a lot of fun.

In response to Red Haven who said:

Great work estevens! At the very least it’s a violation of the clear spirit of Hoboken’s Redeveloper Pay-to-Play ordinance and it shouldn’t be allowed. Hard to believe $180k was spent on these lame fliers and ads. Then again, Ursa is the same group that thought advertising their plan for the Western Edge Redevelopment on Concha’s site was going to change minds and influence people. Is it any wonder why Tarragon went bankrupt?

By: Red Haven

Red Haven — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:08:28 +0000

Great work estevens! At the very least it's a violation of the clear spirit of Hoboken's Redeveloper Pay-to-Play ordinance and it shouldn't be allowed. Hard to believe $180k was spent on these lame fliers and ads. Then again, Ursa is the same group that thought advertising their plan for the Western Edge Redevelopment on Concha's site was going to change minds and influence people. Is it any wonder why Tarragon went bankrupt? In response to estevens who said:

I don't think that the article so much disparages PACs as it reveals who was funding the mailings that were sent out during the recent election. My issue is not with PACs but with the concealing the identity of campaign supporters in our local elections. For what it’s worth, the two groups are registered with the IRS as 527’s, or tax-exempt organizations created primarily to influence the election or defeat of candidates. As they were not advocating for or against candidates for federal elective office, it would appear that they are not required to file with the FEC.

By: CalGard

CalGard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:31:46 +0000

Too bad they aren't PACs and registered with the FEC as then they would be legally obligated to post the contributors as well as the recipients of their funds. I think its good that PACs are transparent that way. And by the way, I never have and never will donate to any PAC. In response to estevens who said:

By: estevens

estevens — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:03:19 +0000

I don’t think that the article so much disparages PACs as it reveals who was funding the mailings that were sent out during the recent election. My issue is not with PACs but with the concealing the identity of campaign supporters in our local elections.

For what it’s worth, the two groups are registered with the IRS as 527’s, or tax-exempt organizations created primarily to influence the election or defeat of candidates. As they were not advocating for or against candidates for federal elective office, it would appear that they are not required to file with the FEC.

By: elainetyger

elainetyger — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:52:40 +0000

The problem is that if you are going to speak out for or against a candidate, or pay money for or against a candidate, there should not be this 3 levels of secrecy. “People who are concerned” giving an opinion are different from “people who have a dog in the race.”

By: CalGard

CalGard — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:33:01 +0000

Thank you estevens. I have no reason to comment gratuitously on this subject. The name of an ‘organization’ on a flyer doesn’t prove its existence. The Hudson Reporter in June, which was very complimentary of Erik K said that CFTC was an anonymous organization. Further citations of facts most appreciated.

In response to estevens who said:

CalGard: You’re kidding, right? Two citywide mailings sent out in May with strong anti-Zimmer messages were labeled as being paid for by Citizens for the Future. This 527 group files reports periodically with the IRS. The information is available online, but you’ve got to dig deeper than Google. Filings from the Building American Committee are also available online.

The relevance is that developers and building unions wanted their boy – Cammarano – to win and used DC PACs to skirt contribution limits. Not unlike Solomon Dwek using cash and envelopes at the Malibu Diner to avoid having his name appear on campaign filings…except that Dwek did so at the behest of the FBI.

Citizens for the Future is a front for MSHC Partners. Citizens received the contributions and in turn paid MSHC (themselves) to do the work. The principals are the same in both groups. I’m sure that in their off-hours they are very pleasant people.

By: CalGard

CalGard — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:59:31 +0000

This article seems to unjustly disparage PACs (Political Action Committees). Why? They are absolutely legal unless they break the law which is not alleged here. They have been around since 1944 when the first was formed to support FDR’s presidential campaign.

In addition, it provides no evidence that CFTC is a PAC. Did CFTC register with FEC within 10 days of its formation? Same story with Building America PAC. Why make a point of these groups of undocumented existence as being PACs?

As for the Washingon DC based firms that are in business to help candidates get elected by providing advertising – THIS is controversial?? The only thing I don’t understand is how these firms who claim to have elected Obama and other national officials could have produced the feeble ad copy shown in this articles accompanying slide show.

Having said all this, I do like to see details of specific contributions by developers and unions to politicians I consider completely corruptible and despicable for being so.