"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

All Eyes On Golisano

Former Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Golisano, the billionaire founder of Paychex Inc., is unveiling his new political action committee tomorrow in Albany, called Responsible New York initially thought of as a means to funnel money to Senate Democratic candidates, but it is now being positioned as a bipartisan effort.

The are a number of reports on Golisano's activities and they are watching how he will legally distribute the reported millions of dollars. The Daily Politics reports on the where and when of the announcement and that some of the money will be targeted to unseat Speaker Sheldon Silver, that will be money well spent.

Capital Confidential reports on the how Golisano will distribute the money legally in order to comply with election law. It looks at the legalities of distributing the money through a 527 organization or a PAC.

If Golisano forms a PAC he can contribute to committees but does not retain control of the message.
A PAC can only make contributions to committees; it cannot make any direct expenditures.

The question now is, what can or can’t Golisano spend his own money on, without hitting a contributor limit or infringing on campaign finance law? Can he run his own ad and say “Vote for XXX”?
All eyes will be on the moves Golisano, charter member of the Independence party, makes in order to sway voters. If nothing else Golisano will likely make a good case for campaign finance reform, unions, PACs or billionaires including Golisano, Bloomberg, et al should not have this much control on the message. 
It is not "Responsible New York" at all, it has nothing to do with reform or being responsible and he lost his original focus, his money and message should be rejected.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If the money was going to your candidate (or your candidacy for the state legislature a few years ago) you would be all for it. But since the money is going to upset the status quo (which you support) you don't approve.

"the money should be rejected"...please, Scott. You don't even have the courage to attach your name to any of your ramblings. Why on earth would somoene running for office take your advice?!?

Live Blogging