Latest news with #CommonCause
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Common Cause says Cuomo campaign ties with lobbying firm violate rules, calls for probe
NEW YORK — Common Cause, a government reform group, has asked the Campaign Finance Board to investigate Andrew Cuomo's campaign for what it says are potential violations of campaign finance laws. In a formal complaint on Tuesday, Susan Lerner, the executive director of the group, wrote that consulting and polling services provided by Tusk Strategies, a lobbying firm, are in-kind contributions, and that they go against strict spending limits imposed on candidates. This comes after the Cuomo campaign was last week docked a total of $1.3 million in money from the city's 8-to-1 public matching funds program for suspected improper coordination between the campaign and a super PAC. 'We believe that such an investigation will lead the Board to the same conclusion that we have arrived at: the seriousness and the persistence of the violations by the Cuomo campaign demand that the campaign be required to refund all matching funds and be disqualified from receiving any further public funds,' Lerner said. The complaint comes after Politico reported that Tusk's CEO Chris Coffey was not being paid despite doing extensive work on the campaign. Shontell Smith, Cuomo's political director campaign, is being paid both by the campaign by Tusk, raising concerns about potentially undermining 'the intent of the CFB's strict spending limits,' Lerner wrote. Tusk bankrolled two polls, one just before Cuomo entered the race and a second shortly after. Common Cause argued that those polls, which were not reported to the CFB, may violate campaign finance rules. 'There is no indication that the spending for these polls, which appear to have been conducted in direct coordination with Cuomo's campaign, have been adequately reported to the Campaign Finance Board or counted against Cuomo's primary spending cap,' Common Cause's complaint reads. Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo's spokesperson, said Lerner was attempting 'election interference.' 'Unfortunately for them New Yorkers are too smart to fall for these sleazy tactics wrapped in the guise of good government,' he said, adding that other candidates use consultants who juggle other clients. The spokesman added that people are allowed to volunteer on campaigns without it being considered a contribution. __________
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Common Cause says Cuomo campaign ties with lobbying firm violate rules, calls for probe
NEW YORK — Common Cause, a government reform group, has asked the Campaign Finance Board to investigate Andrew Cuomo's campaign for what it says are potential violations of campaign finance laws. In a formal complaint on Tuesday, Susan Lerner, the executive director of the group, wrote that consulting and polling services provided by Tusk Strategies, a lobbying firm, are in-kind contributions, and that they go against strict spending limits imposed on candidates. This comes after the Cuomo campaign was last week docked a total of $1.3 million in money from the city's 8-to-1 public matching funds program for suspected improper coordination between the campaign and a super PAC. 'We believe that such an investigation will lead the Board to the same conclusion that we have arrived at: the seriousness and the persistence of the violations by the Cuomo campaign demand that the campaign be required to refund all matching funds and be disqualified from receiving any further public funds,' Lerner said. The complaint comes after Politico reported that Tusk's CEO Chris Coffey was not being paid despite doing extensive work on the campaign. Shontell Smith, Cuomo's political director campaign, is being paid both by the campaign by Tusk, raising concerns about potentially undermining 'the intent of the CFB's strict spending limits,' Lerner wrote. Tusk bankrolled two polls, one just before Cuomo entered the race and a second shortly after. Common Cause argued that those polls, which were not reported to the CFB, may violate campaign finance rules. 'There is no indication that the spending for these polls, which appear to have been conducted in direct coordination with Cuomo's campaign, have been adequately reported to the Campaign Finance Board or counted against Cuomo's primary spending cap,' Common Cause's complaint reads. Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo's spokesperson, said Lerner was attempting 'election interference.' 'Unfortunately for them New Yorkers are too smart to fall for these sleazy tactics wrapped in the guise of good government,' he said, adding that other candidates use consultants who juggle other clients. The spokesman added that people are allowed to volunteer on campaigns without it being considered a contribution. __________
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Mayoral candidate scrutinized for using Syracuse-owned equipment for campaign event
SYRACUSE, N.Y. (WSYR-TV) — It's not a typical campaign issue, but there's scrutiny over the podium and sound system used at a Syracuse mayoral candidate's campaign event on Friday afternoon. It appears City of Syracuse government resources, specifically equipment and staff, were used by Councilor Pat Hogan in his capacity as a candidate for mayor. Greg Loh, the city's chief policy officer and spokesperson for Mayor Ben Walsh, confirmed the use of a podium and sound system to NewsChannel 9. Loh claims a representative of the Hogan campaign told a city hall security officer that a podium and sound system was needed for use outside the building's front entrance. 'Based on that request, the CSO (officer) called maintenance staff and had them set up the equipment and podium up,' Loh said. At the federal level, a similar infraction would seem to violate the Hatch Act. 'The Hatch Act is a federal law that limits the political activity of federal employees while at work, wearing a government uniform, using government equipment, or in a government vehicle,' said the American Federation of Government Employees. It's not clear if the use of government equipment, in this case, is a violation of local election law. 'It's a commonsense expectation that city resources should be only used for city business,' said Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York. The group describes itself as a good-government watchdog designed to protect democracy and the ethical and efficient functioning of government. 'It's a reasonable exaptation on the part of the voter and Syracuse taxpayer that equipment provided to elected officials will not be used for campaign purposes,' Lerner added. City Auditor Alexander Marion said that elected officials have high ethical standards and he would like to remind them to follow these rules. 'City officials must hold themselves to a high ethical standard, and I would remind all elected officials of their obligations to follow ethics rules,' said Marion. 'I would also use this moment to call for updating the city's 30+ year old ethics code and improve training for city officials.' Jordan Lally, speaking on behalf of Pat Hogan's campaign, said, 'During preparations for the event, City employees generously offered the temporary use of certain equipment, which our campaign staff accepted. We extend our sincere thanks to these dedicated public servants for their professionalism and support during the setup process.' 'An elected official should know not to make such a request for a campaign purpose or to accept such an offer if made,' said Loh. Loh, speaking to NewsChannel 9 in his official role with the current mayoral administration, is also an active supporter of Hogan's mayoral primary opponent, Sharon Owens, the city's deputy mayor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Long-running legal saga over N.C. Supreme Court race could pave way for future election challenges, critics warn
Nearly six months after the North Carolina Supreme Court election took place, the contest still hasn't been called and a winner still hasn't been certified. That's almost entirely due to a barrage of litigation from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who sued for more than 65,000 ballots to be thrown out after they had been cast, triggering a sprawling legal saga that is testing some of the most solid precedents of election law. The effort, if successful, could be more than enough to swing the results of the election, as Griffin currently trails Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by roughly 700 votes. But even if the push ultimately falls short, Griffin's critics, who include members of both parties, say it could have long-lasting consequences and pave the way for more candidates to pursue challenges — no matter how legally questionable — to the results of elections decided by narrow margins. 'This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the law and the courts into changing an election result by changing the rules after the election has been held,' said Ann Webb, a policy director with the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, a government watchdog group. Griffin's arguments, Webb said, 'require the courts to say, 'Yes, it's OK to ask us to change the rules after the election is done.' And that is where we really see something different and something scary, because there is nothing stopping other candidates from any party in the future from using that same strategy and pointing back to this case.' In an interview, Riggs called Griffin's legal approach 'insidious' and warned that it would likely be mimicked if it is successful. 'It's a North Carolina problem today, but it's a Michigan and Arizona and Georgia problem tomorrow,' she said, referencing other closely divided battleground states. Even some North Carolina Republicans have called for Griffin to throw in the towel. 'I wanted the Republican judge to win because his philosophy more aligns with me,' former GOP Gov. Pat McCrory told local news outlet ABC11 this week. 'He was defeated.' 'You abide by the rules before the election. It's like changing a penalty call after the Super Bowl is over. You don't do that,' McCrory said, adding that voters 'voted based upon the rule set.' In addition, Republican-led groups are running ads in the state calling for Griffin to end his litigation. A spokesperson for Griffin didn't respond to questions from NBC News for this story. In an email, North Carolina GOP spokesperson Matt Mercer accused Democrats of not being able to 'make an argument on the merits of Judge Griffin's case because they know following the law is not controversial.' 'If Democrats were being truthful, they'd simply admit they don't actually care about honest elections and are only interested in partisan outcomes,' Mercer added. The North Carolina GOP partnered with Griffin in his original litigation in the state court system. Riggs, who was appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2023, emerged after Election Day last November narrowly ahead of Griffin, a state appeals court judge. A full machine recount as well as a partial hand recount of the race both showed Riggs leading Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast. Griffin subsequently filed legal challenges, backed by the North Carolina GOP, across the state, alleging that more than 65,000 people had voted illegally. The claims focused on three categories of voters: voters who Griffin's lawyers claimed didn't have driver's licenses or Social Security numbers on file in their voter registration records; overseas voters who haven't lived in North Carolina; and overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification with their ballots. A series of nuanced and complex court rulings have since followed from North Carolina state courts — including the Supreme Court, the bench that the winner of this election will join — and federal courts. (Griffin and Riggs have recused themselves from the matter when the issue came before the courts they serve on.) The latest development came Tuesday, when a federal appeals court temporarily blocked North Carolina election officials from moving forward with a period that would allow thousands of military and overseas voters to 'cure' their ballots after that had been ordered by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In that decision earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ruled that about 60,000 of the votes in question cannot be thrown out, but that others could be if minor errors were not fixed, meaning those voters would be required to prove their eligibility to election officials. Critics of Griffin's strategy say his arguments contradict several long-held precedents in election law — and regardless of whether they're successful, they could be used in future attempts to overturn close races. One such precedent is the notion that the rules of an election must be set before voting occurs, as Griffin is seeking to throw out thousands of ballots cast by voters who followed the letter of the law. Griffin's critics also note that only he is seeking to have the ballots thrown out, not any of the other Republican candidates who competed in statewide elections in November. 'Republicans are choosing to challenge voters who did nothing wrong,' North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said on a recent call with reporters. 'If they truly believe that there's been election malpractice, then why is every Republican not challenging the same election results that Jefferson Griffin is right now?' Meanwhile, more than 200 judges, government officials, attorneys and legal professors — including some Republicans — signed a letter to Griffin last month stating, 'The arguments you have advanced ask our judicial system to change the rules in place for the 2024 election after it has run its course.' 'If you succeed, tens of thousands of voters will lose their voice after they voted,' they wrote. 'For the sake of our judicial system, we ask you to terminate your litigation now.' In one of the latest filings from Griffin's legal team in federal court, his attorneys rejected the argument that he wanted to change 'the election rules after the election.' 'That's not what the courts said. They held that the 'plain language' of the state constitution barred voters who had never resided in North Carolina from voting in state elections,' Griffin's attorneys wrote. 'And the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the state election code required overseas voters to provide photo identification with their ballots. As part of its remedy, the court provided a 30-day cure period for those voters to fix the defect.' Griffin's critics acknowledge the value of legal remedies following an election, but argue that he should have challenged the rules long before the election if he was concerned about them. 'It's important to have an escape valve in the form of post-election [legal] challenges — if there are real mistakes, or if the law has been misapplied, or there is evidence of fraud,' said Webb, of Common Cause. But in this case, she said, Republicans are 'using the escape valve to bring a challenge against parts of the law that were there and available to be challenged any time over the past several years.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
26-04-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Long-running legal saga over N.C. Supreme Court race could pave way for future election challenges, critics warn
Nearly six months after the North Carolina Supreme Court election took place, the contest still hasn't been called and a winner still hasn't been certified. That's almost entirely due to a barrage of litigation from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who sued for more than 65,000 ballots to be thrown out after they had been cast, triggering a sprawling legal saga that is testing some of the most solid precedents of election law. The effort, if successful, could be more than enough to swing the results of the election, as Griffin currently trails Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by roughly 700 votes. But even if the push ultimately falls short, Griffin's critics, who include members of both parties, say it could have long-lasting consequences and pave the way for more candidates to pursue challenges — no matter how legally questionable — to the results of elections decided by narrow margins. 'This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the law and the courts into changing an election result by changing the rules after the election has been held,' said Ann Webb, a policy director with the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, a government watchdog group. Griffin's arguments, Webb said, 'require the courts to say, 'Yes, it's OK to ask us to change the rules after the election is done.' And that is where we really see something different and something scary, because there is nothing stopping other candidates from any party in the future from using that same strategy and pointing back to this case.' In an interview, Riggs called Griffin's legal approach 'insidious' and warned that it would likely be mimicked if it is successful. 'It's a North Carolina problem today, but it's a Michigan and Arizona and Georgia problem tomorrow,' she said, referencing other closely divided battleground states. Even some North Carolina Republicans have called for Griffin to throw in the towel. 'I wanted the Republican judge to win because his philosophy more aligns with me,' former GOP Gov. Pat McCrory told local news outlet ABC11 this week. 'He was defeated.' 'You abide by the rules before the election. It's like changing a penalty call after the Super Bowl is over. You don't do that,' McCrory said, adding that voters 'voted based upon the rule set.' In addition, Republican-led groups are running ads in the state calling for Griffin to end his litigation. A spokesperson for Griffin didn't respond to questions from NBC News for this story. In an email, North Carolina GOP spokesperson Matt Mercer accused Democrats of not being able to 'make an argument on the merits of Judge Griffin's case because they know following the law is not controversial.' 'If Democrats were being truthful, they'd simply admit they don't actually care about honest elections and are only interested in partisan outcomes,' Mercer added. The North Carolina GOP partnered with Griffin in his original litigation in the state court system. Months of litigation Riggs, who was appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2023, emerged after Election Day last November narrowly ahead of Griffin, a state appeals court judge. A full machine recount as well as a partial hand recount of the race both showed Riggs leading Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast. Griffin subsequently filed legal challenges, backed by the North Carolina GOP, across the state, alleging that more than 65,000 people had voted illegally. The claims focused on three categories of voters: voters who Griffin's lawyers claimed didn't have driver's licenses or Social Security numbers on file in their voter registration records; overseas voters who haven't lived in North Carolina; and overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification with their ballots. A series of nuanced and complex court rulings have since followed from North Carolina state courts — including the Supreme Court, the bench that the winner of this election will join — and federal courts. (Griffin and Riggs have recused themselves from the matter when the issue came before the courts they serve on.) The latest development came Tuesday, when a federal appeals court temporarily blocked North Carolina election officials from moving forward with a period that would allow thousands of military and overseas voters to 'cure' their ballots after that had been ordered by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In that decision earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ruled that about 60,000 of the votes in question cannot be thrown out, but that others could be if minor errors were not fixed, meaning those voters would be required to prove their eligibility to election officials. Long-term ramifications Critics of Griffin's strategy say his arguments contradict several long-held precedents in election law — and regardless of whether they're successful, they could be used in future attempts to overturn close races. One such precedent is the notion that the rules of an election must be set before voting occurs, as Griffin is seeking to throw out thousands of ballots cast by voters who followed the letter of the law. Griffin's critics also note that only he is seeking to have the ballots thrown out, not any of the other Republican candidates who competed in statewide elections in November. 'Republicans are choosing to challenge voters who did nothing wrong,' North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said on a recent call with reporters. 'If they truly believe that there's been election malpractice, then why is every Republican not challenging the same election results that Jefferson Griffin is right now?' Meanwhile, more than 200 judges, government officials, attorneys and legal professors — including some Republicans — signed a letter to Griffin last month stating, 'The arguments you have advanced ask our judicial system to change the rules in place for the 2024 election after it has run its course.' 'If you succeed, tens of thousands of voters will lose their voice after they voted,' they wrote. 'For the sake of our judicial system, we ask you to terminate your litigation now.' In one of the latest filings from Griffin's legal team in federal court, his attorneys rejected the argument that he wanted to change 'the election rules after the election.' 'That's not what the courts said. They held that the 'plain language' of the state constitution barred voters who had never resided in North Carolina from voting in state elections,' Griffin's attorneys wrote. 'And the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the state election code required overseas voters to provide photo identification with their ballots. As part of its remedy, the court provided a 30-day cure period for those voters to fix the defect.' Griffin's critics acknowledge the value of legal remedies following an election, but argue that he should have challenged the rules long before the election if he was concerned about them. 'It's important to have an escape valve in the form of post-election [legal] challenges — if there are real mistakes, or if the law has been misapplied, or there is evidence of fraud,' said Webb, of Common Cause. But in this case, she said, Republicans are 'using the escape valve to bring a challenge against parts of the law that were there and available to be challenged any time over the past several years.'
