Spitzer Watch

Hooker-Gate

2008-03-10T15:33:00.002-04:00

Ohh... the hypocrisy!

Which one was his:

Spitzer's Tax Lies

2006-09-06T14:52:00.000-04:00

WSJ Political Journal Report:

No Laffer

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is expected to win next week's New York Democratic primary in a landslide and then crush Republican John Faso en route to capturing the governor's mansion in November. Surprisingly, the political prosecutor who terrorized Wall Street is now trying to run up the score by promising to cut property taxes as much as 80% for middle class New Yorkers and finance it with some $11 billion in budget cuts over the next three years.

The "sheriff of Wall Street" is doing his level best to sound like a supply-sider as he sews up votes in suburban and rural areas of the state. But New Yorkers might be unwise to put much faith in the promises Mr. Spitzer is spreading around in his quest for a landslide.

The proposal he laid out to a local mayors' conference in Saratoga included the predictable dose of class warfare. Residents can thank three-term GOP Gov. George Pataki, who -- in 1997 amid a blizzard of complaints about high property taxes -- created the crazy STAR system, which allows any resident to get a partial tax rebate as long as he or she remembers specifically to apply for it. Mr. Spitzer sees a problem here in "giving the same exact benefit to a homeowner regardless if he or she makes $5 million or $50,000." He wants to "fix it" by excluding high-income taxpayers -- another way of saying he wants to raise taxes on them -- while expanding rebates for middle-class taxpayers.

Meanwhile, his "budget cuts" would supposedly come by attacking the usual waste, fraud and abuse in New York's giant Medicaid system. There's plenty of all three, but Mr. Spitzer's coronation as the next governor was helped along by early support from labor unions that will brook no cuts in their gravy train. In next-door New Jersey, Democrat Jon Corzine also ran for office promising tax cuts, then immediately pronounced a "budget crisis" and demanded higher taxes. New Yorkers can see their own future just by gazing across the border.

-- Brendan Miniter

Spitzer is Watching

2005-12-23T18:59:00.000-05:00

I checked my visitor stats today and noticed one visitor from the Attorney General's office in Albany:

So far I have not recieved any threatening phone calls.

Spitzer the Thug

2005-12-22T19:58:00.000-05:00

"It's now a war between us... I will be coming after you." - Eliot Spitzer to John Whitehead, April, 22 2005

With those words Eliot Spitzer showed exactly why he is unfit for office.

Not only did Spitzer's words show immaturity, an inability to deal with ligitimate criticism and a short temper, but Spitzer may have even criminally threatened a well respected public servant, businessman and philanthropist simply because he exercised his right to free speech and dared to criticize New York's Attorney General. (Currently Whitehead is Chairman of the board of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is tasked with rebuilding and revitalizing lower Manhattan in the wake of 9-11.)

Background

Today, after 8 months of being mum on the conversation Whitehead wrote about it in an Op-Ed in today's Wall Street Journal in order to "set the record straight."

Here is the entire article:

Scary
"It's now a war between us," Eliot Spitzer told me. "I will be coming after you."
BY JOHN C. WHITEHEAD
Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:45 p.m. EST

Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled "Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far." In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone--including Hank Greenberg--is innocent until proven guilty. "Something has gone seriously awry," I wrote, "when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America's best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way."

Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he'd been doing to others, but he wouldn't be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.

It's up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.

Analysis

The threat is unmistakable: "I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

It is something you would expect to hear from a law enforcement official in a third world dictatorship, not from the chief law enforcement official in the financial capital of the most free country in the world.

Whitehead's initial comments came as a response to Spitzer's allegations against AIG and its CEO Hank Greenberg. In a national TV interview Spitzer said of Greenberg and AIG: "The evidence is overwhelming that these were transactions created for the purpose of deceiving the market. We call that fraud. It is deceptive. It is wrong. It is illegal."

And while Spitzer has filed a civil suit based on those charges, no trial date has been set as settlement talks continue. More importantly though, Spitzer has never filed criminal charges despite his nationaly televised statement that Greenberg engaged in fraud and that Spitzer had "overwhelming" evidence to support his accusations.

Make no mistake, Spitzer acted like a thug who is better suited to the Sopranos than for public office. Maybe as the campaign nears, New Yorkers will realize that having a Governor who uses his public office and citizens tax dollars to harass and threaten those who disagree with him would not only be bad for New York, but would make the great state of New York a national embarrassement.

[Note: More attention needs to be paid to this case. So please forward this story to anyone you know since the besides the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page the traditional media outlets appear to be completely MIA.]

-----------------
UPDATE:

Through a spokesman Spizer denied Whitehead's account of the conversation, but declined to provide details of his recollection of the conversation:

Spitzer denies making these threats, spokesman Darren Dopp said, disputes Whitehead's characterization of the conversation. Spitzer further argues Whitehead was encouraged to write the pieces at the behest of Greenberg, a friend.

"This account is not accurate. It is embellished and false. (Whitehead) is simply not telling the truth," Dopp said. "It's clear Hank asked him to write a letter attacking Eliot and he did so."

This denial is classic Spitzer: He accuses Whitehead of writing the Op-ed as a favor to Greenberg but provides absolutely no evidence, and instead of providing his account of the story sends a spokesman out to the media to make baseless accusations about a man who dares to speak against him.

Spitzer's Medifraud Failure

2005-10-10T08:11:00.000-04:00

The New York Post asks: Where's Eliot while NY gets defrauded out of billions?

October 10, 2005 -- Gee, what a difference a looming elec tion can make — plus a dazzling newspaper exposé on how your of fice slept soundly when it should have been prosecuting Medicaid fraud.
Indeed, it seems that as next year's race for governor nears, state Attorney General (and presumptive governor-elect) Eliot Spitzer suddenly is jockeying to be the Elliot Ness of Medicaid fraud.

In the past two weeks, Elliot — er, that is, Eliot — announced no fewer than five cases he's been pursuing in which the state wrongfully paid Medicaid bills.

Spitzer better move fast.

Because with each passing day, the feds increasingly seem to be doing the job state law has specifically vested in his office — no, not running roughshod over Wall Street or busting payola in the retail liquor business, but searching out and prosecuting Medicaid fraud.

Read the whole article here.

New poll

2005-10-04T23:05:00.000-04:00

Democratic pollster Zogby releases the following:

New York Politician	Job Approval Rating
Gov. George Pataki	43%
Sen. Chuck Schumer	60%
Sen. Hillary Clinton	58%
A.G. Eliot Spitzer	66%

2006 Gubernatorial Match-ups
GOP Candidate	GOP %	Spitzer %
Randy Daniels	14	58
Tom Golisano	23	56
John Faso	14	59
Bill Weld	13	63

2005-10-04T23:01:00.000-04:00

The "Spitzer's Competition" part of the sidebar has been updated...

A few possible candidates were eliminated and Randy Daniels was upgraded to green as he is officially running. (Also the URL of his website was updated to www.randydaniels.com)

[Editors note: Also Spitzer Watch readers should go over and visit my new website and blog at patricksemmens.com]

Langone speaks out

2005-10-02T16:48:00.000-04:00

Ken Langone, one target of Spitzer's "investigation" into Dick Grasso's NYSE compensation package demands an apology and debunks Spitzer's allegation that members of the NYSE board were duped.

Of course Spitzer never has even addressed the fact that it seems so farfetched that anyone seen as "worthy" of a seat on the New York Stock Exchange's board is probably not going to be just tricked into approving of a compensation package that goes against their interest as a equity holder in the NYSE.) Nor has Spitzer explained why Democrat bigwig Carl McCall got a pass in this investigation.

Here are the key passages from Langone's op-ed from the W$J:

Their testimony is clear and consistent. Of the six directors deposed thus far who served on both the compensation committee and the full board, each has said they were not deceived in any way. They all confirm that, as head of the NYSE compensation committee, I provided them and the board with complete and accurate information about Mr. Grasso's proposed compensation--and that they approved it.

Pressed for examples, they cited one-on-one meetings with compensation experts, committee meetings, conference calls, comprehensive written documentation, full board meetings, as well as annual presentations I gave both to the committee and the board that included detailed handouts and unfettered opportunity for discussion and debate.

He continues:

That's why the citizens of New York have a right to demand some answers of their own. How much taxpayer money, for example, has been spent so far to finance the attorney general's boondoggle of a case? And why? Even if he were to somehow prevail, the damages would be handed not to the state but back to the owners of the Stock Exchange, millionaires one and all--myself included.

New Yorkers know when their tax dollars are being squandered. They also know what a bully looks like and how to treat one. Mr. Spitzer may be a little lightheaded from all the puff-and-fluff coverage the media give him, but voters could soon deliver a reality check at the ballot box.

Indeed.

Sued Again

2005-09-07T20:18:00.000-04:00

Eliot Spitzer has been sued again. I'll let Will Wilson of AEI's AG Watch fill you in:

The Attorney General of the State of New York, whose New York Post name is “The Spitz,” has had another suit brought against him. General Spitzer, like worsening dyspepsia, has been festering against J & W Seligman since 2002. Seligman cooperated until Spitzer’s compliance demands became despotic; Spitzer’s requirements of Seligman amounted to, as the Wall Street Journal paraphrases the suit, “effectively turning over control of the negotiation of advisory fees to an outsider and subjecting the negotiation process to the oversight and control of Mr. Spitzer’s office in perpetuity.”

The sole issue of the complaint is Seligman’s advisory fee. But the suit’s descriptions of General Spitzer are redolent of vain timocrats and heavy-handed intimidators resurrected from Mausoleum Immemorial. By the text of the complaint, Mr. Spitzer breaches the Investment Company Act of 1940 and encroaches on the jurisdiction of the SEC; between the lines of the complaint, Mr. Spitzer breaks the propriety of decent governance and trespasses the ethical boundaries of power.

Lest hopes be raised that Spitzer’s inofficiousness is rare, today’s Journal also brings Hans Bader’s response [fourth letter from the top] to NAAG’s August 31 letter to the editor. For their part, NAAG co-chairs Tom Miller and Lawrence Wasden defend the evidence that cigarette consumption has decreased since the Master Settlement Agreement took effect—which would have resulted from any tax-driven price hike. As Bader rejoins, they miss the point: whatever has taken place since the MSA, the Agreement allies government to a segregated selection of businesses, specifically, Big Tobacco. Manufacturers not party to the MSA suffer the yoke of NAAG’s codified favoritism. If such rich-over-poor discrimination were enacted in the personal sphere—a civic-fisted “seat’s taken” to those without a gold-plated bus pass—one could imagine the outrage.

Nascent outrage dissipates because Spitzer and Co. attack citizens covertly and their ill-spent bravado spreads infectiously: brutish and unjust assaults on particular companies receive applause, while we the consumer pay dearly.

[WSJ links requiring subscription omitted.]

Is Eliot Spitzer good for America?

2005-09-07T20:01:00.000-04:00

That is the question that will be answered tomorrow:

On Thursday evening, Sept. 8, at the Cornell Club in NYC (6 E. 44th), Prof. Richard Epstein will be debating former Maine attorney general James Tierney on the subject: "Is Eliot Spitzer Good for America?" The sponsor is the Federalist Society New York Lawyers' Chapter, and the moderator is Mark Smith, author of "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". Reception at 6, debate at 7; contact Mark Schuman at (212) 578-9043.

If I was still in New York city I would certainly attend...

Of course I already know the answer!

Spitzer against Price Gouging/Spitzer for Gas Rationing

2005-09-06T20:22:00.000-04:00

Last week Spitzer issued a press release stating that he would be prosecuting any gas stations found to be engaged in "price gouging."

Under the New York State General Business Law, price gouging has occurred if "the amount charged represents a gross disparity between the price of the goods or services...and their value measured by the price at which such consumer goods or services were sold or offered by sale..." Violations of this law are punishable by civil penalties of up to $10,000, and where appropriate, restitution to the aggrieved consumers.

But how then, with raised prices being outlawed, should gas stations respond to the increased demand caused by the decreased production and increased consumer demand caused by Katrina. (I should note the Spitzer is far from the only politician guilty of this. He should be held accountable, however, because he claims to be such a pro-capitalism Attorney General.)

But as pointed out in this article, all "price gouging" really represents is the market rationing gas by demand. The only alternative to price gouging, and one that Spitzer isn't talking about, is rationing like they had during the oil crisis of the late 70's.

About 12 percent of the nation’s refining capacity has been damaged and the pipelines that deliver fuel from the Gulf Coast are still mostly offline. Oil companies are carefully rationing what they have and are uncertain when the flow of gasoline from refineries might return to normal. Meanwhile, panic is driving up demand as motorists line up for gasoline out of fear that it might be a lot more expensive -- or perhaps not even available -- tomorrow. Some communities are literally seeing the pumps run dry.

So, how should we ration our limited pool of gasoline? In a free market, scarce goods are typically rationed by price. People who value gasoline most are willing to pay higher prices than those who value it less. The former get the gasoline -- the latter to some extent go without. Allocating resources to those who value them most is one very important reason why our economy outperforms economies where resources are allocated by political action...

Price controls are offered as a means to cushion the blow on the poor and to ensure a more equitable distribution of fuel.

Price controls, however, come at a cost. Lower prices result in more demand for fuel than do higher prices. That’s why the first thing we notice about price controls is that they lead to shortages. Price to the left of the intersection of the supply-and-demand curve and you are guaranteed to vaporize whatever you are attempting to keep inexpensive.

Shouldn't then Spitzer be honest with New Yorkers about what his crackdown on so-called "price gouging" really is.

"Defanged Spitzer Spares Fund Crooks Jail Time "

2005-08-30T23:02:00.000-04:00

I highly recommend this article with its fantastic headline.

"Wall Street crime buster Eliot Spitzer appears to have lost some of his fighting spirit.

On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General netted two more guilty pleas in the mutual fund trading scandal, bringing the number of individuals convicted by Spitzer's office in the two-year-old investigation to nine.

But the big news is that the plea deals negotiated by Spitzer's office with Grant Seeger and William Kenyon do not require either defendant to serve jail time. Instead, Spitzer has agreed that the former top executives of Security Trust, a defunct trust bank that processed abusive trades for two big hedge funds, can be sentenced in October to five years probation. Both men also will each pay a $50,000 fine."

Wikipedia Censorship?

2005-08-30T18:42:00.000-04:00

A month or so after creating Spitzer Watch I noticed that someone had taken the time to add me to the wikipedia entry for Eliot Spitzer. While I wasn't responsible for this addition, I do feel it was a nice source for readers of the otherwise almost exclusively pro-Spitzer wikipedia entry.

After checking my referrals recently I discovered that the link to Spitzer Watch had been deleted by wiki user: Daniel Tasripin. Mr. Tasripin, in the spirit of Wikipedia, posted his reasons and then waited one week before deleting the link. His 4 (often X-files-ish conspiratorial) reasons given for the edits are discussed later in this post.

(At this point I should apologize for what will be a long, sort of off topic post...)

As for Tasripin, he describes himself as a "unrepentant leftist" (that's in itself certainly is no reason for assuming ulterior motives to his edits) and he also has edited out criticisms of Spitzer in the past. Slightly more suspicious is the fact that a quick google search reveals that Tasripin, a student at Hunter College may be understating his partisan credentials.

It seems that this self-appointed editor of Spitzer critics was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a 2003 anti-war demonstration. (I have no idea if he is guilty but I would propose that one is at least a little extreme to put himself in a situation to be charged with assualting a police officer and that isn't some minor "nuissance charge" like disturbing the peace.)

Let me first give the 4 "reasons" he lists for deleting the link and then repond to them in italics one at a time:

Spitzer Watch is anonymous. Or in the words of Taspripin "The owner of the Spitzer Watch blog does not make any disclosure of his name (only goes by the nom de plume "Patrick"), his credentials/background, his motives, or backers."

A quick look at this charge shows the deep rooted suspicion behind his decision to delete Spitzer Watch from the links. First my pen name, "Patrick" is derived from from my first name: also "Patrick."

Second, if one really wanted to know my background/credentials (even my full name) a quick technorati search would reveal my old blog Colby and Beyond! where there are plenty of personal details, if one was so inclined to read through it all. But here's a short summary: Government Major Grad, Colby College and now I work in a PR office for a charity in DC. (Of course I always will be a New Yorker.)

Furthermore I have no "backers". (The site costs nothing to run but some free time a few times a week. That being said I can, and will, accept donations here.) As for motives, while I clearly am a critic of Spitzer, that in itself doesn't make what I write anyless true. (Sort of like how Taspirin admitting to being "leftist" does not make his edits text in the spitzer post false.) And I as a blogger know that even a blog like this that isn't widely read can be fisked at anytime to expose someone who doesn't base accusations in fact. Finally as others who have email can attest to, I do check my email and if Tasripin was really concerned about my background, backers, name or motives he could have tried that first.
"Despite the anonymity of Spitzer Watch's owner/author, it's pretty clearly an amateurish blog. The news-to-rant ratio is pretty low. In my opinion, we could probably do a lot better at linking the source materials Spitzer Watch draws from, and not Spitzer Watch itself."

This critique is amusing considering that it comes from someone who puts considerable time and effort in to editing, what could only be called the ultimate amature project. Certainly, wikipedia should not be discredited just because it was/is created by amateurs, so why should this blog? This is just an ad-hominem attack. Additionally, because Spitzer Watch is constantly being updated with factually based critiques of Spitzer this should be the perfect link for the "Critics" section of the Spitzer wikipedia entry.

As for the "news-to-rant ratio" Maybe my recollection of what a "rant" is is off, but I would suggest that my favorite way of criticizing Spitzer - simply holding him up to the standards that he sets for others - is not at all ranting because it is based in fact. Additionally, I often feel I should spend more time, not less, doing analysis of news, rather than just providing links to it.
"I've kept Spitzer Watch to one link, in an area on critics. Over the past several weeks, various anonymous IPs have come in to put in extra links (usually when there's an update on the blog). It should raise at least some suspicion that someone's putting links on here simply drive up hits to the site (which doesn't have many, according to its own site stats)."

Ahh yes, more scary anonymous editors! Again I will repeat that I don't know who added my site to the entry, but it seems likely that the same person who added it in the first place. I do agree that there should not be more than one link to Spitzer Watch on the wiki entry.

More importantly is the "I've kept..." aspect of this complaint. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort and no one entry should be edited by only one person. At least when Spizer Watch was completely deleted an effort was made to consult with the wiki-community. Tasripin seems to be implying some kind of ownership over the page by this comment: Very un-Wiki!
"Related to points 2 and 3, an anonymous IP decided to put up a link to The Spitzer Report. Comparing the two websites, there's not much material on Spitzer Report that isn't already on Spitzer Watch; the authors of both is Patrick. Having the same reports, with the same author/editor, on two different blogs raises the question of whether Patrick is trying to "corroborate" questionable reports simply by simply repeating them."

More of the x-files stuff here: In response to the anonymous aspect just see point 3.

As for the idea that having two separate sources will somehow fool people into thinking that that these are independently corroborated, that might be plausible if it wasn't so clear that the sites were linked. Notice this sentence in the post announcing the launch of Spitzer Report:
The same great Spitzer Watch content with a Drudge Report spin.
Spitzer Report is just another way of accessing Spitzer Watch content and that should be clear to anyone interested in facts. Also reinforcing that fact is that it says "visit our other site: SPITZER REPORT" on each page of Spitzer Watch.

Finally, I would like to say that I find the other "critic" links are lacking. Clearly Tasripin and the only other user to recently comment on the spitzer wiki entry - Aquillion - are not themselves critics of Spitzer and therfore might have difficulty knowing what would constitue a well done critique. Spitzer Watch is meant as a source to provide (anyone who wants it) a place to find many different ways to critique Spitzer, whether it be through original analysis I provide, or by simply sharing links I find.

I find the Alan Reynolds article and the Bloomberg article both to be very well done, but they are quite limited in scope and length. Also, the AG Watch blog by AEI that "replaced" Spitzer Watch is updated so seldomly (and even less so about Spitzer) that it gives those wanting a real critical view of Spitzer very little.

Meanwhile, Spitzer's approval rating has never gone much higher than 60%, so where on the wiki entry are the views of these other 40% of New Yorkers?

If I had more time I would do some exensive edits to expand upon the Criticisms of Spitzer as Attorney General section myself. But since I don't, until that section of the entry is greatly improved and expanded upon, I will just replace the link to Spitzer Watch that was deleted.

Take a Spitzer Report poll

2005-08-28T21:56:00.000-04:00

The SPITZER REPORT is running a poll. Go vote and then check out the results.

Eliots Endorsement Payola

2005-08-19T20:41:00.000-04:00

Spitzer has gotten much press for his investigations and lawsuits criticizing conflicts of interest within the banking and financial industry.

But one obvious conflict of interest has not gotten any attention from the hyper-litigating AG is that of the labor owned bank Amalgamated Bank. Amalgamated is owned by the labor union Unite-Here.

According to the NY Sun the "New York-based bank that regularly loans money to unions is also owned by a hotel and laundry workers union."

Given the standard used in other Spitzer investigations (witchhunts?) Unite-Here should already have settled after a relentless Spitzer publicity campaign.

Instead Amalagated owner, Unite-Here, issued a statement ENDORSING SPITZER:

UNITE HERE announces its endorsement of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 New York State Governor’s race today. The union represents more than 100,000 apparel, textile, hospitality and other workers and retirees throughout the state of New York. The candidate will join UNITE HERE members and leaders at rallies in Rochester and New York City to accept the endorsement of UNITE HERE and its affiliates in the state.

Like Carl McCall, who got a pass for his roll in Grasso's $187 million NYSE bonus because Spitzer needed McCall's help in his run for the governorship, UNITE-HERE hasn't felt the heat from Spitzer either after a timely endorsement.

BREAKING: Weld to Run Against Spitzer

2005-08-19T00:07:00.000-04:00

Friday's NY Times reports Weld has decided to run:

William F. Weld, the colorful former Republican governor of Massachusetts, said yesterday that he planned to run for the same job in New York next year, hoping his platform of tax cuts and social liberalism will make him the first two-state leader since Sam Houston.

Mr. Weld, a native New Yorker who is now an investment adviser in Manhattan, said he had been encouraged to run by former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, an old friend, among others. Karl Rove, the White House political adviser, who worked for Mr. Weld in the 1990's, had also told him to consider running against Eliot Spitzer, the likely Democratic nominee, and the two men agreed that Mr. Spitzer was beatable, according to New York Republicans told about the exchange.

Yet Mr. Weld, who is barely known in New York outside of fund-raising, society and political circles, said his desire to run came strictly from "personal motivation" and a belief that New Yorkers had come to like moderate, tax-cutting Republican leaders.

"My juices are really flowing for this race, and I want to return to public service," Mr. Weld said in a telephone interview from Kentucky, where he was on business with his firm, Leeds Weld & Company.

With Gov. George E. Pataki stepping down next year and the Republican nomination wide open, Mr. Weld's affable and unpredictable brand of politics - he once dived fully clothed into the Charles River to show that it was clean - could prove an intriguing match for Mr. Spitzer, the popular state attorney general.

Of course SPITZER REPORT has had this since Wednesday Night.

Spitzer's Bad Company: Ferrer

2005-08-18T20:14:00.000-04:00

After the NYC mayoral debate Spitzer spent some time with Freddy Ferrer who he sort of endorsed in the spring.

Ferrer of course made the unfortunate comments about the Amadou Diallo when he told a group of police officers that the shooting of Mr. Diallo wasn't a crime.

Spitzer distanced himself back then but now the man chiefly responsible for enforcing laws in NY State is campaigning with a man who can't decide if the Diallo shooting was wrong or not.

Grasso Stands Firm

2005-08-18T18:41:00.000-04:00

The likelyhood of a settlement between Dick Grasso and Eliot Spitzer regarding Grasso's $ 187 million compensation became even less likely when Grasso commented on the case:

Current NYSE chief exec John Thain is willing to settle if the former chairman gives back $25 million, Newsweek reported on its Web site Tuesday.

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer brought the suit against Grasso last year on behalf of the Big Board and would ultimately make that decision, not the NYSE.

"I have no interest in any settlement where I would give any money back to the exchange," said Grasso in response to the Newsweek article. "A nickel is an admission on my part that I did something wrong. I will never do that."

With the suit now likely to go to trial Carl McCall is now likely to testify about his role in the compensation package.

THE SPITZER REPORT

2005-08-18T00:15:00.000-04:00

Spitzer Watch is proud to announce the Launch of:

The same great Spitzer Watch content with a Drudge Report spin.

Bookmark www.SpitzerReport.Blogspot.com Today!

Can the GOP really challenge Spitzer?

2005-08-14T12:53:00.000-04:00

Today's editorial in Newsday questions the NY Republican parties readiness to compete with the Democrats in statewide elections:

[T]he absence of a compelling Republican willing to run for governor when Pataki steps down is also discouraging to those who don't want the state to slip into one-party control.

With big-name Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg unwilling to seek state office, it's up to lesser lights to fill the void. This page hopes Sen. Michael Balboni (R-East Williston) runs for attorney general (the Democratic incumbent is running for governor). Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue, another GOP moderate, should consider stepping up.

If and when they do, Republican leaders should be interested in more than just dimming Democrat Clinton's star for a future national race. They must generously help the party's next generation that, frankly, to Pataki's particular discredit, has not been well groomed to rise.

I agree. It seems that New York Republicans fit into one of two categories:

Presidential Hopefuls or No-Names

Think about it. Where are the "in between NY Republicans" who want to lead New York and actually have a chance at winning state-wide election.

Maybe Jeannie Pirro can be that person but taking on Hillary is more likely to set her up for the future.
Rudy has had his eye the White House since he became "America's Mayor" and of the bunch he is the only one who might make a formidable presidential contendor one day.
Pataki is under the delusion that his run for the White House in 2008 has a chance of going anywhere. How he thinks he can win a Republican Primary is beyond me: if Republicans want a "moderate" nominee they will go for John McCain.
And I can't see Bloomberg leaving NYC. He's barely a Republican (I would venture to say that he isn't anywhere but in New York) and unless the capital of New York moves from Albany to Manhattan or the Hamptons I just don't see him spending that much time in Albany.

That leaves a bunch of no names who have little chance to win a State wide election anytime soon. Meaning that the odds of a strong challenger to Spitzer in 06 are slim and none.

A shame too since there is so much to criticize him for!

Pirro to the Senate

2005-08-09T23:52:00.000-04:00

With Jeanine Pirro announcing that she will be challenging Hillary for the NY Senate seat one of Spitzer's toughest potential challengers is now out of the picture.

It is too bad too since she was the (with the exception maybe of Giuliani) the one who could best go toe to toe with Spitzer on legal issues. Pirro had experience as a District Attorney and, from what I've read about her, could have made a strong case that unlike Spitzer she didn't politicize law enforcement.

So anyway, with Pirro out its looking like Golisano is most likely to get the nomination. That is unless Rudy comes riding to the rescue.

Slap Happy Spitzer

2005-08-09T23:29:00.000-04:00

Spitzer announced a settlement in an investigation of a "slapping contest"held on NYC radio station "Hot 97":

Spitzer and the state Athletic Commission stated that the hip-hop and rhythm and blues station held 24 "Smackfest" contests from April 2004 to January 2005. Young women took turns "violently slapping" each other for concert tickets and as much as $5,000 in cash, Spitzer said. Images of the slapping then ran on the station's Web site.

"This agreement should be a wake up call to all those in the entertainment industry who think outrageousness is a clever marketing strategy," Spitzer said. "The law establishes set boundaries that cannot be crossed to protect our community's health and safety."

So Spitzer doesn't have time investigate Democratic NY City Council Speaker Gifford Miller's illegal wasting of taxpayer money or to ensure that judges are legally sworn in to office but he does have time to settle a quarter of a million suit with a radio station for holding contests where consenting adults slapped each other for concert tickets!

It would make a great satire if it weren't true. What's next? A press conference when Eliot collects a speeding fine?

Should AIG shareholders sue Spitzer?

2005-08-04T21:40:00.000-04:00

The lead editorial in today's Wall $treet Journal makes the point that compared to any alleged mismanagement by former AIG exec Hank Greenberg, Eliot Spitzer has done far more damage to AIG shareholder value.

This begs the question: Why don't AIG shareholders sue Eliot Spitzer?

Spitzer has in public said Mr. Greenberg committed "fraud" that was "illegal" and caused AIG's share price to plummet!

The damage to shareholder value caused by Spitzer's investigation (and PR campaign) was predictable. More importantly, if what the Journal's portrayal* of the "white paper" released by Greenberg's lawyers (lead by David Boies) is accurate, then Spitzer was reckless in making accusations against the former AIG executive.

Furthermore the Journal writes "it (the "white paper") makes a compelling case that AIG's new management took financial decisions detrimental to shareholders - and for no other purpose then to shift blame to past management and kowtow to Mr. Spitzer."

If the facts are correct* then it seems Spitzer knowingly damaged the AIG share price with false information in a reckless manner.

If true, Spitzer's culpability here is far clearer then many the cases the AG has tried in the media and eventually settled. So Mr. Boise, if you read this the answer is simple: COUNTER-SUE! (And given the thousands of AIG shareholders, it should be no problem getting the lawsuit classified as class action.)

------------------
*Of course I would like to see for myself and have personally put in a request into Mr. Greenberg's attorneys.

Polls Update

2005-08-04T21:17:00.000-04:00

With Pataki's departure the Republican nomination is now wide open. Newsday released polling data on possible Republicans challengers and even some with no possibility of running:

The Quinnipiac poll had Spitzer leading Bloomberg, 51 percent to 34 percent; ahead of Pirro, 59 percent to 21 percent; and leading Weld, 60 percent to 16 percent.

There has also been some talk of billionaire Rochester businessman B. Thomas Golisano, the three-time losing candidate for governor of the Independence Party, running in 2006 as a Republican. The poll had Spitzer leading Golisano, 58 percent to 22 percent.

The article does note that Giuliani, were he to run, would beat Spitzer 49 percent to 42.

P.S. Again the break in blogging is because I have moved down to DC and started my job. I'm currently staying with friends and haven't moved into my own place yet so posts will continue to be sporadic.

New Polls: Pataki Numbers Up, Spitzer Down Slightly

2005-07-20T16:52:00.000-04:00

Newsday reports that Pataki's favorability rating is 52%. That represents his highest rating in months and a huge improvement from the pathetic low of 23% in May.

This just after Pataki's trip to Iowa for the Governor's Association meeting that also included Pataki mulling the possibility of a Presidential run in 2008.

In a head to head matchup Spitzer continues to lead but the gap closed 1 point from the last poll:

Spitzer: 49%
Pataki: 37%

Pataki's 37 percent is the same as he polled last month while Spitzer fell 1 point from 50%.

The article also notes another possible opponent for Spitzer:

There has been some talk in GOP circles of the party turning to Rochester billionaire B. Thomas Golisano as a candidate for governor if Pataki doesn't seek a fourth term. The new poll found Spitzer beating Golisano, 52 percent to 26 percent, if the businessman were on the GOP line.

Golisano (a new addition to the Spitzer's Competition sidebar) has unsuccessfully run for governor three times as the Independence Party candidate and as the billionaire owner of the Buffalo Sabres he would be able to spend large amounts of his own money on the race. Newsday notes that in 2002 Golisano "spent $75 million of his own money... and finished a distant third with just 14 percent of the vote."

Miller's Illegal Mailings

2005-07-20T00:38:00.000-04:00

Much has been made of the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and the political nature of NY City Council Speaker Gifford Miller's $1.6 million mailing. (That's almost $1.6 million more than the $37,000 it was supposed to cost!)

While wasteful spending in the form of franking is always deserving of public criticism, breaking the law is grounds for legal action and as the NY Sun editorial today makes clear Miller did cross the line from wasteful incumbent to law breaker:

There's no doubt that Mr. Miller's mailings were misleading and unacceptably political, which is why council members and government watchdog groups have criticized him for abusing the franking process. Even worse, the massive printing job was divided into 150 smaller jobs to avoid the competitive bidding process that city procurement rules would require of a larger project. Those rules also say that work "shall not be artificially divided" to avoid that process.

With Miller having broken the law it now falls to Spitzer to as Attorney General to hold Miller -a fellow democrat- accountable. Something he has been unwilling to do in the past.

Spitzer's Lack of Cooperation with Feds Hurting Investigations

2005-07-19T17:34:00.000-04:00

Today's Insurance Journal has an interesting article about the lack of cooperation between parallel justice department and NY Attorney General's office investigations:

Federal securities and justice department officials and lawyers from the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who are pursuing parallel investigations of the insurance industry, have made separate deals with witnesses that harm the other's cases and have generally stopped cooperating with each other since early May, according to a report in the Washington Post citing people familiar with the cases and legal experts.

The article went on to say that Spitzer's side negotiations with one potential witness lead to the cancelling of a joint meeting:

One joint interview with an unidentified witness was canceled after the Securities and Exchange Commission learned that Spitzer had previously met with the witness's lawyer and discussed a deal, according to the report.

Is it any wonder that Spitzer was sued by the Feds?

Spitzer Fails to Do His (Actual) Job

2005-07-18T00:59:00.000-04:00

The Empire Journal recently highlighted Eliot Spitzer's failure to do his basic duty and notes:

Eliot Spitzer wants to be Governor of the State of New York.

But if he can’t objectively, fairly and uniformly handle the job as Attorney General of the state, why would he expect anyone to vote for him to be Governor.

The editorial notes that an astonishing...

90% of judges in New York State are illegally in office!:

When the New York State Oaths Project undertook a survey of the 3,300 judges in the state of New York to determine their compliance with the law and to learn just how many of them were legally in office, the results were shocking. Over 90% of the state’s judiciary were illegally in office, illegally plucking a paycheck and benefits from the pockets of taxpayers of New York while they weren’t even legally in office and had absolutely no jurisdiction to find that others had violated the law, to send people to jail and make decisions that would forever impact the lives of others.

Two years ago, a nearly 400-page bound tome of evidence that judges across the state, particularly town and village justices, were not legally in office and were engaged in a fraud upon the public, was hand-delivered to the office of Eliot Spitzer. Short of a form letter acknowledging the receipt, Spitzer didn’t even have the courtesy to respond to the fact that the state’s judiciary was a society of a black-robed lawbreakers. He in fact condoned their violation of the law and allowed their continued non-compliance.

Actually he did more than that... he wants to give them raises!

Greenberg vs. Spitzer

2005-07-18T00:14:00.000-04:00

Possibly emboldened by the Sihpol Verdict, AIG ex-chied Hank Greenberg is fighting back against Spitzer's attempts to try the case in the media by publicly commenting on the case himself. Houston lawyer and blogger Tom Kirkendall has covered this case well and reports the following:

In his comments -- which reportedly drew applause at least once -- Mr. Greenberg promised at least one "white paper" that will rebut AIG's restatement of five years worth of earnings and the allegations of accounting improprieties that Mr. Spitzer has made in a civil-fraud lawsuit against Mr. Greenberg and AIG. Mr. Greenberg stated that the white paper would be sent to regulators and then made available to the public.

Mr. Greenberg also advised his audience that AIG's previous accounting for the compensation that Starr International provided to AIG executives had been reviewed and approved by AIG's legal and accounting advisers. Moreover, when AIG board members raised questions about using Starr International as a compensation vehicle, Mr. Greenberg stated that he offered to put the issue to a vote of AIG shareholders, but that the AIG board declined to do so. Finally, Mr. Greenberg stated that a 2003 letter from an outside law firm advised AIG that its disclosure of the Starr International compensation plan in regulatory filings was appropriate.

Conflict of Interest: Lawyers For Spitzer

2005-07-13T02:39:00.000-04:00

Spitzer's campaign website seems to encourage conflicts of interest by specifically soliciting lawyers for their support.

While no other occupation (except maybe student if that qualifies) has its own group, the main page of Spitzer2006.com has a link encouraging lawyers to join Lawyers for Spitzer.

The Lawyers for Spitzer page even includes a pre written email that those who join can use to solicit money from their fellow lawyers:

We all have to play a role in New York’s future and the beginning of real reform in our state. No matter where you live in the United States, the reality is that political campaigns cost a lot of money. If we want real reform in New York – one of the “big four” states – we must actively campaign for Eliot to be our next governor in New York.

Furthermore the possibility that lawyers might have professional dealings with the NY Attorney General's office is completely overlooked on the page through which donors can contribute online. Instead only a small checkbox next to the the following statement serves to monitor conflicts of interest:

By making this contribution I am notifying Spitzer 2006 that to the best of my knowledge neither I nor any corporation which I own or currently control has any matter presently pending with the New York State Attorney General’s office.

Without any mention of employees in this "Contributor's Pledge" it leaves open real ethical concerns because lawyers who might have dealings with the AG's office are free to give the Attorney General $16,200 in the primary and $33,900 in the general election.

But, could over $50,000 in campaign contributions mean special influence from the Attorney General's office?

Certainly it would seem that Spitzer's calls for lowering the individual contribution limit suggest that he thinks it might.

Outlawing Basic Business Strategies?

2005-07-13T00:43:00.000-04:00

As someone with experience in a Washington PR department there are basic rules that you learn very quickly. One of them is if you are trying to get media coverage, don't have an event late in the week.

Of course the opposite is also true: if you don't want coverage then a Friday press conference is just what you want to place newspaper coverage on the barely read Saturday paper and television coverage on the Saturday news.

And the same basic principle drives business...

In an article Tuesday on CFO.com Eliot Spitzer's newest attempt to stifle business is examined:

Spitzer's settlement pertained solely to equity analysts who intentionally published false and misleading reports with the aim of benefiting their employer's clients. Cifuentes' complaint reportedly focused on Wachovia's attempt to influence the timing of his reports, both to raise the profile of Wachovia deals and to please the firm's clients.

If AG (Attorney General or is it Aspiring Governor?) Spitzer does decide that timing news to raise the profile of one's company or increase your business is illegal then he would be condemning the most basic common-sense business practice.

Also we would have to expect that in the future Spitzer won't time news to maximize its effect...

So the next time Spitzer calls in a favor to secure an endorsement in a late night meeting or in the shadow of a bigger story should we expect him to call a press conference despite it being 10:30 pm or Super Bowl Sunday?

To not do so would be hypocritical!

Spitzer Sued by the Feds

2005-07-12T23:46:00.000-04:00

There has been surprisingly little attention paid to lawsuit recently
filed by the Federal Government against AG Spitzer:

"The suit aims to stop Eliot Spitzer's investigation of potential discriminatory lending by the nation's leading banks. The Comptroller of Currency, who oversees banking for the Treasury Department, and a banking trade group, the Clearing House Association, said in their suit the banks were subject to federal and not state regulation.

The attorney general's office is investigating community group claims that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to get higher cost mortgage loans."

What I find interesting about the entire investigation that Spitzer is running is that even if "blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to get higher cost mortgage loans" it doesn't necessarily follow that race is a factor in how banks give out loans.

While I only took intro econ classes in college and never had a mortgage even I know that higher credit risk would lead to higher rates and that income would certainly to be a factor in credit ratings for a bank making an individual a large loan (like a mortgage). That being said couldn't the obvious answer be that blacks and hispanics simply have less income (according to recent census data) and thus the lender must balance that risk with higher rates?

In other words, perhaps bankers who give higher mortgage rates to those with lower incomes (who are disproportionately black and hispanic) is doing so because the alternative is not giving them a mortgage at all.

All this forces any reasonable person to conclude that there is a political motive behind this investigation. If that is the case, then Spitzer has taken the cynical approach that it is politically advantageous to make a false yet visible stand in support of blacks and hispanics (even when such a stance actually may hurt those it pretends to help), when the alternative is to do nothing at all.

As for the lack of coverage of the lawsuit against Spitzer, the reason is quite simple: Unlike suits filed by Spitzer, the Feds are confident enough to try the case in the courts, rather than the media. That and they don't have Spitzer's pizzazz for creating media attention or his ambition for higher office.

-------------------------
Here's the video of the report on NY1:
Dial Up / Broadband (Real Media)

Rethinking Conflicts of Interest

2005-07-11T10:05:00.000-04:00

The current issue of Regulation Magazine includes an interesting article questioning common assumptions about the effects of conflict by asking the question:

Can stock analysts’ conflicts of interest benefit investors?

and suggests that in can...

Author, James C. Spindler essentially makes the point that the very inside information that makes the conflicted stock analyst "conflicted" is what makes his analysis of a stock more valuable to investors and that the independent analyst is so independent he can offer no information of value.

Expressing such a viewpoint is probably considered criminal by AG Spitzer. (Then again he dose conveniently ignore his own CONFLICTS OF INTEREST)

The entire article can be found in pdf form here.

[P.S. The long break in posting was due to a now successful job search that will relocate me to Washington, DC. Now that it is mostly settled expect more frequent updates.]

Spitzer Losing Ground: Court Loss Spurs Poll Drop

2005-06-16T10:34:00.000-04:00

Newsday reports the gap between Pataki and Spitzer is closing with a 10 point swing:

Pataki 37%
Spitzer 50%

This just after Spitzer's big setback as he lost his case against Bank of America broker, Theodore Sihpol:

A jury of seven women and five men in Manhattan acquitted Mr.Sihpol, 37, of 29 counts of larceny, securities fraud, and falsifying business records following six days of deliberations. The jury deadlocked on four counts, leading New York State Supreme Court Justice James Yates to declare a partial mistrial.

The acquittal imperils three similar Spitzer prosecutions scheduled for trial in the fall. Mr. Sihpol's trial was the first to arise from Mr. Spitzer's investigation of mutual fund trading and may encourage other accused executives to go to trial rather than settle, as most have during a series of inquiries by his office into the financial industry over the past three years.

Spitzer's Defeat

2005-06-10T11:15:00.000-04:00

The WSJ has a great editorial on Spitzer's defeat in the Siphol Case in which Mr. Sihpol's defense team was so confident in its case that it didn't call a single witness.

More coverage of this case to come.

Alexander Hamilton on Eliot Spitzer

2005-06-08T22:53:00.000-04:00

AEI's Federalism Project released a paper titled "Government by Indictment" written by Michael Greve who apparently succinctly (and correctly) considers Eliot Spitzer to be "a trial lawyer with a badge". After reading James Tierney’s description I thought I might like it (and I did).

This paper is important because it refutes Eliot Spitzer's contention that Federalism justifies his continuous intrusions into what should be the SEC's territory.

The abstract reads the following way:

"Government by Indictment" provides a critical analysis of national policymaking by state attorneys general. Increasingly, state AG investigations and prosecutions of major corporations go beyond the objective of punishing individual wrongdoing, or even of changing the conduct of corporate entities. Nowadays, many AG campaigns--which increasingly take the form of multistate actions--attempt to form the internal operations and business models of major American industries.

To that end, attorneys general file indictments that are designed to exact settlements from defendants who cannot afford to bet the company. "Government by Indictment" is a fitting description of this style of law enforcement. The adverse consequences of AG activism reach beyond mere economics; they affect the integrity of American political institutions at all levels. Unchecked AG activism will spell: The re-regulation of major sectors of the U.S. economy; The cartelization of major American industries; The increased dominance of the plaintiffs bar over American politics; and Substantial wealth transfers from productive enterprises to plaintiffs lawyers and advocacy organizations with an aggressive agenda to re-regulate the economy.

In the conclusion Greve gives his spin on what American Founder and Federalist Papers author Alexander Hamilton would have thought of Eliot Spitzer:

The great Hamilton did not know Eliot Spitzer, but he knew the type. Listen to the AGs’ hysterical protests against the most modest attempts to preempt extraterritorial exercises of state authority: does not Hamilton’s prediction that state officials will “resist” the Constitution sound quaintly understated? Consider the befuddled response—by Congress, by the courts, by corporate interests, by legal scholars—to the AGs’ states’ rights cant: can one doubt that the AGs have already “aggrandized themselves by the confusions of their country”? And what are the various multistate settlements and investigations, from the MSA to General Spitzer’s ad-hoc global warming coalition, but so many single- purpose “partial confederacies.”

For the foreseeable future, state AGs will continue to serve as the favored access point for regulatory enthusiasms. Their doors are always open for business of this sort, and they confront no serious institutional obstacles. A return to the constitutional order, if it is to occur at all, will require the patient work of a generation, not merely a few well-funded lawsuits or lobbying campaigns. It will require a hard-nosed recognition that the AGs, like the state demagogues of Hamilton’s days, cannot be appeased; they have to be confronted. That confrontation ought to proceed from a candid, clear-eyed appreciation of what AG activism is and what it is not.

AG activism is not “devolution” or decentralization. It is rather a formally decentralized process that systematically yields uniform, centralizing policies, of a kind that the central political institutions themselves have declined to adopt. To state that empirical observation is to recognize the system’s absurdity.

Spitzer's Competition

2005-06-06T22:08:00.000-04:00

Check out the newest addition to the side bar showing other politicians who have been named as possibly candidates for the 2006 gubernatorial race.

As the status of any of them change I will update the projections of likely running, possibly running, and those whom I consider to have a outside chance at running.

More on why I placed politicians in certain categories in the coming days.

Spitzer's Mysterious Ferrer Endorsement

2005-06-06T19:28:00.000-04:00

The Daily News reports that two months after promised, Spitzer still has yet to have a news conference announcing his endorsement of mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer. The Daily News notes:

"That's prompted observers to wonder if Spitzer, who's running for governor next year, is keeping Ferrer at arm's length after flaps surrounding his Diallo comments and his stock-transfer tax proposal."

For more on Ferrer's Diallo comment read this NY Times article.

Suozzi's Profile Continues to Grow

2005-06-05T15:16:00.000-04:00

Both the Daily News and Newsday ran AP articles about Suozzi posing a problem for Spitzer's run. The Daily News article notes:

"the Suozzi factor hovers like a dark cloud over state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's plans to run for governor."

The articles also note the continued pressure being applied by McCall for Suozzi not to run including an interesting statement from McCall dennouncing primaries:

"The primary hurt. There were two Democrats going to the same sources for money. I had to divide money with my Democratic opponent," McCall said, referring to the challenge he faced from ex-federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo.

"Primaries are always bad," added McCall.

While there is no doubt that the heated primary hurt McCall when he challenged Pataki, contested primaries can have many positive aspects, such as ending up with the strongest possible candidate, and one who has proven their ability to campaign and fundraise.

Of course what really is telling about McCall's comment is that he would prefer a return to the Tammany Hall days when candidates were annointed by party bosses rather than chosen by the people. Obviously since McCall owes Spitzer (who gave McCall a pass during the Grasso NYSE investigation), if it were up to McCall, Spitzer would be annointed the Democratic nominee without asking Democrats to vote in a primary.

Spitzer in the News

2005-06-04T11:21:00.000-04:00

Business Week:
Spitzer May Get His Day in Court
Under fire, he finds himself facing a most tenacious foe: Ex-AIG boss Hank Greenberg

"the crusading New York Attorney General has shown himself a master at trying cases in the court of public opinion.

Spitzer's modus operandi is now familiar: Call in TV crews to announce a lawsuit with sweeping allegations of wrongdoing. It's been a hugely successful formula."

LA Times:
It's Déjà Vu: Eliot Spitzer Has His Eye on a Bigger Prize

"Michael Milken was a California target, so future political fundraising efforts within the New York investment banking community were not threatened by strong action against him...

don't be lulled into thinking he is doing it for the little guy."

WSJ: Spitzer Calls in Favor from McCall

2005-06-03T10:38:00.000-04:00

Tom Suozzi has become a thorn in Eliot Spitzer's side and now Spitzer's past political favors to fellow Democrat Carl McCall is paying off to help Spitzer deal with a potential Suozzi run.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorializes (subscription required) about former Pataki challenger Carl McCall's warning (or should we say threat) to Suozzi not to challenge Spitzer in the Democratic Primary from yesterday's NY Times:

"Tom already has his problems in the party, and a primary run would drain resources, create divisions and not be well received," said H. Carl McCall, the Democrats' last nominee for governor, who has warned Mr. Suozzi about the 2002 primary fight with Andrew Cuomo that cost Mr. McCall millions.

"I've told Tom, and others have told him, that he should forgo the race," Mr. McCall added.

"He has a real future in this party. A run against Eliot Spitzer, especially if it goes badly, could harm Tom's career, maybe permanently."

Back in May 2005, Spitzer was widely criticized for giving McCall a pass while pursuing NYSE head Dick Grasso for his "excessive" $187 million pay package that McCall approved. At the time McCall was the head of the compensation committee and other committee members felt he was to blame because he "didn’t do enough work in preparing the committee to vote on the pay deal".

When Grasso refused to back down The Economist described Grasso's countersuit and Spitzer's own conflicts the following way:

Mr Grasso has not taken this lawsuit lying down. He has tried to turn the tables on Mr Spitzer, saying that the decision by the Democratic attorney-general to sue “smacks of politics”. In particular, Mr Grasso has asserted that Mr Spitzer chose not to go after Carl McCall, a fellow Democrat who had chaired the exhange's compensation committee, or the “powerful CEOs who voted for my compensation year after year [because] Mr Spitzer is running for governor, and running hard”. Mr Grasso is also reported by the Wall Street Journal to be threatening to bill the exchange for his legal fees under an indemnity clause in his employment contract.

The Wall Street Journal nicely sums up Spitzer's conflict in its editorial titled "A Friend in Need":

The decision to spare Mr. McCall looked selective and suspicious to everyone who understood Mr. Spitzer's gubernatorial ambitions and his desire to please party elders when it looked like Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer might also enter the race. Mr. Schumer later decided against a run, but now we have Mr. McCall riding to Spitzer's rescue to help fend off a different primary challenger. A friend indeed.

Eliot Spitzer's numerous conflicts of interest are becoming the theme of his campaign. While there is nothing he can do about his past conflicts (thought the NY voters hopefully will see that they make him unfit to hold the Governor's office) Spitzer Watch continues to call for Spitzer to resign from his position as NY Attorney General.

Flashback: Spitzer's Toilet Investigation

2005-06-02T17:41:00.000-04:00

October 8, 2004

Spitzer Watch wasn't around when this news hit but one can only imagine the potential for great headlines:

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Thursday an investigation showed that attendants in upscale New York City restaurants were not receiving any wages and in fact were paying for the privilege of mining tips in bathrooms in exchange for providing toiletries and a hand towel.
Spitzer filed a $4 million lawsuit against Royal Flush, the city's main placement service for bathroom attendants. Company officials were unavailable to comment.

Source: Professor Bainbridge (originally from CNN)

"Spitzer Left His Balls in the Parking Lot"

2005-06-02T13:23:00.000-04:00

(You can't make that headline up!)

San Francisco Attorney Ray Bourhis criticizes Spitzer sharply for acting not in the interest of justice but in order to generate good press coverage:

“Spitzer fined the company $15 million – which is like fining you and me 45 cents. It is totally ridiculous... It sounds good for the press release, but it is bs."

Now we have seen both corporate lobbyists and anti-industry critics take Spitzer to task for ignoring his duty of seeking justice in the courts and instead using the media to generate publicity with the goal of furthering his political career.

Spitzer Holds Big Money Fundraiser in New Mexico

2005-06-02T12:57:00.000-04:00

Anti-Corporate crusader and walking conflict of interest Eliot Spitzer held a $500 per person fundraising dinner with New Mexico Governor and Democratic Governors' Association chairman Bill Richardson.

Questions:

Do any of these big money donors have connections to Wall Street? Could such companies be investigasted by Spitzer in his position as NY Attorney General?

Suozzi Gaining Dem Support for Gov Race?

2005-06-02T12:46:00.000-04:00

Nassau County Executive and possible Spitzer primary opponent Thomas Suozzi could be gaining support from NY Democrats for a run at the Governorship.

Central NY NBC affiliate WSTM reports the Spitzer campaign is upset at Democratic Rural Conference Chair, Stuart Brody, for supporting Suozzi.

A.I.G. Exec Caves to Spitzer

2005-05-14T03:14:00.000-04:00

The NY Times reports that Spitzer's media campaign against insurance giant AIG is working.

I don't have a problem with illegal business practices being prosecuted, but I do have aproblem with Spitzer trying companies in the media rather than the courts, so as to increase his political profile.

Also, isn't that the job of the SEC?

Eliot's Eminent Domain position attacked on his own website

2005-05-13T13:34:00.000-04:00

The message boards on Spitzer2006.com area buzzing with those criticizing Spitzer’s support for Bruce Ratner’s planned development that includes the new New Jersey Nets Arena. It is quite a sweetheart deal for Ratner (read about it here).

Here is Spitzer's statement on the project:

I'm all for the development in Brooklyn, Bruce Ratner's plan, it is a spectacular development, it needs to be built, it should be built quickly, it will revitalize a critically underused portion of Brooklyn, right now, it'll build housing, it will generate jobs, tax revenue. It is a spectacular project and I think we should move forward on it immediately.

One of the posts on his site sums up Spitzer’s support of corporate backroom dealings nicely:

It's interesting that Spitzer has come out against the West Side stadium and in favor of the Brooklyn arena/land grab. Both involve secret backroom deals and abuse of taxpayer money. The difference is that the Brooklyn arena is worse in a couple ways, since it involves the abuse of Eminent Domain. But the other political difference is that Cablevision has put in millions of corporate dollars to oppose the West Side stadium, and the opposition to the Brooklyn project is completely grass-roots. So I guess it's easier for Spitzer to take a moral stand when he can get corporate backing for it.

See the many, many criticism of Spitzer’s support of the Ratner project here.

Develop Don't Destroy the organization created by those who will be kicked out of their homes because of eminent domain has more good information.

Potential Gov Opponent takes on Spitzer

2005-05-13T11:44:00.000-04:00

"You'll not create jobs by suing every employer out of the state of New York. Being a good governor is about more than reading e-mail and telling a staffer to go file a lawsuit."

The Times Union reports that possible 2006 Governor or Senate candidate Patrick Manning had some harsh words for Spitzer at speech he gave to the New York Young Republicans:

Assemblyman Patrick Manning, a Hudson Valley Republican considered a possible statewide candidate in 2006, on Wednesday accused Democratic gubernatorial candidate state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of trying to "sue his way" into the governor's office.
"You'll not create jobs by suing every employer out of the state of New York," Manning said during a speech in Manhattan to the New York Young Republicans. "Being a good governor is about more than reading e-mail and telling a staffer to go file a lawsuit."

[...]

But he had plenty of criticism for Spitzer, who, Manning said, had so far not revealed enough about his positions on issues like Medicaid and education reform and economic development.

PCI's Csiszar Accuses Spitzer of 'Corporate Terrorism' and of Ignoring Own Conflicts

2005-05-12T13:32:00.000-04:00

Insurance Journal reports that someone has decided to stand up to Spitzer's "McCarthy-like tactics":

Ernie Csiszar, president and chief executive officer of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said Spitzer is unfairly using the threat of jail and a "trial by media" against business executives and that Spitzer's avowed political ambitions taint his prosecutorial positions...

"Spitzer has discovered the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't Saddam Hussein; it was Spitzer's corporate terrorism, the threat of an indictment, the threat of going to jail...

"If Spitzer is out to eradicate conflict of interest which he seems to be doing, he should look in his own mirror in the morning and question his own conflict of interest," Csiszar charged. "Here you have a prosecutor who has clearly expressed his lust for political power by declaring himself as a candidate for the governor of New York.

"There are some of us who think, not without good reason, who think that his ambitions go beyond that. The governor of New York historically has not been a bad place to begin a run for the presidency at some point down the road. I think that Spitzer is positioning himself for that. The reality of it is that in and of itself, in comparison to his prosecutorial position, truly creates a conflict of interest and what is the punishment for that?"

He added, "This smacks of McCarthyism, and I am sorry, that is not what America is all about."

It is about time someone fights back against Spitzer's smear machine rather then just settling out of fear.

Read the entire article here.

Spitzer's Anti-Poor Stance on Mortgage Practices

2005-05-11T12:08:00.000-04:00

Jay Bryant exposes the damage that Spitzer's war against sub-prime mortgage loans has done:

What these lenders do is make mortgage loans -- at relatively high interest -- to people who can't qualify for mortgages at lower rates. "The development of the sub-prime market has made mortgages (and home ownership) available to a segment of the population that otherwise would have been shut out of the market," says Wharton Professor and highly respected mortgage columnist Jack M. Guttentag...

Suppose then (and it is undoubtedly the case) that minority families are disproportionately represented among those unable to qualify for the "A" rating which is the standard for the best rates. They also want to own their own homes. But past credit problems, lack of assets, inability to make substantial down payments and other factors make them a greater risk. Without the sub-prime lending industry, they would be unable to get a mortgage, and forced to continue renting, with all that means for their inability to build equity and otherwise improve their financial situation. Remember, for many who have poor credit, or even no credit, the Federal government even considers the risk too high to guarantee the loan.

And then suggests how Spitzer could actually use his AG office for some good:

If Spitzer wanted to do some good in the process, he could use his office to increase awareness among consumers of the value of comparison shopping, in regard to mortgages or anything else, for that matter, and a healthy skepticism about sales offers that come in over the transom, particularly the virtual transom of email. That would be a consumerist act with significant benefits for the people he supposedly cares about.

The threat Spitzer represents is very real, but its victims are not the ones he pretends to threaten. If the bankers who got Spitzer's letters don't make money by sub-prime lending, you may be sure they will find another way to make it. But whether the low-income family trying to climb the ladder to prosperity through home ownership can find another way to make it -- that is a much less likely proposition.

Eliot "Soprano" Spitzer

2005-05-11T11:53:00.000-04:00

As I start up this blog I will be posting some older content along with up to the minute news. Here is a great article titled "Wall Street Thug" from last December by Stephen W. Stanton of Tech Central Station.

Here is the money quote:

Tony Soprano is an unsavory character. He breaks the law. He lies. He intimidates. He makes his own rules, and he gets what he wants. And yet he remains a very popular guy.

Eliot Spitzer is also a popular guy, recently winning reelection as New York's attorney general in a landslide with 66% of the vote. In fact, it seems that Mr. Spitzer has a lot in common with Mr. Soprano. A recent issue of Forbes exposed the grittier details about this public official. Spitzer has broken the law. He may well have lied about his campaign finances. He is especially adept at intimidation. Here are a few of the specific charges mentioned in the article:

He violated ethics rules and the law by bullying defendants in a civil suit with threats of criminal charges.

Spitzer went on TV to smear the reputation of a company to damage its business and bully it into a settlement.

Spitzer filed civil suits against executives for engaging in business practices that are not even against the law.

He personally profited by the same business practices he now prosecutes.

Spitzer is no saint. He usually gets what he wants by intimidation and coercion. Not satisfied with his legal authority, he practices pseudo-law in the court of public opinion. He uses the media to extort settlements that he probably could not have achieved in a court of law.

This article is so good I've added it to the sidebar.

Possible Primary Opponent in the News

2005-05-11T10:30:00.000-04:00

While with the exception of Senator Chuck, no one who might challenge Spitzer in the Democratic primary can generate the press that Spitzer does. That being said the New York Post does have an article about possible primary challenger to Spitzer: Tom Suozzi. Read it here.

Of course as the article notes: "other sources believe Suozzi, a lawyer and certified public accountant, is really interested in running for the soon-to-be vacant attorney general's job."

Spitzer in the News

2005-05-11T02:38:00.000-04:00

Corante: "Eliot Spitzer to Spy on Barry Diller"

Miami Herald: Spitzer cranks up publicity for Software blackmail

The most destructive politician in America

2005-05-11T02:05:00.000-04:00

On June 14th 2004 the National Review ran their cover article:
Meet Eliot Spitzer the most destructive politician in America.
by Ramesh Ponnuru

The entire article can be read here at AEI's Federalism Project.

This, in my mind, is the key passage:

GOVERNMENT BY LAWSUIT

Spitzer argues that his lawsuits and enforcement actions make markets more efficient and fair. He isn't hostile to free markets; he just recognizes that they require strong government. Moreover, he claims that he is making government work better: He takes action only when legislators have failed to. But it is unlikely that establishing cartels or suppressing voluntary transactions really strengthens markets. There is a deeper problem with Spitzer's style of regulation through litigation: When legislators "fail" to regulate guns, they may be choosing inaction over the alternatives. When Spitzer tries to override that decision, he exalts his own policy preferences above democratic procedures.

Welcome to Spitzer Watch

2005-05-10T23:50:00.000-04:00

Eliot Spitzer is my Attorney General but he doesn't have my interests at heart.

Instead he has wasted state resources to advance his political career and to usurp the legislative process to create policy that would never be passed by normal legislative means. He accomplishes this by blackmailing companies and industries with the threat of lawsuits and by tactfully using the media to spread rumors that advance his agenda.

Now Eliot Spitzer is running for Governor without most potential voters knowing the truth of Attorney General Spitzer's hypocrisy.

This blog will be dedicated to exposing that hypocrisy.
Check back often.

Spitzer Watch

Hooker-Gate

Spitzer's Tax Lies

Spitzer is Watching

Spitzer the Thug

Spitzer's Medifraud Failure

New poll

Langone speaks out

Sued Again

Is Eliot Spitzer good for America?

Spitzer against Price Gouging/Spitzer for Gas Rationing

"Defanged Spitzer Spares Fund Crooks Jail Time "

Wikipedia Censorship?

Take a Spitzer Report poll

Eliots Endorsement Payola

BREAKING: **Weld to Run Against Spitzer**

Spitzer's Bad Company: Ferrer

Grasso Stands Firm

THE SPITZER REPORT

Can the GOP really challenge Spitzer?

Pirro to the Senate

Slap Happy Spitzer

Should AIG shareholders sue Spitzer?

Polls Update

New Polls: Pataki Numbers Up, Spitzer Down Slightly

Miller's Illegal Mailings

Spitzer's Lack of Cooperation with Feds Hurting Investigations

Spitzer Fails to Do His (Actual) Job

Greenberg vs. Spitzer

Conflict of Interest: Lawyers For Spitzer

Outlawing Basic Business Strategies?

Spitzer Sued by the Feds

Rethinking Conflicts of Interest

Spitzer Losing Ground: Court Loss Spurs Poll Drop

Spitzer's Defeat

Alexander Hamilton on Eliot Spitzer

Spitzer's Competition

Spitzer's Mysterious Ferrer Endorsement

Suozzi's Profile Continues to Grow

Spitzer in the News

WSJ: Spitzer Calls in Favor from McCall

Flashback: Spitzer's Toilet Investigation

"Spitzer Left His Balls in the Parking Lot"

Spitzer Holds Big Money Fundraiser in New Mexico

Suozzi Gaining Dem Support for Gov Race?

A.I.G. Exec Caves to Spitzer

Eliot's Eminent Domain position attacked on his own website

Potential Gov Opponent takes on Spitzer

PCI's Csiszar Accuses Spitzer of 'Corporate Terrorism' and of Ignoring Own Conflicts

Spitzer's Anti-Poor Stance on Mortgage Practices

Eliot "Soprano" Spitzer

Possible Primary Opponent in the News

Spitzer in the News

The most destructive politician in America

Welcome to Spitzer Watch

BREAKING: Weld to Run Against Spitzer