The Whitestone Bridge watches over an enormous boondoggle at Ferry Point Park in the Bronx.
Photo by Emmcnamee via Flickr/

The Ferry Point Golf Course was looking like multi-million-dollar boondoggle back in 2002 just months after it was announced—and it hasn't gotten any better. An audit released Thursday by city Comptroller William Thompsom reveals that the city overpaid a vendor $6 million of taxpayer money and the Parks Department hardly even checked to see if the work got done.

Though the project, inked in the final days of the Giuliani administration, was slated to open in 2003, the city has spent $7.2 million on the project to date and has only an environmental mess—not a PGA-style professional golf course—to show for it.

“The Parks Department absolutely dropped the ball when it came to the Ferry Point Golf Course,” Thompson said in a statement. “The Parks Department failed to not only ensure the timely completion of this project, but also failed to be vigilant of capital improvement costs at the golf course. The Parks Department paid for work for which the City was not liable, and lost out on millions of dollars in revenue. More than seven years after the concession agreement was signed, the golf course is not nearly complete.”

As reported by the Voice in 2005, the city was supposed to collect a minimum $1.25 million in fees from Ferry Point Partners who won a contract to operate the course for 35 years. Instead the city has laid out millions. From the Voice:

By contract, the city is responsible for dealing with environmental cleanup on the site and has already spent more than $6 million. Of that, about $1 million went to the law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn for defeating lawsuits filed by the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance that demanded a full environmental review. Gagné says about $2 million has gone to Gannett Fleming Inc., the company that conducts DEC-mandated monitoring on the incoming truckloads of fill.

Some of the lowlights from Thompson's audit:

Members of the Southampton Alliance for Monied Estates (SHAME) and Billionaires for Bush protest in front of the house of buyout king Henry Kravis on Wednesday. The canvassers demanded that billionaires like Kravis get even more tax breaks.

An interesting piece of street theater came to the East End on Wednesday as members of the Southampton Alliance for Monied Estates (SHAME) and Billionaires for Bush took to the streets to demand more tax breaks for the likes of Henry R. Kravis, who founded Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, a firm that practically invented the leveraged buyout.

“Hardworking buyout billionaires like Henry Kravis need our continued help to expand their fortunes and buy bigger and better mansions,” said Southampton activist Rob N. Steel in a press release. “The market is slumping, and we have to act now if we are going to protect those like Kravis who pioneered the revolutionary concept of buying companies, and making billions by laying off workers and cutting pension and health benefits. Even the magnificent, giant tax loopholes that buyout firms have been enjoying could be at risk! We have to save the billionaires from paying as much tax as everybody else!”

The Southhampton protest was part of larger campaign by the Service Employees International Union to draw more attention to the shadowy world of leveraged buyouts.

According to the SEIU press release:

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) along with other leveraged buyout giants such as the Carlyle Group, have made billions of dollars by buying big companies, squeezing out profits (often accomplished with layoffs and cuts in pension and health benefits), and by taking advantage of tax loopholes that allowed them to pay less than half the tax rate of their chauffeurs.

The contests are also the first for new CFB executive director Amy Loprest, and they come as her agency deals with a December 19 appellate court ruling, which ruled that a loophole in the city's campaign finance laws deprives the CFB of a power it thought it possessed: the ability to fine individual candidates and campaign treasurers when they fail to spend public matching funds properly or to document that they have. Since campaigns usually cease to exist after an election, going after personal pocketbooks is the only way for the CFB to give some of its rules teeth. But the court found the law doesn't allow it. Now the CFB and Law Department are considering whether to appeal. Meanwhile, the CFB is discussing with the City Council how to fix the law to close the loophole.

Other areas of campaign finance law that might need tweaking include what to do about contributions from firms that "do business" with the city, or candidates who face little real opposition but still take public matching funds. There's always been talk about barring contributions from all organizations—LLCs, PACs, and unions. Then there's the notion of eliminating the complicated exemptions in campaign finance law. Right now the money that candidates spend on petitioning or complying with the law doesn't count against the spending cap, but identifying which money is exempt and which isn't is tricky: Witness Gifford Miller's battle with the CFB during the twilight of his mayoral campaign.

But back to the special election. I say that it might be the last election for lever voting machines because New York State was supposed to finally replace those machines, as every other state already has, by the 2007 primary (for these council seats and district attorney races, if needed). But difficulties in getting the voting machine companies to meet New York's high standards, and recent revelations that the state's testing firm failed to win accreditation from federal authorities, may delay the switch. "Right now the window for us to do full implementation in 2007 is impossible, or nearly impossible," says Board of Elections director John Ravitz. So February 20 could be the last hurrah for the lever machines, or the start of a comeback tour of uncertain duration.

Either way, we know the city will be anxiously watching!

What's the easiest way to make sure you don't lose a contest? Prevent it from happening, of course! According to a new report from the City Comptroller, that's exactly what several corporations did in 2006 when New York City's pension funds asked for changes in financial or social policies: The firms simply blocked the question from being submitted to shareholders for votes, and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission rubber stamped the corporate moves.

Comptroller Bill Thompson is the day-to-day custodian of the $87 billion invested by New York City's five employee pension funds (covering fire, police, teachers, board of ed, and other employees). As a major shareholder in hundreds of companies, the city often tries to change company policies, like trying to get them to shun Iran or comply with the MacBride principles that prohibit religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. It works like this: Thompson's office submits a proposal, and the company either agrees to it or puts it to its shareholders for a vote.

Or not.

When the city pension funds went to Rite Aid with a proposal to require that shareholders approve the selection of independent auditors, Rite Aid contended that the issue was part of its "ordinary business operations," which under SEC rules are off-limits to shareholder votes. SEC staff agreed with Rite Aid. When New York City appealed the ruling, the staff refused to submit the issue to the Commission itself, and the proposal died.

Rite Aid wasn't alone. When the city pension funds put forth proposals requiring that firms "disclose social, environmental and economic performance by issuing an annual sustainability report," Honeywell International and Raytheon prevented vote. Sempra Energy stifled the yeas and nays on a proposal to mandate a "report on efforts to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions from existing and proposed power plants. Newmont Mining's shareholders never got a chance to decide if they wanted to "review environmental and social impacts of operations in Indonesia Companies." Clear Channel tried to block a vote on whether to "establish an Independent Compensation Committee," but the SEC wouldn't let it. The proposal ended up receiving 42 percent of shareholder votes.

These refusals were the exception to the rule: The vast majority of Thompson's proposals went to a vote, and others were accepted by the companies outright. Amid the successes: Unumprovident Corp. and Newell Rubbermaid agreed to reform how shareholder proposals are enacted, shareholders at several companies voted to adopt proposals reforming how directors are elected, H.J Heinz and National Semiconductor said they would issue an annual sustainability report, and a host of firms said they'd bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But in a few cases, even when corporations allowed votes, other shareholders were not feeling quite as socially conscious as the city's pension funds. Less than 6 percent of Coca-Cola shares backed a call for a committee to oversee an inquiry into "charges of collusion in anti-union violence that have been made against officials of the company's bottling plants in Colombia." Only 13 percent of the shares at Chevron Texaco voted to disclose political contributions.

And when the Fire pension fund asked Dow Chemical to "report to the shareholders any new initiatives instituted by management to address specific health, environmental and social concerns of survivors in Bophal, India," only 6.7 percent of shares backed the measure.

It's all part of the game that, since 1988, Nicole Gordon has monitored in her role as executive director of the Campaign Finance Board. Come September, Gordon will be part of it no more as she leaves her post to become vice president of the JEHT Foundation, an advocacy group that works on criminal and international justice, health care and election reform. As the first and only head of the CFB, Gordon has seen the agency through five mayoral elections, dozens of controversies, and a steady rise in the cost of winning office in the city. She spoke with Power Plays for an exit interview:

PP: After 18 years in the job, why was now the time to go?

NG: Well, I've been very gratified, very pleased with how this agency has grown from an idea in somebody's mind into a very integral part of New York City's political system. There's going to be a four-year hiatus now between elections, which is a long period of time; since 1988, there's only been one other four-year hiatus and so if I was going to think about having another life besides this one, it was a good time for the agency and for me (and for a new person) for that to happen.

PP: In 1988, some of us were in the sixth grade. What was the campaign finance landscape like?

NG: What was going on in New York in the time was that there was a series of scandals in the city that culminated in the suicide of the Queens borough president, and Mayor Koch introduced a series of reforms that were intended to restore confidence in local government and the campaign finance reforms were a part of a number of different items. In fact, the scandals themselves didn't have anything to do with campaign finance, but the civics groups had for a long time been pressing for campaign finance reform. The city went to Albany in the first instance to try to get the state to impose certain campaign restrictions on city races but Albany wouldn't do it so the city, through a voluntary matching fund program, introduced those reforms through city laws. This was against a backdrop of state law that had no expenditure limits and had extraordinarily high contribution limits. The disclosure of campaign finances was abysmal and of course there were no matching funds available.

And those things have all been changed in a very dramatic way. If you want to see up-to-date information on contributions and expenditures you can go to the CFB website and look it up and study it and do statistical analysis, whatever you want. In 1988 you would have had to go to the Board of Election to look at files, probably illegible files. They certainly weren't in any condition that permitted serious study. Another change of course is the [mandatory] contribution limits, which are much, much lower than state law permits. That's a significant reduction in the influence that can be felt from large donors. . . . By far the majority of candidates do choose to be in the [voluntary] program and they have to abide by seriously enforced expenditure limits, which are an important part of leveling the playing field. And matching funds is perhaps the most serious avenue that opens up the system to serious people who want to have an impact on elections.

One of the most important things that happened was that when Mayor Koch and Speaker Peter Vallone made their initial appointments, they appointed a board that was prepared to take this job very seriously. That's another element that, had it not existed from the very beginning, might well have doomed the program to no serious results. But a serious board that was truly independent and non-partisan and took a vigorous role—that was another essential ingredient.

PP: What were the most interesting cases the board dealt with during your tenure?

NG: I think any time the board has had to grapple with a high-profile race, particularly a mayoral race or a race that involves an incumbent or is a close race, that's always going to be a challenge, not necessarily because the facts or the law don't provide a sufficient guide. I think every time a serious action has to be taken that could affect the outcome of an important race that requires a board that is prepared to act in a timely way and under a great deal of pressure.

PP: Last year, taxpayers contributed $24,201,275 in matching funds to campaigns around the city. But only one incumbent who was seeking re-election was defeated. Did the system work?

NG: The system is definitely working but there are a number of things that have to be watched very closely. First of all in the law—which was done very wisely at the time—there's a requirement that the board revisit the program after every election and our report will be forthcoming this fall. The law recognizes that a program of this kind is always going to be stretched to its limit by candidates, and rightly so. Obviously, there's always going to a tug and pull and new ways of campaigning and new ways of raising and spending money that are going to challenge the law.

It's crucial not just that the CFB prepare a report but that the mayor and the council pay attention to it. It's not only crucial because of the way that campaigns change, it's also crucial because in campaign finance reform, the devil is truly in the details. Too high an expenditure limit will protect officeholders, and expenditure levels that are too low will also protect officeholders. You want to find a number that permits people who aren't in office to get their message out. You have to revisit those numbers every time to see that they are doing the job. Every single aspect of the program has the potential to keep the democratic process alive, or to deaden it.

One area that needs attention is the "sure winners" phenomenon—candidates that are either so well-liked or so well-entrenched or so well-known that their need for public funds may be zero but public funds become available, they get spent, and these candidates win by tremendous margins. That's obviously going to be treated in our report.

I'm a big person to caution against the notion that the number of incumbents who win or lose is a test of the program. Any expert will say that incumbency is the greatest single predictor of success in an election. But what the program does do successfully is to give resources to people who want to take that challenge on and get their message out. Equally, when you have an open seat, it has given many, many people an opportunity.

I think also one thing that's interesting about the whole subject of incumbency is if you look at the mayoral level since 1988 the program has made for extremely fair matches in elections in the sense that serious candidates have all had a more or less equal opportunity to face off. If you look at '89, if you look at the two following elections, and you look at the last two elections in the Democratic primary—if you look at the closeness in these elections, the program has been very important in generating interest and competitiveness. I think those are more realistic ways of gauging whether any campaign finance program is helping

PP: Of course, in the past two elections, the big campaign finance story has been Mayor Bloomberg, who spent $75 million to get elected in 2001 and $85 million to secure a second term, well more than all other candidates for all other offices combined. Has his failure to join the program eroded reform in the city, and is that something the board should address?

NG: I think there are some challenges to any kind of campaign finance program that, because of Supreme Court rulings, are always going to be difficult when looking at the subject of leveling the playing field: Self-finance candidates is one, and independent spending is another, although we haven't really seen it in the city. Those are difficult because whenever there are resources being spent—and the First Amendment permits that—there's no way the government is going to commit itself to match dollar-for-dollar everything that can be spent. The question is, when a candidate has the opportunity to use public finds in addition to other funds, has the program at the very least put that candidate in a better position than they would have been otherwise? A key question is whether they get the opportunity to get their message out. If you look at 2001 and look at the results I think you have to acknowledge that candidates in the program got their opportunity to get their message out. It was a very close election. Elections are so complex, you can't say how much money would have made a difference, whether anybody would have made a difference. Who knows? In 2001 the losing candidate spent more money than any other candidate ever had, except Bloomberg. Common sense tells you that there was enough money out there.

PP: The CFB recently received a report it had commissioned on the amount of contributions flowing to city candidates from firms "doing business" with municipal government. Is that something that reformers have tools to address?

NG: The issue of "doing business" contributions is another very, very challenging issue but there are a number of ways to address it. One is, of course, to get more disclosure out there. That's important but the job's not done. But we've made a lot of progress in working with the administration and there's more to come.

A second part to it is the whole process of how "doing business" is conceived. I think a lot of changes were adopted over the years to improve procurement and other processes within the city. It's an extremely important component of assessing if there's a problem. If you're convinced that city processes are fair, then the contributions side becomes a lot less interesting or important.

Then there are these other methods. The contribution limit was partly in response to this very issue. If the contribution limit is low enough then you can sort of say. 'This is a difficult problem, there aren't a lot of ways to handle it, but as long as the contribution limit is low, what kind of influence could someone be exerting?' In addition to that contribution limit damping of any kind of influence there are other things that can be done. [Under a new law] contributions from those who are registered with the City Council as lobbyists won't be matched with public funds. It is one way to minimize impact, and that avenue was chosen by the City Council to address it. But our initial research shows that the role of lobbyists as intermediaries or fundraisers is a much more significant role than their role as direct contributors. There's another way where constraints could be placed if it's determined that it's good public policy to do it.

I think the most important issue here really is whether the city is prepared to look at this from the point of view of the entity that's getting business as opposed to the point of view of a contributor. What you need to do is, when someone wants to do business with the city, say to them, 'If you want to do business with the city, you have to do this.' It should come from the side of governing people who do business with the city rather than people contributing. You run into serious First Amendment problems [with the latter approach]. What's important about that approach is that is an approach that has been used and worked extremely well in the securities industry. There is a rule that was passed by the SEC that says you can't do bond business in a jurisdiction where your employees have made more than a certain level of contributions to local candidates, and you lose your business if they do, and that has apparently been so successful that even though there is a meaningful enforcement body there—the SEC—the firms themselves are very, very cautious in their approach. It's virtually a self-enforcing program because the consequences are so serious.

PP: Over the years you've seen on a daily basis how well campaigns comply with campaign finance laws. Has this affected how you cast your own vote?

NG: I think all of us going into the voting booth take with us what's important to us and if in our working lives we care about the subjects we work with, and I certainly care about mine, it's certainly going to be an ingredient.

Of course, Avella's $10,805 isn't really the only mayoral money on the table: Possible contenders like Comptroller William Thompson ($519,000), Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum ($148,325), and Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion ($275,950) also filed with the CFB, but didn't name what office they're seeking. And while Assemblyman Jim Brennan ($154,515) and Councilman David Weprin ($362,413) have put in for comptroller, it's easy to imagine that a citywide job might be intriguing to candidates like Brooklyn Beep Marty Markowitz and Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who filed with the CFB but remain "undeclared."

But what's notable about the list of wannabes is who's not there at all yet.

Congressman Anthony Weiner—who bowed out of the 2005 race when tallies showed him thisclose to a runoff with Freddy Ferrer—is widely expected to run for mayor, but hasn't put in his papers yet. He has, however, spent more than half a million in the 2005-2006 for his re-election to Congress even though, according to FEC records at least, he does not have an opponent. Also missing from the 2009 roster so far is Eric Gioia, the councilman from Sunnyside who's held a number of fundraisers in recent months, who cleared more than $200,000 from his walk-in-the-park re-election in 2005, and who is widely understood to want to be the next public advocate.

The wild card in the 2009 cycle is whether or not term limits will remain in place to chase most councilmembers from their seats. But assuming term limits remain, which is likely, one thing we know about candidates who've filed but are undeclared (including Bill de Blasio, Simcha Felder, Dominic Recchia from Brooklyn; Melinda Katz, John Liu, and Peter Vallone, Jr. from Queens; Oliver Koppell and Joel Rivera from the Bronx; and Michael McMahon from Staten Island) is that they will be looking to move up, perhaps to a borough presidency. Vallone is also interested in being district attorney some day.

Rookie councilmembers Jimmy Vacca from the Bronx and Jessica Lappin from the Upper East Side, who have also filed with the CFB, can seek to return to their seats in '09. Three non-incumbents are also on the board for the next round of council races: Brian Gotlieb, a community activist and aide to Weiner who ran unsuccessfully for the seat Recchia won in 2001; Jo Anne Simon, a lawyer and Democratic district leader in Brooklyn; and Eric Ulrich, a youthful Queens Republican who writes a conservative column for a community weekly.

Word that Rudolph W. Giuliani's PAC is raising money tonight led Power Plays to the former hizzoner's filings with the Federal Election Commission, which reveal that as of April 30, Rudy's Solutions America had about a third as much money on hand ($223,662) and Gov. George Pataki's 21st Century Freedom PAC ($647,077).

The purpose of these pre-presidential PACs is to fund not just the physical infrastructure of a campaign but the political foundation as well. In other words, you raise money to give it to other office-seekers in the hopes that they support you in the primaries. So far, Giuliani has shared his dough with a handful of Republican office-seekers around the country and locally. Vito Fossella, Peter King, and John Sweeney got checks, as did Preserving America's Traditions, the creepy-sounding PAC run by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat (get it, P-A-T?) Roberts.

Meanwhile, other mostly corporate PACs have given cash to Rudy, including Verizon's, Pfizer's, and the PAC run by Ernst & Young (which also gave Giuliani Partners, the mayor's consultancy, some of its first work). The list of the mayor's 79 individual contributors reads like a reunion episode of the Giuliani Administration. Randy Mastro, Christyne Lategano, Paul Crotty, Anthony Coles, and John Dyson are just a few of the former aides who've chipped in. Former NYSE boss Dick Grasso, failed GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Weld, and 9-11 compensation czar Ken Feinberg also passed the hat, as did Jets owner Woody Johnson and Yankees counterpart George Steinbrenner.

As reported elsewhere at the time, Mayor Bloomberg tossed in $5,000 last year. Amid the recent speculation, this raises a question: If the current mayor runs for president, will the former mayor who also might run for president pay it back?

Earlier this week, Draft Rudy Giuliani sent an "urgent message" to its adherents warning that the film "tries to distort reality and ruin the reputation of an American hero. . . . Whether you can give $20, $200, or $2,000, your support will be used to combat and expose this propaganda that is being disguised as a documentary." The message comes from Illinois political consultant and former state GOP official Allan Fore, who created draftrudygiuliani.com last October. That was 15 months after another site, Draft Giuliani, started operations. That site features the slogan "America's Mayor for America's President"—a phrase so groovy that they've trademarked it—as well as merchandise, like T-shirts for dogs.

Fore has also started an FEC-registered committee, called Draft Rudy Giuliani For President NFP. According to FEC records, the committee (which is not authorized by the candidate) has recorded a single donation—$500 in December from a man in Bridgehampton. (There are also draft committees for Hillary and Al Gore. And there's a Draft Michael Jackson King Of Pop For VP 2008 Campaign Committee.)

Despite the panic over at Draft Rudy Giuliani, "Giuliani Time" is probably the least of Rudy's worries if he's really contemplating a run for the White House. There's that McCain dude, whom everyone seems to love, and that Kerik fellow, the Rudy acolyte who blew up in the president's face. And there's the right wing of the Republican Party, with which Rudy has often disagreed on abortion, immigrants, gays, and other stuff.

Right now oddsmakers have Rudy facing 10-1 odds of being our next president, same as Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Veep runner-up John Edwards. Hillary, McCain, and Virginia Senator George Allen are seen as more likely winners. Condeleezza, George Pataki, John Kerry, and Jeb Bush are among the longer shots.

Will "Giuliani Time" help or hurt Rudy's chances? Draft Rudy Giuliani asked the same question. Seventy-nine percent of the 140 respondents said, "Yes, it'll help raise money that will support Rudy Giuliani." Ka-ching!

Duh! They mix all the time. And so, with Division Playoff weekend looming, it's time to ask that eternal question: Of the NFL teams still pursuing the Lombardi Trophy, which club's owners, players, and coaches gave the most in political contributions?

As always, the database at the Federal Elections Commission has all the answers on donations to federal candidates from 1997 on:

The Pittsburgh Steelers were the most generous at $89,430. The vast majority of it came from the Rooney family (the owners), and most of their largesse went to the GOP or a PAC called the North Side Good Government Committee. Two players from the Pittsburgh Steelers are in the books as donors: Linebacker Clark Haggans gave $5,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Back-up quarterback Tommy Maddox gave a grand each to President Bush and the RNC. Across the field from Maddox this weekend will stand Peyton Manning, an opposing quarterback but a political like-mind. Manning wrote a $2,000 contribution to Dubya. Manning's Indianapolis Colts organization as a whole gave more than $64,000, with the family of owner James Irsay directing most of that coin to the GOP.

In the other AFC match-up, owner Robert Kraft and his right-hand man, son Jonathan, gave most of the $52,000 linked to the New England Patriots. More of the Pats' bucks went to Democrats. The Denver Broncos—who will host the three-peat seeking Patriots on Saturday night—were a little tighter on their purse-strings, with $46,350 in federal contributions popping up in the database. But the guys on the sidelines did their bit. Coach Mike Shanahan was a supporter of former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Democrat turned Republican. The great John Elway supported a Republican congressman, and long-time kicker Jason Elam backed another. Former Broncos linebacker Bill Romanowski sent $500 to the RNC. Running back Terrel Davis handed off $1,000 to Al Gore back in the day. Fellow Colorado institution Pete Coors received thousands from Broncos people during his failed bid for the Senate.

The NFC has lost four of the past five Super Bowls, and it's obvious why: Their campaign contributions are dwarfed by those of the rival conference. The wild-card Carolina Panthers gave a relatively modest $36,750, but then they are an expansion team. Owner J.J. Richardson spread his money around both parties. Kicker John Kasay, tight end Kris Mangum, defensive back Mike Minter, and one-time defensive lineman Chris Slade gave to GOP candidates; Julius Peppers on the DL donated to a Democrat. Though located in the nation's capital, the Washington Redskins are credited with a paltry $15,000. Quarterback Mark Brunell gave $3,000 to Republicans.

The Seattle Seahawks gave even less, a mere $5,302, with center Robert Tobeck leading the way and favoring Republicans. Chad Brown (now playing linebacker for the Pats) gave $550 to Democratic causes. Fullback Mack Strong went Republican, as did offensive tackle Jerry Wunsch. Seeded last in the NFL Payoffs? The Chicago Bears, with $3,500 given, some of it from linebacker Brian Urlacher to Democratic congressman Luis Gutierrez.

Now, these figures don't take account of some of the intangible ways teams can show favor to their preferred pols. There's more to life than money; there are things like an invitation to the owner's box.

Luckily for the rest of us, football is actually better to watch on the small screen than in person. Just be careful eating the pretzels.

And this matters why? Well, the New York City school system is the second biggest feeder in the United States (the military ranks No. 1), the DOE has made a genuine effort recently to improve food services to fend off childhood obesity, and the school food system has been a trouble-spot for years, with several vendors going to federal prison earlier this decade for colluding to rip taxpayers off. Then there's the money: millions of dollars in food sales and delivery costs, not to mention the $12 million for the Accenture consultancy to—among other potential cost-saving ideas—map out the food delivery plan that keeps not quite working.

Watermelons Plus—which did not return a call seeking comment—isn't the first of the delivery companies to run up the white flag. Louis Foods, which originally handled Queens and North Brooklyn, pulled out of its contract this summer, saying it was losing too much money. Now Driscoll Foods is the only original vendor left, and its territory was sliced in half last year when major delivery woes forced the DOE to declare an emergency and bring in extra contractors. Driscoll remains active in the Bronx, while U.S. Food took up Driscoll's work in Manhattan.

U.S. Food will also be taking up the slack from Watermelons Plus—a step for which the DOE says it had time to plan. "This wasn't entirely unexpected for us," says DOE spokeswoman Kelly Devers. "We knew (Watermelons) would be getting out of the contract. (U.S. Food is) our biggest and strongest vendor so we're confident that the transition will go smoothly," referring to the resumption of school on Tuesday after holiday break. The DOE anticipates no shortages, she says; at worst, there'll be a handful of substitutions on some menus for a few weeks.

But for the DOE's future plans, things might not go quite so smoothly. "Everybody's going to be totally paranoid of this contract," said one area food distributor. Watermelons' departure comes as the DOE is trying to rebid the parts of the original plan that went into emergency contracts; that was supposed to occur in November but now won't happen until February. Meanwhile, efforts to improve the DOE computer system for tracking goods and payments are "ongoing," according to Devers.

One can't say for sure why Watermelons folded, but it's reasonable to presume that the DOE contract wasn't a huge financial plus. Last year, as deliveries arrived late at the schools, the DOE fined delivery firms tens of thousands; Watermelons Plus led the way with nearly $150,000 in fines in just the first seven months of the 2004 school year. Vendors have called those fines unfair, blaming flaws in the overall plan for the delays. The comptroller's office has conducted some preliminary inquiries on those complaints, although it won't call it an "investigation."

We don't know what Watermelons has been fined since last April, or what penalty it might face for exiting the contract early. As Power Plays reported last month, Louis and the DOE might have to go to court to sort out a dispute over alleged overpayments.

What's more, "Despite the constraints of a rising fed funds rate, higher energy prices, and higher trade and budget deficits, the City's economy performed better than expected through the first ten months of 2005, with real gross product, payroll jobs, and unemployment rates for the City and the nation all exceeding 2005 forecasts."

But that's the good news, and comptroller's reports always break some bad news, too, like, "the persistence of outyear gaps combined with the current-year net reduction of the [surplus] demonstrates that the City is still struggling to gain control of its expenditures." Plus, the city may have overestimated tax revenue for the year by $64 million, and low-balled overtime costs by $97 million. And "the federal budget may provide an additional source of concern going forward."

And because of higher energy prices and the large trade and federal budget deficits, "the national and the City's economy are expected to grow more slowly in 2006."

Then there's the Yuan. For years, Washington has been leaning on China to let the market decide how valuable its currency is, instead of Beijing buying dollars to keep the Yuan—and Chinese exports—artificially cheap. Now China is going to peg the Yuan to a basket of currencies rather than just the U.S. greenback, and that means less Chinese money flowing into the American bond market to buy dollars. The reduction in bond buying could, in turn, generate higher interest rates. Higher rates hit New York City's budget two ways: by slowing the economic growth that generates tax revenue, and by raising the cost of borrowing money.

Nor is the Yuan the only risk. There's also "inflated housing markets, a new Federal Reserve Chairman, and continuing negative effects from major hurricanes in August and September."

Which is not to say there wasn't some serious spending in those other races. The crowded field for Manhattan borough president unloaded just over $9 million, with three of the candidates who lost the Democratic primary—Adriano Espaillat, Brian Ellner, and Eva Moskowitz—dropping more than a million bucks each. The Manhattan Beep contest outspent the combined declared outlays in the other four beep races by almost three to one. Public Advocate candidate Andrew Rasiej dumped more than a million to come in fourth with 19,000 votes.

The race for Margarita Lopez's Lower East Side council seat, in which Lopez aide Rosie Mendez prevailed, appears to have been the costliest of the season, with $923,000 spent. The other top five races were for Moskowitz's East Side seat, the East Bronx contest to succeed Madeline Provenzano, the bid for Gifford Miller's UES slot, and the tough fight for Philip Reed's Harlem district. The cheapest race seems to have been the re-election victory by Maria del Carmen Arroyo, where she was the lone candidate to disclose expenditures, and there were only $20,000 of them.

The overall decrease in non-Bloomberg spending is likely due to the fact that there was no run-off for mayor or public advocate this year, as there was four years ago, nor a competitive race for comptroller. In addition, 2001 saw a rush of talented candidates wrestling over council seats newly opened by the term limits law; this time around, most of those seats were held by incumbents who were deemed safe from challenge. Overall, spending on council races dropped by $10 million, the comptroller candidates spent about a third of the 2001 total, and the race for advocate was less than half as costly as it was four years ago.

So unlike food, beer, or a ride on the subway, the cost of campaigning isn't going up—except for incumbent mayors.

Passage of the bill marks the first time in the 17-year history of the city's Campaign Finance Board that a rule has been changed through legislation, rather than through hearings by the board.

Today's vote demonstrates that the council wasn't willing to wait for hearings scheduled for this December by the CFB to ease regulations on how political contributions are applied toward the board's donation limits (for city council candidates, it's $2,750).

Unions argued that the board had unfairly ruled that related locals could not make separate donations to candidates. The board, in a rule advanced earlier this year but later withdrawn, stated that donations from unions controlled by a single decision-maker would not be counted separately, but together.

Opponents of the bill contend that the council is rushing reforms into law, without respect for the CFB's procedures. "This one issue has been plucked out and pressed forward without the benefit of the board's mandated review," said Nicole Gordon, the board's Executive Director. Gene Russianoff, an attorney with New York Public Interest Research Group, dismissed the bill's criteria for determining if unions are affiliated as " a road map to get around the law." CFB Chairman Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. testified that by passing the bill, the City Council will be "creating a loophole" for unions.

Prior to the bill's passage by the full council in the afternoon, it was approved by a 6-1 margin by the council's Governmental Operations Committee after a hearing this morning.

The one dissenting vote at the morning hearing came from Madeline T. Provenzano, a Democrat who represents the Bronx's 13th District. "It's a bad bill," Provenzano said after the vote. "If we limit lobbyists, why should we allow unions to give away all the money they want?"

The bill's supporters, including chair Bill Perkins, framed the issue in terms of voter's rights. At the hearing, Perkins called the CFB's current rules "unduly burdensome on campaigns" and urged his fellow committee members to vote in the bill's favor. He went on to say that if the bill is not passed "the democratic process will be diminished, it will be hampered" and faulted the CFB for the "erroneous presumption that all affiliated unions represent a single source."

Brian M. McLaughlin, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, testified at the hearing that passing the bill would mean giving "working people" a "voice in the political process."

"This is about free speech," Council Member Bill deBlasio, one of the bill's sponsors, told the committee. DeBlasio is currently campaigning to become the next speaker of the council and is courting labor support.

The CFB's role in policing the finances of political candidates seems not to have endeared them, or their policies, to the council. While exchanges with Schwarz were prefaced with respectful disclaimers, a three-person panel representing good government groups who oppose the legislation were hit with rhetorical questions about their own experience with the finance law. Council Member Michael E. McMahon had only two queries: He asked if anyone on the panel had run for office, or worked as a campaign treasurer. Russianoff, who was on the panel, later called McMahon's questions a "cheap shot." Council Member Peter F. Vallone, Jr. asked if any of the three would represent him pro bono if he ran afoul of campaign finance laws.

Yes, tough to convince an editor that you're worth 100 grand! And tough to win a campaign against a guy willing to spend $70 million. But while noting that "this is a moment not for Democrats to be flogging ourselves," Weiner also said, "We do have to look in the mirror and realize that we have lost now four straight municipal elections and we have to start figuring out how we change things to do these elections better. We are no longer a party that can simply say, 'We're going to rely on demographics, or rely on tribal politics, or even rely on the Democratic organization.' We have to run campaigns that are grounded in ideas for how we're going to govern." Later, he added: "Ferrer didn't run a bad campaign. He ran a campaign that might have faced insurmountable odds. But I do think we need to learn something. It would be a mistake if Democrats simply say, 'The reason we lost was we got outspent.' That's not the only reason we lost."

The guy from the Sun asked Weiner what issue might separate a Democrat from the pack in 2009. "I predict traffic congestion will be huge in 2009," he said.

It was a joke. However, if Weiner is accidentally correct in four years, he has (of course) already proposed a policy solution (click here). Talk about laying groundwork!

CBC invited Pataki to bash their common enemy this fall, ballot Proposition 1, which would shift budget making power from the governor to the legislature. It's supposed to avoid the late budgets that are almost the rule in the Empire State. But a host of newspapers and good government groups have come out against the law, saying it will lead to unnecessary spending. Pataki agrees, and adds that the law fails to increase the size of the state's Rainy Day fund from the current 2 percent to 5 percent. But what's the point of a Rainy Day fund if you don't tap into it when it's pouring, as it was during the "fiscal calamity" faced by the city and state immediately after 9-11? The reason he didn't tap it, Pataki said, was, "We didn't know what was going to happen next." Do we ever?

Proposal 1 is just one of four ballot questions New York City voters will face on November 8. The mayor on Tuesday came out for Proposition 2, which authorizes a bond issue to pay for transit and transportation improvements. Question 3 concerns an ethics code for hearing officers who handle parking tickets and the like, and Question 4 codifies several budgetary practices currently mandated since the 1970s fiscal crisis by the state Financial Control Board, which will soon lapse.

In total, the mayor has spent $47 million—or about half of all the money spent by the 247 people who've run for something this year). Meanwhile, Fernando Ferrer's expenditures add up to $6.5 million, with roughly half going to advertising, and he has a little more than half a million left in the bank.

If the election were held today, the polls turned out right, and as many people voted as in 2001, the mayor would have spent $59 a vote, to Ferrer's $12, and Tom Ognibene's mere $4. Basically, Ognibene buys each voter a sandwich, Freddy takes you to the movies, and the mayor brings 'em to a joint with tablecloths and something called a "wine list." Eat up!

If you compare all 51 council districts (keeping in mind that some of them don't have competitive races this fall), the top 10 in terms of money raised per candidate are, in order: Forest Hills, Borough Park, Woodside, West Side, Park Slope, Jamaica, Douglaston, Middle Village, Flushing, and the Upper East Side. The bottom ten fundraisers include Bed-Stuy, south Staten Island, Flatlands, Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Washington Heights, Co-Op City, East New York, South Bronx, Crown Heights, and the mid-West Side. Eight of the top 10 fundraising districts are represented by white people; seven of the bottom 10 seats are held by minorities. In fiercely contested Upper East Side District 4, Democratic candidates raised $90,000 each. In fiercely contested Ocean Hill's District 41, they took in $30,000 a piece.

Sure, there are a couple of outliers in the rankings—Leroy Comrie in Jamaica, not a wealthy area, among the top 10 and Andrew Lanza's comfortable Staten Island district among the bottom—but basically the lists conform to the haves and have nots of the city. Maybe the fact that wealthier neighborhoods translate into wealthier campaigns is too obvious to warrant mention, but it does seem worth noting that some people's votes come at a higher price than others.

At a testy meeting Friday the Campaign Finance Board ruled that Gifford Miller's campaign was "not in compliance" with the rules of the public finance system, and so left it out of the last round of matching funds payments (Ferrer, Fields, and Weiner received a total of $848,000 in such funds). But it was not a "final" finding, nor a finding of violation. Miller campaign spokesman Steve Sigmund said the impact of the ruling "is almost nothing." But $400,000 in ad money—that's what the Miller bid has had to pull back because of the dispute—ain't nothing. And the testy exchanges between Miller's lawyer (also the lawyer for Bronx City Council candidate Steve Kaufman, who has a similar dispute with the board) and commission staff suggested that even though the board didn't fine Miller or declare him over the spending cap, the decision was still not wonderful news.

The dispute concerns campaign spending that Miller claims is exempt from the expenditure cap because it was devoted to his petitioning effort, but which opponents say actually helped his primary election bid. If the board rules that a significant portion of Miller's nearly $1 million in claimed petitioning expenses is not exempt, it could push Miller over the $5.7 million spending limit. Literature is at the heart of the matter: Can petition gatherers hand out literature that promotes a candidate, and still be considered exempt? The CFB asked the Miller campaign to prove that it's claims were legit.

"The Board has reviewed the Miller campaign's materials to determine if at this time the Miller Campaign has met its burden . . . to show that its exempt claims are valid and that the campaign has thus not exceeded the expenditure limit," the board's statement read. "To date, the Miller campaign has failed to do this." One member, Dale C. Christensen, Jr. dissented, saying the board had not articulated the standard it was asking the Miller campaign to uphold.

Sigmund said the ruling's impact was "almost nothing" because the campaign has already received about $2.5 million in matching funds. This round of payments would have involved a mere $13,000 in new funds, Sigmund said, and another $130,000 or so in money the campaign qualified for in earlier rounds but was part of the 5 percent that the Board normally withholds.

But hey, money isn't everything. The principle—and the image—are important, too. The CFB suggests Miller is not complying with a law at the foundation of efforts to reform New York's government. Sigmund claims the Miller campaign provided more documentation to the CFB than any campaign in history. Someone's gotta be wrong, right?

Sopranos star Michael Imperioli, right, with Manhattan boro prez candidate Carlos Manzano, center, and supporter Frank Macchiarola

Carlos Manzano, one of nine Democratic contenders for the Manhattan Borough President's job, landed TV star Michael Imperioli, who plays Tony Soprano's brooding and troubled mob protégé on HBO's The Sopranos, to help draw a crowd for his campaign fundraisers. But Manzano also attracted some dubious donors who could tell some real-life tales about the mob—if they ever cared to discuss it.

Among those who have anted up big bucks for Manzano's bid are a pair of alleged Gambino crime family associates from New Jersey who, according to numerous law enforcement reports, were considered members of a murderous Irish-American gang known as "the Westies." Campaign finance records show that Francis "Buddy" Leahy and Michael "Mickey" Cahill, along with two other family members, donated a total of $4,850 to Manzano last year.

Leahy and Cahill run a major construction firm in Englewood Cliffs that supplies steel re-bar. They allegedly kicked back a share of their earnings to the late John Gotti, according to testimony by mob turncoats Salvatore "Sammy Bull" Gravano and Michael "Mikey Scars" DiLeonardo.

Manzano, whose home base is the venerable McManus Midtown Democratic Association and whose main political patron is former city Board of Elections official Jim McManus, also took in thousands in campaign cash from another alleged mob figure. Former private waste hauling king Angelo Ponte, who served 20 months in prison after being convicted as a kingpin in the mob's cartel, donated $2,000 to Manzano last year. Ponte's wife Rosalie gave $3,850, the maximum allowed in the race.

Manzano said he recalled meeting Leahy and Cahill "a couple of times" at his fundraisers. "They are business people as far as I am concerned," he said. As for Ponte, he said he recalled reading about "his problems" in the newspaper. "Bear in mind most of my contributions are from small donors," he said. "I believe I am setting a record this year." Which is why such big givers might stand out. Was he bothered by hauling in mob ducats for his campaign? "I've got to look into it," said Manzano.

Leahy and Cahill did not return calls. Ponte, who could not be reached, has figured in another important Manhattan campaign: District Attorney Robert Morgenthau convicted him in the carting case; former Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder, Morgy's dogged challenger, doled out his sentence.

Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes may be the only candidate to have prosecuted a member of the wealthy Chehebar family, which owns a chain of clothing stores, but he's hardly the only one to rake in campaign donations from the clan.

The New York Post reported Monday that Hynes accepted some $80,000 from donors it said were tied to the family of Isaac Chehebar who received a six-month sentence from Hynes' office after an auto accident in which the 21-year-old hit and killed two sisters out for a Sunday stroll on Ocean Parkway in 2001. Hynes said the plea bargain was expressly approved by the victims' family, although the father of the girls later expressed dismay at the sentence.

Fast forward to 2004: Hynes holds a fundraiser in Deal, N.J., a seaside town that is summer home to many wealthy Sephardic Jewish families, and an increasingly popular campaign watering hole for city pols on the make. Several business associates of the Chehebars are among those attending. A Hynes spokesman said the campaign immediately returned two checks from Chehebar family members, but accepted some $10,000 from business associates without realizing the connection to the family.

The donations were hardly unique. Campaign records show the Chehebars and their associates have been a campaign treasure trove for years, going back to Rudy Giuliani's 1989 campaign when they shelled out over $10,000 to him. This year alone, Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner has hauled in $15,000 from the family, and another $24,000 from associates, filings show. Two other mayoral wannabes, Gifford Miller and Fernando Ferrer, have received $11,400 and $9,950. Others receiving donations this year include Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, along with councilmembers Mike Nelson, James Sanders, James Gennaro, and Dominic Recchia.

Among mayoral candidates, Fields lists about $2,400 in money to a host of clubs and Anthony Weiner made a single $4,000 donation to the John E. Ruiz club. (Ferrer 's filings contain no mention of checks to clubs). In the public advocate race, Betsy Gotbaum has dished $4,700 to clubs, to Norm Siegel's $25.

Altogether, city campaigns have pumped $90,000 into the coffers of clubs around the city. Some of the candidates' checks to clubs are contributions, while others are for renting office space or other services. Among political clubs, the Brewer club in Queens has done the best so far this campaign season with nearly $8,500 in revenue from campaigns.

But let's face it: When clubbing, there are snazzier places to go than the local politicos' hangout. That's why a CFB search for expenditures on "clubs" reveals that the 2005 campaign has been waged from the Harvard Club to the Park Avenue Country Club to the B.B. King Blues Club & Grill, where Mayor Mike's campaign spent $101,000 on events.