The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Labor's scattershot approach to campaign financing is once again in evidence in the Q2 FEC filings. Even after Randy Kuhl's March vote against the main union bill of the session, the Employee Free Choice Act, the contributions kept rolling in.

Of the $6,500 Kuhl received from labor this quarter, perhaps the most interesting contribution is the $2,000 donation from the Machininsts' Non-Partisan League. Like Solomon, the Machinists decided to cut the baby in half by also donating $5,000 to the Massa campaign.

In the bible, the story of Solomon is a parable. In the 29th, it's a reality. So continues the strange tale of union political advocacy.

Randy Kuhl's fundraising numbers have been posted by the FEC. During the second quarter, Kuhl raised $68K, $62K of which was from corporate, labor and party-related Political Action Committees (PACs).

Eric Massa raised $158K this quarter. $133K of that total was raised from individuals, the rest from labor and party-related PACs. Massa does not accept corporate PAC donations.

Massa's fundraising totals give him about $50K more cash-on-hand ($153K vs $105K for Kuhl), though Massa's campaign owes $78K. David Nachbar has the most cash on hand of any candidate ($202K) because of his personal loan to his campaign.

Today's Elmira Star-Gazette carries a story about Randy Kuhl's recent votes against major appropriation bills. As mentioned here last month, Kuhl voted against two appropriation bills that included earmarks he sponsored. Even though he voted against the bills, he still touted the earmarks on his website.

Kuhl's explanation for this apparent contradiction contains some topsy-turvy logic:

"The point is the bills passed, so why shouldn't I tell people about the local projects that were in them?" Kuhl said. "They wouldn't have been in there if I hadn't requested them."

Kuhl said he didn't vote for the bills -- with the exception of one that increased spending for veterans and military members -- because he thinks the Democratic majority is increasing spending too much.

As the article points out, Kuhl is clearly trying to have it both ways by saying that only his pork is worthy. One theory, offered by University of Rochester Professor Gerald Gamm, is that Kuhl will get away with this because "constituents are not paying attention to all the details". That may be true, but I think Kuhl will have a second explanation available later this year, after the Senate amends the spending bills.

Kuhl's vote against H R 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, is another example of a vote against a popular bill. This bill was opposed by a majority of Republicans, for a variety of reasons. Like last month's vote against the Homeland Security bill, voting against an increase in funding for financial aid financed on the back of banks seems like a stone loser for Kuhl. However, like the other appropriations bills Kuhl opposed, this bill has yet to pass through the gauntlet of the Senate.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been making heavy use of cloture rules and the party loyalty of his fellow Republicans to control the agenda of the Senate. The ability of Republicans to block debate on bills is a powerful lever that the Republicans will use to force compromises on the appropriations bills passed by the House. After those bills have been amended, they will go back to the House for a vote. I'll wager that they'll get Kuhl's support the second time around.

The combination of Bush's veto threats, the loyalty of Republicans like Randy Kuhl in the House, and the lack of a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate is one that allows the Republicans to exert significant control over the legislative process. When Kuhl is challenged by the press or his opponent to explain his initial no votes, he'll point to changes in the bills to show that his no vote led to a more fiscally responsible bill.

Whether that's true will, indeed, require exceedingly close attention to the details.

Update: The same story made the July 16 issue of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.

Today's Massa press conference covered three topics: health care, the local economy, and Iraq.

Massa began with plug for Michael Moore's new movie, Sicko. Massa watched the movie and spoke at a special showing at Rochester's Little Theater. Massa recognized that people sometimes focus on Michael Moore's persona and tend to lose the message of the movie. Even so, Massa said:

I invite every voting American to go see this movie. It's something I've been talking about for two years: the moral, financial and ethical imperative of reforming our medical system.

Massa re-iterated his support of single-payer health insurance and addressed some of shortfalls of the current system. For-profit HMOs have "destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and corrupted the political system." Massa pointed to the $70,000 in HMO-related PAC money received by Randy Kuhl during the last cycle, and noted that "when that happens, you give up your credibility about speaking for the people."

Massa noted that Kuhl's charge that single-payer would raise taxes by $7,000 per person was not only too high, but also that it ignored the other burdens placed on business, which pays 50% of health care costs, as well as on the taxpayers. Massa noted that 25% of Medicaid is paid for by taxpayers. Even though the popular conception is that Medicaid only goes to the economically disadvantaged, Massa noted that roughly 70% of Medicaid money goes to elder care.

I asked Massa whether he thought that single-payer is a silver bullet solution to health care issues. He said that there's no single silver bullet, but single payer changes the health care model. He pointed out that the majority of health care money is spent in the last 1 to 1 1/2 years of life. One of the reasons for this is that most of the health care decisions are from the perspective of the bottom line of for-profit HMOs. Massa believes this is the wrong model, and that those decisions need to be made by the doctor, patient and family.

I also asked his take on the some of the criticisms of single-payer as implemented in Canada. For example, the formularies (list of authorized drugs) in one province differ from others, and often new, life-saving drugs are delayed. Massa responded by noting that the overall health statistics in Canada are better. Massa said that we can't use the Canadian examples to stop us from moving forward. Instead we need to look at what's wrong in Canada and say "let's not repeat it here". He noted that Medicare, which is functionally single-payer healthcare, is largely successful.

Massa also repeated one of the messages of his 2006 campaign: everyone should have the same medical plan that Congress has given itself: "If it's too expensive for the average US citizen, why is it not for every member of Congress?"

Massa then turned to jobs. He laid out two formulas for job creation in the 29th:

1. "Bring home pork...a never-ending series of addictive Washington handouts." This is Massa's characterization of Randy Kuhl's plan, and he used as evidence Kuhl's recent $43,000 earmark that paid for a study to find barriers to economic development in Cattaraugus and Allegany counties, as well as three counties in Pennsylvania. Massa's retort:

   I think it would have been better to give me the $43,000, because I know the two reasons: no jobs and no roads.

   Massa called this handout "exactly what the government should not be doing".
2. "A new vision that marries education and industry." This is Massa's new economic plan, and he added a few details. He said that we need to "educate to the economy". He sees a plan where students sign up contractually for a certain job, and receive an education that is the product of industry and professors working together to create courses that address real industry needs. Massa sees the role of government as providing tax breaks to help pay for the infrastructure needed to enable this partnership.

Massa's third topic was Iraq. He mentioned the accusation that he's a one-issue candidate, and countered that Iraq is the "issue of my generation". He pointed to Randy Kuhl's multiple votes in support of the War and his multiple, incorrect predictions of when the war would end.

I asked him if he thought Kuhl was a "dead ender" or if he would change his position on Iraq. Massa said that he can't predict that, but "this election is about accountability". He noted that when Kuhl was asked whether he supported the war in Iraq during his first run for Congress, he said that he did.

In other Massa-related news, his campaign announced two more labor endorsements, from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

I've been off the net for a couple of days, but the news in the 29th keeps rolling in. Here's the roundup:

• Randy Kuhl has joined the bi-partisan Congressional Human Rights Caucus.
• Eric Massa has racked up another union endorsement - this one is from the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
• Rochesterturning reports that Bob VanWicklin's assertion that turnout in the North was lower than in the South was rebutted, forcefully, in the Corning Leader. VanWicklin's statement is incorrect for the 29th, but it was made in the context of speculation about the fate of the 29th after redistricting, which might include all of Monroe County, including Rochester. Since most of Rochester is represented by safe-seat Louise Slaughter, my guess is overall Monroe turnout for Congressional races is lower than turnout in the Southern Tier. I still don't agree with VanWicklin, since a tight race in the "new" 29th might draw more Rochester voters to the polls. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't simply misstating well-known facts.