As reported here in November, an autopsy of Hall’s defeat attributed heavy outside spending on attack ads as the likely difference in the close race, only possible in the wake of a January 2010 ruling which allowed unidentified donors to purchase unlimited campaign advertising.

No one knows exactly how much was spent against Hall or his opponent Nan Hayworth and we probably never will – investigative reporter Mike McIntire says even the NY Times’ best efforts to find out who is behind secretive “Super PACs” have come up empty again and again.

With polls showing Americans favor both donor disclosure and campaign spending limits, many now believe the SCOTUS case also changed the course of health care reform with the acquisition of Hall’s seat as a key win for the for-profit health insurance lobby.

After Citizens United, big PhRMA began to “kill the bill” they negotiated with the White House, seeing a wholly greater chance to repeal it by buying enough Members of Congress. Nan Hayworth explicity ran on an anti-Obamacare platform while supporting anonymous donations as a new challenge for voters to try to figure out who is “credible” without disclosure of any sort.

NYU Law Professor Ronald Dworkin explained why the Citizens United v. FEC case needs another look in the New York Review:

In the 2008 presidential primary season a small corporation, Citizens United, financed to a minor extent by corporate contributions, tried to broadcast a derogatory movie about Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the broadcast illegal under the BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]. Citizens United then asked the Supreme Court to declare it exempt from that statute on the ground, among others, that it proposed to broadcast its movie only on a pay-per-view channel.

In a startling example of corporate activism, five Conservative Judges led by John Roberts quickly, surprisingly and drastically expanded the scope and declared the entire BCRA act unconstitutional.

The new lack of accountability in attack ads has already resulted in a scandalous number of false or deceptive claims, according to a study by FactCheck.org. Only libel lawsuits protect against this common but now legalized lying, however no one can reverse election results after the fact.

Hall’s remarks have garnered coverage by CBS News, Huffington Post (with 2,700 comments so far), David Horowitz, Raw Story and The Washington Examiner. Rumored as a possible Obama or Cuomo administration appointee, Hall is convinced that Congressional seats were bought and that America should beware the expansion of “corporate personhood”. Several Conservative commentators argue that Hall’s class of Democrats were similarly bought by banksters and big health, although I don’t see how this would somehow excuse it now for Republicans.

It is believed NY’s 19th district will be significantly redrawn following census-year redistricting, with much of Rockland newly encompassed within the new boundaries.

We do know Hayworth won by 53-47% but because of the recent Citizen’s United  ruling by the US Supreme Court, corporations can buy unlimited campaign ads without disclosing their officers, size, members, location, amounts, criminal history, citizenship status or affiliations.

The article spelled out how 501(c)(4) groups spending for conservatives more than doubled spending to liberals. Hayworth agreed with the ruling which allowed limitless contributions by “entities” on First Amendment grounds.

Although 48 Republicans in the US Senate voted for greater disclosure in 2000, the number shriveled to zero voting for the DISCLOSE act in the last term. Not surprisingly, the GOP were by far the biggest beneficiaries of the secret money. Karl Rove even touted his latest organization’s ability to shield donors from any scrutiny which drew complaints from tax policy watchdogs.

An analysis of donations in the Hayworth-Hall race does point to an interesting difference in the campaigns – with more contributions from individuals and labor groups, Hall received more donations from people and Hayworth received more donations from industry, businesses and PACs from outside the district. Anti-Hall ads were also purchased by secretive groups such as “OpsPAC” for which no information is available.

In contributing $1.1 million to Hayworth, former Governor George Pataki said his corporation had to conceal his donors because he feared they would be harrassed or boycotted if the public found out who they were.

My personal concern is the loss of transparency in our elections. If voters do not know who is pumping money into a race, or paying to blanket TV and radio with attack ads, how can they properly decide who has real grassroots support and who is essentially a puppet of large industries?

Hayworth believes it’s the voter’s burden now to determine who is who, by deciding for themselves who is credible, as the new law stripped transparency from the process that allowed big health, Wall Street hedge funds and anonymous non-profits to buoy her to victory.

I would suggest to candidates left, right and center that voluntary disclosure greatly helps voters decide. We all remember the Pan-Asian donor scandal marring Clinton/Gore’s re-election as they brokered generous free trade policies to benefit Far East industries. So we see how bundling, straw donors and opacity leads to accusations of pay-for-play and corruption.

Today, however, the stakes are raised. With terrorists seeking to drain the US economy, only transparency can prevent the influence of foreigners in US elections. And in the case of the rich buying their way into elected office, we need safeguards that prevent wealthy individuals from creating non-profit corporations to hide their identity while allowing them to “legally” buy campaign ads for themselves.

This is good news for the Hall campaign, which had trailed Hayworth in past polls. A Public Policy Polling/DailyKos poll had Hall trailing Hawyworth by 2 percent, and the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog had previously given Hayworth a 73 percent chance of winning the 19th Congressional District and has revised that number to 69 percent.

FiveThirtyEight now has Hayworth projected to take 50.7 percent of the vote to Hall’s 47 percent.

Becoming increasingly more important to this race are the write-in candidacy mounted by Hayworth’s former Republican primary opponent, Neil Di Carlo. Di Carlo, unhappy with Hayworth’s position on social issues such as abortion, has asked his supporters to vote, but to select a write-in candidate. Republished from previously given Hayworth a 673 percent chance of winning the 19th Congressional District and has revised that number to 69 percent. FiveThirtyEight now has Hayworth projected to take 50.7 percent of the vote to Hall’s 47 percent. Becoming increasingly more important to this race are the write-in candidacy mounted by Hayworth’s former Republican primary opponent, Neil Di Carlo. Di Carlo, unhappy with Hayworth’s position on social issues such as abortion, has asked his supporters to vote, but to select a write-in candidate.

Republished from Left of the Hudson.

Perhaps because of Nan Hayworth’s pro-abortion stance, Di Carlo refused to endorse her in the upcoming race against John Hall for Congress. And while Di Carlo hasn’t quite came out and say to vote for him come November, Di Carlo is adamant that voters select a write-in candidate in the race.

On his campaign website, Di Carlo won’t go a step further than recognizing Hayworth’s primary victory. There is no concession, no congratulations, and certainly no endorsement. But this Di Carlo does say:

To endorse or vote for Nan Hayworth, however, would require me to place profound moral principles beneath mere party expediency – a price neither I nor any candidate should be required to pay. Our differences on social issues fall within these bounds.

I believe that forsaking our moral American heritage is to blame for much of our country’s downfall.

To those who feel that neither candidate represents their concerns, I encourage you to still vote on November 2nd and write in a candidate of your choice.

We cannot assume that right-to-life voters will swarm to a write-in candidate, nor can we even assume that these voters will sit on their hands because of Hayworth’s stances on abortion and other social issues. This we can say: Don’t doubt that the votes gathered by Neil Di Carlo’s Quixotic quest won’t peel away from Nan Hayworth’s tally.

Versions of this article also appear on Plan Putnam, DailyKos, Left of the Hudson, and The Albany Project.

While John Hall stayed home in his district last night, donating his time and talents to save the Beacon Theater, Nan Hayworth was living the high life out of State, partying at her fundraiser thrown by Hedge Fund Kings Steven Shapiro and Charlie Parkhurst in tony Greenwich, CT.

Shapiro and Parkhurst have worked for both large investment banks and for so-called salon firms, tiny entities which can still hold billions in investor assets. Shapiro headed Intrepid Capital Investments, which managed to lose nearly 90 percent of investment capital between 2007 and 2009. Parkhurst, a former managing director at Smith Barney, moved on to Archeus Captial Management, which shut down when its hedge funds went from $3 billion to $700 million in assets in three years. After helping to form Centerlight Capital Management in the dust of Archeus, Parkhurst has gone on to be a trader at the British Investment Bank Barclays.

Despite investors losing their shirts on Archeus and Intrepid investments, times must not be too bad for Shapiro and Parkhust, neither of whom are residents of New York State or the 19th Congressional District. Prior to last night’s high-price soiree at Shapiro’s mansion (just check out this Google maps image), both have donated $2,400 to Hayworth’s campaign.

Nan Hayworth is a multi-millionaire herself and largely a self-funding candidate in her campaign’s early stages. Hayworth’s husband runs the mammoth Mount Kisco Medical Group of more than 200 physicians in Westchester County.

A version of this diary is posted at Left of the Hudson, The Albany Project, and Take 19.

The integrity of a Republican candidate’s congressional campaign came under fire this week after news emerged that three notary publics she used in gathering petition signatures admitted to professional misconduct.

Nan Hayworth’s campaign manager, John Hicks, along with other notaries, admitted to misconduct on a court witness stand on Wednesday in regards to the handling of Independence Party petitions. Hayworth, a retired Mt. Kisco ophthalmologist, is one of two potential Republican opponents to Congressman John Hall (D-Dover) in the mid-term elections.

During the court review of the petitions, Hicks admitted that the charges by Congressman’s John Hall campaign were true, and that he didn’t uphold the law “in the traditional sense” when gathering signatures.

As a small, fusion party in New York, the Independence Party, must use notaries, when party members are not available to carry petitions. This helps to reduce errors and petition mishandling. More importantly, notary publics must swear each person in before they sign a petition sheet. The lawyer for Hall’s campaign alleges that Hayworth’s campaign did not meet the legal criteria and that her volunteers and staff consistently perpetuated fraud when gathering signatures.

While Hicks, along with two others, admitted to not following New York law, Hicks attempted to distance his personal petition practices from the campaign he manages. On the stand, he denied coordinating the campaign’s petition process, first insisting that he did not know who was responsible and later making the claim that nobody had coordinated this important step of ballot access.

A few weeks back, Nan Hayworth’s campaign had denied any wrongdoing in an email to Left of the Hudson:

The Hayworth campaign categorically and vehemently rejects the allegations that any campaign staffer, notary or others engaged in deliberate fraud regarding Independence Party petitions.

I now wonder if that email message was a deliberate parsing of words by Hayworth’s campaign. While they’re now admitting to mishandling the petitions, they’re denying their culpability, insisting that they did not do so  deliberately. This does not absolve them; Hicks as a lawyer, former Orange County Republican Committee Chairman, and notary, must have known better.

John Hall’s campaign responded to Hick’s admission:

“I’m glad that Mr. Hicks came clean that he never swore in signers, despite a clear legal requirement for him to do so. He’s an experienced attorney and this is not his first election. He should have known better than to break the law,” Hall campaign manager Patrick McGarrity said. “However, his efforts to deny that anyone in the Hayworth campaign coordinated their petition efforts is disingenuous at best. Somehow, a petition arrived at the New York State Board of Elections in Albany.”

One other Hayworth campaign worker, a notary, testified to not swearing in petition signers as required by law. Other Hayworth notaries defended their petition practices, even despite the insistence of signers who claim they were not sworn in.

One politician, a Yorktown Town Councilman, Vishnu Patel, admitted his involvement in the mishandling of petitions, saying that he gathered a signature for his wife and then turning the page over to her to notarize. Councilman Patel is not a member of the Independence Party or a notary and cannot carry Independence Party petitions.

The notary section on a petition page is a written legal declaration. The document attests to the identity of those signing it as well as the identity of the person carrying it. Notaries are not just identify petition signers, but witness that signers wish for the candidate to be the party’s nominee; thus notaries must swear in petition signers. Notary publics who violate this process are found to have committed fraud.

Patel’s wife, Dipika, contradicted her husband during her testimony, claiming that she gathered more than 70 signatures all by herself. The Hall campaign, however, has collected several affidavits from  signees regarding the Patels’ conduct, which disputes both their claims. Hall’s campaign maintains that the Patels systemically committed fraud.

In a press release, Hall’s campaign backs up this claim:

“It seems more than suspect that the only instance of fraud that Patel admitted to is the one that was extensively covered by News 12 in the days preceding his appearance in court,” Hall manager McGarrity said. “Patel went into the trial knowing specifically of one signature that we had evidence against. There is absolutely no credibility to his claim that this one ‘mistake’ is the limit to the fraud he perpetrated.”

While John Hall’s campaign may be more focused on getting Hayworth knocked off the Independence Party line; the issue for many following this issue is not this particular election but Hayworth’s campaign’s integrity. Her staff and volunteers were caught red-handed in election misconduct and their response is basically, “oh well, who cares?”

In addition to this muddying the election waters, this misconduct degrades the trust the public seeks in the notaries. How can New York State residents trust notarized documents when it’s OK—at least according to those who may potentially work one day for a federal lawmaker—to not follow the law when handling legal documents. How could anyone feel comfortable with having a notary engaging in misconduct later handling their documents, especially critical ones like those in regards to estate planning or property titles? The office of the notary, as a whole, becomes suspect and falls apart if you can’t find people to honestly verify signatures.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Lynch is scheduling further court proceedings on this issue. Hall and his campaign intend to show that these instances of misconduct, and others, reveal a systemic problem in the Hayworth campaign where notarial fraud was prevalent.  It is possible that this may invalidate many of Hayworth’s Independence Party petitions.

Variations of this article are posted at The Albany Project, Left of the Hudson,andPlanPutnam.org.

Kristia Cavere, from Tuxedo in Orange County, is the Tea Party and a Republican candidate for New York’s 19th Congressional District seat held by Hall. Cavere thinks that the Democrats have co-opted Republican values and claims, among other things, that:

“The Republicans are the ones who liberated Europe in World War II.”

She continued by saying that the Republicans have always initiated “every” advancement of freedom in our history.

“Unfortunately, today there are many Republicans in office who are cowards and who are bad communicators,” she said. “We have the right ideas, the right principles, the right philosophy and history on our side.”

Her comments appeared in the April 23 edition of the Record-Review, a newspaper that serves Pound Ridge and Bedford, NY. The newspaper has not printed an online version of the article.

Ms. Cavere is only 30, but that does not excuse her for having poor grasp of American history. The last thing I would ever want to do is to politicize something as significant as our victory in World War, or at least the European end of it, as she sees it.

Yes, this is the last argument I would ever want to have with anyone, but this is what it’s starting to boil down to: defending our values against lies by the far rightwing when they attempt to discredit and demonize the Democratic Party. There is no honor or logic to making such a partisan claim, no matter what party you’re affiliated with. I would be just as ashamed if someone said the Democrats won World War II because FDR and Truman were the presidents during the war—that’s just wrong!

Thousands of Democrats died in the Battle of the Bulge right next to the thousands of Republicans who also gave their young lives. This is true for all the battles. It was true in World War II, it was true in Vietnam, and it’s true today.

George McGovern was a World War II hero, having won the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal and three oak leaf clusters during the war. I guess George McGovern’s heroism doesn’t count in Ms. Cavere’s world, as he’s one of the iconic faces of American liberalism today. To be fair, let me honor a great Republican who fought in World War II. John Paul Hammerscmidt also won the Distinguished Flying Cross and became a Republican Congressman from Arkansas.

No party holds claim to the heroism that Americans showed in that war. In fact, Ms. Cavere dishonors the memory of all those who lost their lives in World War II by cheapening the war as some sort of partisan victory rather than the desperate but noble cause that this country was united under

After trying to discredit those on the left but going way off target, Ms. Cavere then had the audacity to speak of American unity:

“We have to unify and become Americans together and not just identify with a political party,” she said. “America and principles must come before our party. There is common ground that can be found.”

Ms. Cavere, you have no right to talk about unity until you apologize to the families of all those who wore the uniform during WWII. Your comments were an attempt to cheapen the honorable military service hundreds of thousands of men and women who served who did not, or currently do not, share your political values. Shame on you, Ms. Cavere.

Well, this is good news that the Putnam teabagger, Greg Ball has dropped out of the race. (Although the timing, right after the Republican ballyhooed a poll showing him within striking distance of John Hall, makes the timing slightly suspect.)

Still, this isn’t great news. Westchester Opthamologist Nan Hayworth will not have a Republican primary opponent and Rep. John Hall (D) still has a tough race ahead of him.

Ball announced Saturday that he’s abandoning his campaign for the 19th Congressional District seat held by Hall, and will run instead for State Senate in 2010.

In a press release Saturday afternoon, Ball, who is from Putnam County, said he’ll run for the the 40th District State Senate seat currently held by Republican Vincent Leibell.  The State Senate district includes parts of Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester counties.

John Hall’s congressional district includes a portion of northern Rockland and southern Orange Counties on this side of the river.

Mt. Kisco opthamologist Nan Hayworth later today is expected to unveil a new website and disclose that’s she’s already got more than $300,000 for her congressional run.

Hayworth is said to be well known in the area due to her years working as doctor, and her husband Scott Hayworth is an OB/GYN and CEO of the Mt. Kisco Medical Group.

She has reportedly been talking with Sue Kelly, the former longtime 19th rep, who Hall unseated Kelly in 2006 with 51 percent of the vote.

This candidacy makes for some interesting scenarios.
I’d first like to report that Hayworth is targeting independent and Democratic voters in her initial emails. Yesterday, I got three emails from her, each one sent to a different address. Other progressive voters that like in the 19th (I do not) said that they have already been contacted by her campaign. This early move tells me that Hayworth will be targeting socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republicans, like many of those that you would find in northern Westchester County.

Her campaign Web site is not up yet, but a blog called Hayworth for Congress has already been launched. In it, Hayworth (the woman on the left in the photograph) attacks John Hall mostly for his support of the stimulus bill, although many of the assumptions she makes about the lack of job creation on her Web site are misguided or erroneous. There is no mention of social issues such as gay marriage or abortion that one would typically find from a staunch conservative candidate. So I think it’s safe to say that Hayworth will run to the left of Ball in the primary.

And Hayworth has a lot of cash behind her campaign already. She already has $168,247 in contributions and has loaned herself $150,000. This war chest of nearly $320,000 is substantial.

What little I know about Scott and Nan Hayworth is that they have many connections to money and power in Westchester. They’re on boards and donors lists of many civic and benevolent organizations and are the quintessential Westchester power couple. They’ll have no problems finding friends willing to write them $2,000 checks and names like Pataki, Giuliani, and Bloomberg endorsing Nan.

The good news is that this will be devastating for Greg Ball, as he’ll have to much of his cash on a tough primary battle. As Ball’s primary opponent, Hayworth will also expose his Achilles Heel if not pierce it. The bad news is that I worry that Hayworth can win the primary and she’d be a much stronger candidate against John Hall come November as she doesn’t have the baggage that Ball does. While Hayworth won’t inspire any loyalty from teabaggers as Ball does, she is a moderate and can appeal to independents and moderates.

As many of you know, Hall has two possible Republican opponents for his Congressional seat. One, Assembly member Greg Ball (AD-99), is already campaigning vigorously, but his message is dubious at best. Our friends at Take19 will be setting the record straight over the coming year and the Rockland Progressive Dems is glad to be part of this effort as many of our members live in NY-19.

Please vist Take19′s site and keep in mind that we will have one tough Congressional battle in Rockland County next fall.