F
AIR
E
LECTION
P
RACTICES
C
OMMITTEE
Decision Notification Form
E
LECTION
:
House of Representatives, NY-25
C
ANDIDATES
:
Maggie BrooksLouise Slaughter
C
LAIMANT
:
Maggie Brooks
D
ATE
C
OMPLAINTS
R
ECEIVED
:
October 8, 2012
I
TEM
:
A campaign mailer from the New York State Democratic Committee with
the first page with a picture of Maggie Brooks stating “FBI Investigation,
Pay-to-
Play. Maggie Brooks’ Record: Stolen Tax Dollars…FBIInvestigation…Pay
-to-
Play Politics…Ethical Lapses”. Th
e next page
states the following: “Maggie Brooks’ scandals cost taxpayers over $423million. Stolen Tax Dollars: Brooks’ husband, who got a brand new job at
the Water Authority, received a special waiver allowing him to double-dip
into taxpayers’ pockets.
While he collected both his salary and a pension,a state audit charged Water Authority executives with walking off a half amillion dollars in unearned pay and benefits. A local newspaper criticized
Brooks for running “an unapologetic patronage mill. FBI
Investigation:An FBI investigation found that county contractors did political work,some on county time. They even raised tens of thousands of dollars incampaign cash for Brooks. Fifteen workers were arrested and one pleadedguilty to defrauding taxpayers. Pay-To-Play Politics: Brooks specialized inpay-to-play politics. She took hundreds of thousands of dollars from heremployees and businesses seeking contracts from Monroe County. Howdid she thank them? Raises and county contracts. Ethical Lapses: Bro
oks’
airport director resigned after spending more than $20,000 on strip clubsand cigars- paid for by taxpayers. His replacement resigned after a DUI in
a county car, and Brooks’ appointee as crime lab director made so many
mistakes that several cases, including a rape, were left unsolved unable tobe prosecuted.
SCANDALS’ TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS
Local Development Corporations $383 millionBudget Mismanagement $38 millionRobutrad $1 millionDouble-Dipping Husband $1 millionAirport Director Misuse of Funds $21,000HR Director Fraud $15,000
Brooks’ Misuse of Airport Credit
Card$1,300Total 423,148,021
Total Per Taxpayer:(employed person 16 years orolder- 344,863 in Monroe County$1,226.98
Scandals. Taxes. We can’t afford Maggie Brooks.”
The last page states
“Inside: The Maggie Brooks Record of Scandal”
COMPLAINT:
The claim that
“Maggie Brooks’
scandals cost Monroe County taxpayers$423 million
”.
This statement is in violation of the following sections of
the Fair Campaign Pledge: “I will conduct my campaign accurately andhonestly” and “I will publically repudiate any individual or group whoseactivities on my campaign’s behalf (directly or indir
ectly) violate this Fair
Campaign Pledge”.
The claim that “Maggie Brooks Scandals Cost Taxpayers over $423Million” is erroneous and violates the pledge as the calculation is
overblown or outright false.At a minimum, the cost of $383 in scandal to taxpayers relating to LocalDevelopment Corporations and $38 million related to BudgetMismanagement is false and misleading. While Local DevelopmentCorporations have been scrutinized, there is no basis in fact that they willcost taxpayers $383 million related to scandal. The same applied to the
unfounded $38 million in cost of scandal to taxpayers related to “BudgetMismanagement” claimed by the mailing.
The mailing also states $15,000 in cost of scandal to taxpayers relating to
“HR Director Fraud.” There are no known instances of fraud related to theCounty’s Human Resources Director.
The mailing allocates the fictitious $423 million in “scandals cost totaxpayers” to the working population of
Monroe County, claiming thatthis cost each taxpayer $1,226.98. Because the cost basis for thiscalculation is false, the cost per taxpayer is also false.While the mailing was paid for by the New York State Democratic
Committee, it contains identical financial calculations as Mrs. Slaughter’
sown television commercial that was ruled in violation of the Pledge by theFair Election Practices Committee on 10/2/12. Therefore, this mailingviolates the Pledge and Mrs. Slaughter also is in violation as she has notrepudiated it. Of course, even if Mrs. Slaughter did repudiate this mailingafter the fact, it would be unacceptable as she continues to run a televisioncommercial deemed in violation with identical information.
|