Dutchess County Clean Government Petition sign now

Now, more than ever, it's time for us to pull together to break the stranglehold grip that special interests have over our government at federal, state, and most importantly, the county level.

Public records at our county's Board of Elections and Comptroller's offices show that 43 different companies (including ten from outside our county) have given donations to top public officials and/or the Republican party-- and "coincidentally", it seems, have received literally millions of our county tax dollars in contracts.

In fact, over the last ten years ten companies from outside our county have given $30,000 to the Dutchess County Republican Committee, G.O.P. Legislative Fund, and our County Executive-- and received more than $13 million in county contracts.

The Poughkeepsie Journal has editorialized strongly twice over the last five years that our county should follow the example of Rockland County and pass a campaign finance reform law on the local level-- a $100 limit on campaign contributions to county officials or candidates from companies who do business with the county. Our County Legislature should delay no longer on this.

Incredibly, over and over again over the last five years Dutchess County Republicans have stated that it is "illegal" for our county to have a similar law-- even though Rockland County's law has been on the books now for well over five years, and no one has legally challenged it.

We need reform badly-- two years ago in 2003 our County Executive outspent his only challenger (the intrepid Fred Bunnell) by more than $260,000. Bunnell had less than $20,000 at his disposal, yet won over 40\% of the vote-- one wonders at knows what the result might have been if our county had enacted campaign finance reform earlier. We can afford to wait no longer on this.

Look at the 1999 race for Dutchess County Executive. Steinhaus outspent hard-working citizen activist Irv Miller by about 8 to 1 then; Miller raised $14,000 (exactly the amount Steinhaus "just happened" to take in over 6 years from 7 county vendors who "just happened" to get $11 million in county contracts over that same period (from 1995 to 2001).

The Poughkeepsie Journal ran a detailed front-page story on some of this by Mary Beth Pfeiffer Oct. 31, 2003: "Corporate Donors Boost Steinhaus"-- "Twenty-three donors who gave $1000 or more to County Executive William Steinhaus's reelection campaign were paid more than $3.1 million last year for everything from road construction to plumbing supplies, a review of campaign reports and county spending shows."

Note-- the resolution I submitted last year on this was the exact same one, verbatim, as the one Duane Smith submitted four years ago-- with one important addition. Given the fact that we've been made aware last year of how public records show that the CEO of Castagna Realty (John Gutleber of Setauket) gave our County Executive a $2000 campaign donation on 11/12/03, and Castagna Realty itself (based in Manhasset) gave him $1000 the year before (11/29/02)-- and Castagna Realty is handling the real estate transactions for the so-called "Castagna Commerce Park" to be constructed in Pawling...and the fact that the "footprint" for those three buildings was the only property in Pawling added to our county's Empire Zone this year-- not one of Pawling's struggling small businesses was (perhaps they weren't able to cut Mr. Steinhaus $3000 checks)-- we've added language in the resolution addressing this as well.

One may wonder why our county's Board of Ethics doesn't seem to think any of this is a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is because one of the members of our county's Board of Ethics, Allan Rappleyea, is actually a member of a law firm that contributed to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund last year (Corbally, Gartland, and Rappleyea LLP), and got thousands of dollars in county contracts last year as well (see below for much more on this).

Thanks to County Legislature candidates Fred Bunnell, Richard Dennison, Vicky Perry, and Ron Ray for coming out to our July 1st press conference for Rockland-style campaign reform, along with Richard Carlson and Kathy Stewart. Note as well-- Kerry Mitras, Democratic Candidate for Dover County Legislator also indicated that he supported the press conference, but wasn't able to attend, and the Democratic Caucus of our County Legislature has been pushing since 2000 for our county to have campaign finance reform since Tyner helped bring together the Dutchess County Task Force for Campaign Finance Reform with former County Executive Lucille Pattison in 1998.

Two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson warned his contemporaries of the "excesses of monied interests" deterring elected officials from truly serving the public. Unfortunately, it seems two centuries have passed without much progress on this issue.

Enough is enough. We deserve county government of, for, and by the people-- one person, one vote-- not one dollar, one vote. Period.

Please courteously contact our County Executive at 486-2000 and [email protected] on this, and our County Legislature at 486-2100, [email protected], and [email protected] as well.

Thanks.

Joel Tyner
County Legislator, D. #11
Clinton/Rhinebeck
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, N.Y. 12580
[email protected]
876-2488

*************************************************

LAST YEAR'S POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL EDITORIAL ON THIS TOPIC...

"Keep Improving Dutchess Ethics Law"
[Poughkeepsie Journal 5/29/04 (excerpt)]

"Accountability in Dutchess County government has taken a big stride forward recently-- though there's still room for improvement...more could be done to foster accountability. The Legislature could look to other counties, such as Rockland, for examples of strong laws. Dutchess could:

* Limit campaign contributions to $100 if they come from individuals or organizations that do business with the county. This would minimize any appearance that they're buying political influence.

* Put a $100 cap on ''soft money,'' or even eliminate it altogether. The term refers to gifts funneled through political parties or other means to get around direct contribution limits.

Laws like these can help ensure that public servants remain honest in their official dealings. Dutchess County should continue to strive for integrity in government."

*************************************************

POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL EDITORIAL FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ON THIS...

"Ethics Law Must Cover Gift Limits"
[Poughkeepsie Journal 9/16/00]

Dutchess legislators recently took the high road and stepped up the
ethics code for elected county officials, but there's more to be done on
this road before they make an exit.

In other words, they should approve important campaign finance reform
proposals still pending to the revised county ethics law passed last week.
These additions, proposed by Legislator Duane Smith, D-Beekman, would
demonstrate across-the-board devotion to the highest ethical standards.

To start off, Smith urges a $100 limit on all gifts to all candidates
for county office from any person or company that does business with
Dutchess County. That would eliminate any question of politicians returning
favors for big campaign donations.

Smith's additions also would strengthen bans on nepotism, cronyism and
lobbying when it comes to appointed, paying positions in county government.
His amendments would make it impossible for county officials to have close
relatives in high-paying jobs, if other applicants are equally or better
qualified.

Besides, the lawmaker urges closing loopholes so campaign contributors
doing business with the county don't appear to be buying political
influence. Besides the ban on gifts worth more than $100, he advocates the
elimination of ``soft money,'' gifts funneled through political parties or
other means to get around direct contribution limits.

Lawmakers need ethical measuring stick

Dutchess Legislature Chairman Bradford Kendall, R-Dover, said the law
may be unnecessary. ``There's no substitute for the judgment exhibited by
elected officials,'' he said.

Kendall is right to stress making good decisions, but lawmakers ... like
any individuals ... need clear guidelines for determining good from bad
decisions. Smith's proposals would provide just that.

The Beekman lawmaker based his proposals on Rockland County's ethics
law, which is superior to Dutchess' recently revised measure in several
ways: It clearly defines conflicts of interest, simplifies the financial
disclosure process and makes it enforceable, and ensures membership on the
ethics board can't be controlled by a political majority.

Anthony Quartararo, counsel to the Dutchess Legislature, and County
Attorney Ian MacDonald say the county can't pass a campaign finance law
because New York state law supersedes any county law.

Not so, according to Rockland County's own legislative counsel, Bruce
Levine, a Democrat. He and his GOP predecessor both determined that the
Rockland measure is completely within the county's power and isn't in
conflict with state law. According to the state attorney general's office,
Rockland's law has never been challenged.

If Rockland County has been able to pass and enforce these campaign
finance reforms without legal problems, shouldn't Dutchess be able to do
the same by using the same model?

Dutchess lawmakers should investigate that question. They have already
straightened out the mess that was the old ethics law, giving county
residents clearer, stronger standards to use in judging elected officials.

Making Legislator Smith's proposals part of that law would complete the
job.

*************************************************

Ricardo McKay, the Rockland County Legislature Attorney, sent this to us last year:

"I have checked with our County Attorney and there have been no lawsuits against Rockland County challenging the legality of the Rockland Campaign Finance Law.

Secondly, the City of New York has passed a Campaign Finance Law. That law has a detailed analysis of the power of a County to adopt it's own finance law. Please review that law for the authority you have asked about.

Next I would note that the opinion of the Controller's and the Attorney General's offices are not law. They are their opinions only.

Lastly I would point out that Rockland's law is addressed to the issue if whether a party can be a contractor with the County. It has now restriction as to ones ability to support financially any candidate of their choosing. If one wants to contract with the County, the County has the desire to avoid conflict of interest and the appearance of inappropriate conduct. The desire of the State to set contribution limits is not so great that it can prevent the County from controlling who can contract with it."

McKay cites five different lawsuits over the years that support the right of New York City, Rockland County, Suffolk County-- and yes, Dutchess County-- to pass local campaign finance laws...

Specifically, these: Resnick v. County of Ulster, La Cagnina v. City of Schenectady, Baldwin v. City of Buffalo, Adler v. Deegan, and Procaccino v. Board of Elections (see below)...

They're in this piece McKay sent us-- "A Symposium on Ethics in Government: The New York City Campaign Finance Act" by Jeffrey Friedlander, Stephen Louis, and Laurence Laufer (from the Winter 1988 issue of The Hofstra Law Review)...

"Section III. Local Legislative Authority and the Interaction with State Law

The New York City Corporation Counsel...concluded that the City has the authority to adopt a system of public campaign financing. Article IX of the New York State Constitution establishes in state law the principle of local home rule. That article sets forth several bases of local legislative authority which support enactment of the New York City Campaign Finance Act. Specifically, article IX provides, "In addition to powers granted in the statute of local governments or in any other law,...every local government shall have the power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution or any general law relating to its property, affairs, or government..." Not only is this broad authority granted to localities by the people and the legislature, but the Constitution also provides in article IX that the "rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to local governments by this article shall be liberally construed."

The New York City Campaign Finance Act falls within the scope of the city's "property, affairs, or government." This is clear from the purposes of the law: (a) to help ensure the ethical conduct of city officials by reducing the political influence of large contributors; (b) to give candidates a fair chance to express their views to the electorate; (c) to keep voters informed of local campaign issues; and (d) to increase public confidence in the electoral process.

The courts of the state have held that a local law may relate to the "property, affairs or government" of the locality, notwithstanding the fact that it pertains to the electoral process.

* In Resnick v. County of Ulster, the New York Court of Appeals, relying in part on the "property, affairs or government" provision, rejected a challenge to a county law requiring that vacancies in the board of supervisors be filled by vote of that body's remaining members.

* In La Cagnina v. City of Schenectady, the Supreme Court, Special Term, for Schenectady County upheld a local law prescribing how a proposal being voted on in a referendum was to be stated on the ballot.

* Baldwin v. City of Buffalo is especially significant. There the Court of Appeals upheld against constitutional challenge a local law altering the boundaries of local election districts within the city of Buffalo. The court held that "the State has no paramount interest" in a change in the law pertaining to local elections and the locality may therefore change ward boundaries pursuant to its authority over its "property, affairs or government." This reasoning applies to the public financing of local campaigns as surely as to the alteration of ward boundaries.

The fact that the state legislature has regulated some aspects of the financing of local elections does not necessarily imply that city authority to act in this area is preempted. In interpreting the home rule provisions of the state constitution, the Court of Appeals has long recognized that many matters of public concern may affect state interests while also relating to the "property, affairs or government" of a locality. In such areas of overlapping interests, state and local laws may coexist.

* In Adler v. Deegan, for example, Chief Judge Cardozo noted that the enactment of the Multiple Dwelling Law, a special state law establishing minimum structural standards for apartment houses in New York City, did not exclude construction activities from the City's "property, affairs or government." The state's interest in safeguarding public health, embodied in the Multiple Dwelling Law, did not, in Judge Cardozo's view, diminish the city's interest in regulating the density and structure of buildings, embodied in the City's Zoning Resolution. The two enactments could thus exist side by side in an area of "concurrent jurisdiction."

* Regulation of the electoral process as it affects local elections is similarly an area of joint state/local interest and jurisdiction. In Procaccino v. Board of Elections, the court recognized this concurrent concern in considering a state law pertaining to the conduct of primary elections for certain local offices in New York City, stating that "the elective process delineated in [the statute] is of concern both to New York City insofar as it affects the City, and to the State, insofar as control over the elective process and its conduct resides in the legislative power...The court's statement in Procaccino applies equally as well to campaign financing in local contests, which implicates both the city's interest in good government and the state's interest in ensuring fair elections as the basis of a democratic policy. The Election Law and the new City law may thus coexist in the same regulatory area...

Current state law restricting campaign contributions does not contain, and the relevant legislative history does not provide, an express statement that the state legislature intended to preempt local laws providing optional public financing of local election campaigns...

An examination of the history, scope and purposes of state laws pertaining to campaign contributions and expenditures demonstrates that existing state law does not preempt the local campaign finance law. The state campaign contribution and receipt rules set forth in article 14 of the Election Law do not constitute a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme which is indicative of legislative intent to occupy the entire field of campaign financing. To the contrary, the scope of article 14 is relatively narrow, focusing on only one aspect of campaign financing-- campaign contributions by private persons and entities..."

**********************************************

LARGE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/CONTRACTS FROM OUTSIDE OUR COUNTY...

Question: Why would these nine companies from outside our county be giving such large donations to powerful people in our county government-- besides their receiving literally millions of our county tax dollars annually in contracts with our county government?

[Again, please note-- all this below is from public records at our Board of Elections office and our county Comptrollers' office.]

1. Peckham Industries (of White Plains) gave $2000 to our County Executive in 1996 and 1997 and got $224,000 in county contracts in 1997, 1998, and
2000, and $214,000 in county contracts in 2004. They also gave $1500 in 1999, $1500 in 2001, and $1100 in 2003 to the Dutchess County Republican Committee, and $550 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund. (Note-- Ronald Peckham of Liverpool, N.Y. also gave $1000 to our County Executive on 7/7/03.)

2. A. Colarusso & Son, Inc. (of Hudson) gave our County Executive $1000 on 12/14/02 and $2500 on 11/4/03, and got more than $700,000 in county contracts in 2003, and $346,000 in county contracts in 2004.

3. Reclamation, Inc. (of Kingston) gave our County Executive $1000 in 1997 and got $1.3 million in county contracts in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and $157,000 in county contracts in 2004.

4. Highway Rehab Corporation (of Patterson) gave our County Executive $3000 in 1995,1999, and 2002, $1000 on 6/14/03, and got $429,000 in county contracts in 1996, and $218,000 in contracts in 2004.

5. Charles H. Sells, Inc. (of Bedford Hills/Briarcliff Manor) gave $3000 to our County Executive in 1999 and 2000 and $1000 on 4/30/03, and got $140,000 in county contracts in 1999 alone.

6. York Hunter (of Kingston/NYC) gave $4000 to our County Executive in 1998 and
1999, and received over $2 million in county contracts in 1997, 1999, and 2000 (largely for work on Dutchess Community College classrooms and renovations on the county's fire training building).

7. Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. (of Horseheads) gave
our County Executive $1000 in 1999 (besides $1000 given previously), and got
$7.3 million in county contracts in 1998, 1999, and 2000.

8. Bank of New York (of New York City) gave our County Executive $1000 in 1995, and got $47,000 in contracts in 1996 and 1997.

9. Willkie, Farr, and Gallagher (of New York City) gave our County Executive $1000 on 12/20/04, and got $8960 in county contracts in 2004.

10. Bennett, Kielson, Storch, Yabhon, and DeSantis gave $1350 on 6/24/99
to the Dutchess County Republican Committee $920 on 10/25/99 and $300 to
the G.O.P. Legislative Fund. They also gave the G.O.P. Legislative Fund $580 over the past three years ($190 on 10/23/02, $100 on 3/21/03, $100 on 9/15/03, $90 on 3/18/04, and $100 on 11/19/04); interestingly, each time no address was recorded on those finance disclosure statements- while all the addresses for other contributors were recorded. They got $55,000 in county contracts in
2000, and $74,000 in county contracts in 2004.

LARGE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/CONTRACTS FROM WITHIN OUR COUNTY...

11. Marshall & Sterling gave the Dutchess County Republican Committee
$3000 in 1999, $800 in 2001, and $500 in 2003, and got $2.6 million in county contracts in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and $1.5 million in county contracts in 2004.

12. The Dutchess County Economic Development Corporation gave the G.O.P. Legislative Fund $45 on 3/11/04, and got $1.1 million in county contracts in 2004 (and a no-questions-asked policy on our county's Empire Zone as well).

13. VanDeWater & VanDeWater gave $2500 on 5/24/99 and $1000 on 6/16/03 to our County Executive, $1000 on 10/12/00 and $500 on 8/14/99 to the Du. Co. Rep. Comm. They also gave $1025 to the Du. Co. Rep. Comm. in 2001, $1175 to them in 2002, $1100 in 2003, and $950 to them in 2004. They gave $515 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund (on 9/9/03, 3/18/04, and 9/29/04 in total). They received $21,000 from the county in contracts in 1999 and 2000.

14. Herb Redl gave our County Executive $3000 in 1995 and 1997, and got
$277,000 in county contracts in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, and got $11,000 in contracts in 2004.

15. Hollowbrook Associates gave our County Executive $1000 in 1995, $2500 in 2002, and $1000 in 2003, and has gotten at least $55,000 a year in county contracts for many years, getting $63,000 in contracts in 2000 and a pledge from our County Executive for $55,000 a year for the following four years-- this is $15,000 more each year than what the Fishkill building would have cost the DMV; former County Clerk Dick Anderson wanted to make this move to save tax dollars and have after-hours drive-through service, but our County Executive and his Republican allies blocked it.

16. Montfort Brothers Quarry gave $1000 to our County Executive in 1995; they have been noticeably silent about their plans to destroy beautiful and historic
Fishkill Ridge by turning it into a mine. They also gave $1750 in 2000 to the Dutchess County Republican Committee and $690 in 1999 and $550 in 2001 and $190 in 2003 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund. Montfort Brothers also got $3571 in county contracts from the county in 1999 for highway and construction materials. Southern Dutchess Sand and Gravel gave the G.O.P. Legislative Fund $400 on 8/29/01.

17. Clove Excavators gave $2700 to our County Executive in 1995, 1997, and 1999, and got $2.6 million in county contracts in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000, and got $791,000 in county contracts in 2004.

18. Perreca Electric gave our County Executive $5000 in 1995, 1999, and 2002, $2500 on 4/23/03, $2500 on 12/13/04, and got $104,000 in county contracts in 1996 alone.

19. C.B. (Don/Richard) Strain gave $2000 to our County Executive in 1995 and 1999, $1000 in 2003, and received $4.2 million in county contracts in 1996, 1999, and 2000, largely for work on Dutchess Community College classrooms. They also got $331,000 in county contracts in 2004.

20. C.J./Jean W. Patrick Real Estate gave $3000 to our County Executive in 1995,
1997, and 1999, $1000 on 4/26/03, $1000 on 12/12/04, and got $287,000 in contracts in 1996, 1999, and 2000, and $164,000 in country contracts in 2004.

21. Bottini Fuel gave our County Executive $2000 in 1998 and 1999, and got $241,000 in county contracts in 1997, 1998, and 2000.

22. Star Gas gave $250 in 1999 to our County Executive and got $55,000 in contracts In 1999 and 2000, and $10,000 in contracts in 2004.

23. Morris Associates gave $2000 in 1999 and $2500 in 2004 to our County Executive. They received $6000 in contracts in 1999, and $15,000 in county contracts in 2004. They gave $500 to the Du. Co. Rep. Comm. in 1999, $900 to them in 2001, $1100 to them in 2003, and $155 in 2000, and $225 in 2004 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund.

24. Freedom Ford gave our County Executive $1000 in 1995 and got $40,000 in county contracts in 1998, and $24,000 in county contracts in 2004.

25. Arthur Fried gave our County Executive $1000 in 1995 and got $132,000 in county contracts in 1998.

26. McCabe & Mack gave our County Executive $3500 in 1995 and 1999 and got $71,000 in county contracts in 1998 and 2000, and $92,000 in contracts in 2004.

27. Bottini Fuel gave our County Executive $2000 in 1998 and 1999 and got $241,000 in county contracts in 1997, 1998, and 2000.

28. James Sedore and/or his accounting firm gave our County Executive $6000 in 1995, 1997, and 1999, another $1000 on 6/12/03, and got $20,000 in county contracts in 1997 and 1998, and $10,000 in county contracts in 2004; they also gave the County Republican Committee $1350 in 1999, $400 in 2001, $950 in 2003, and $50 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund in 2003.

29. Meyer Contracting gave our County Executive $1350 in 2000 and $2500 in 2003, and got $3.5 million in county contracts in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and $1.1 million in county contracts in 2004.

30. Paul Vosburgh gave our County Executive $4000 in 1995 and 1999, $2500 on 6/17/03, and got $497,000 in county contracts in 2000, and $56,000 in county contracts in 2004.

31. Dutchess Quarry gave our County Executive $200 in 1995,$2500 on 12/20/04, and got $458,000 in county contracts in 2000, and $647,000 in contracts in 2004.

32. Sucato Builders gave our County Executive $200 in 1999 and got $11,000 in county contracts in 2000.

33. Package Pavement gave our County Executive $500 in 1999 and got $7000 in county
contracts in 1998.

34. Cerniglia & Swartz gave our County Executive $500 in 1999 and $2500 in 2003 (and $3500 that election cycle, besides), and got $70,000 in county contracts in 2000, and $2800 in contracts in 2004.

35. Royal Carting gave $400 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund in 2001, $100 in 2003, $1000 to the Dutchess County Republican Committee in 2000, and received $97,000 in county contracts in 1999, and $102,000 in county contracts in 2004.

36. H. G. Page gave $150 in 1999 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund and got
$22,000 in county contracts in 1999, and $7000 in county contracts in 2004.

37. Blacktop Maintenance Corporation gave the G.O.P. Legislative Fund $90 on 3/11/04 and got $366,000 in county contracts in 2004.

38. Liscum, McCormack, and VanVoorhis gave our County Executive $1000 on 6/18/03, $490 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund in 2004, and got $16,000 in county contracts in 2004.

39. Chazen Engineering gave our County Executive $2500 on 5/7/03 and $2500 on 12/19/04, and got $3200 in county contracts in 2004 alone.

40. New York Communications Company (NYCOMCO) gave $2500 to our County Executive on 4/18/03, and got $382,000 in county contracts in 2004.

41. Prudential Serls gave our County Executive $2500 on 5/3/03 and $2500 on 12/20/04, and got more than $12,000 in county contracts in 2004.

42. Red Wing Properties gave $1000 to our County Executive on 6/19/03, and $45 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund on 3/11/04, and got $27,000 in county contracts in 2004.

43. Corbally, Gartland, and Rappleyea LLP gave $50 to the G.O.P. Legislative Fund on 9/29/04; they got $4300 in county contracts in 2004.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Shoutbox

Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in

Comment

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal
50 / 100

Latest Signatures

  • 20 June 201550. Mark W
    Family court & county wide corruption reform needed now! I love you, Gregory & Ashlan! Address; Zip Code Pitman, NJ
  • 06 May 201549. Margaret Vonv
    enough already Address; Zip Code 12603
  • 16 February 201548. Kristin L
    A step in the right direction. Address; Zip Code 9 Carnelli Court, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
  • 18 November 201447. Vicky P
    Contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate form of citizen participation, but the financial strength of contributors should not permit them to be a controlling influence on elections. Address; Zip Code 62 Old Post Rd. , Red Hook NY 12571
  • 25 September 201446. Richard A
    Run on your qualifications, not on how much influence you can peddle. Address; Zip Code 18 West Marshall Dr, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
  • 16 April 201445. Cheryl Km
    We need to clean up county AND local government Address; Zip Code P.O. Box 645, Amenia, NY 12501
  • 15 January 201444. Mark Copeland
    I agree with petition Address; Zip Code 206 Spackenkill Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
  • 04 January 201443. Douglas Cs
    Dutchess County needs a Rockland County-style ethics and campaign finance law. Incumbents should not have their campaigns subsidized by the contractors they approve for work in the county. Address; Zip Code 12580
  • 01 October 201342. Charles W
    Government by the People and for the People Address; Zip Code 98 Lattintown Road, Newburgh, NY 12550
  • 29 June 201341. David S
    I support this petition!! Address; Zip Code 12603
  • 19 June 201340. Ted F
    Do the right thing Address; Zip Code 12585
  • 10 February 201339. Jessica Doyle
    Will this ever be rectified Address; Zip Code 118 sodom rd staatsburg
  • 21 August 201238. Jonnie L
    Changes in current policy regarding political contributions is desparately needed! I agree wholeheartedly. But mostly, everyone needs to voice their opinions about this, it is our consitiutional right!!! Did I hear that England gives free airtime to all p
  • 27 May 201237. Richard Rc
    Elected officals should not be rented out. Address; Zip Code 12590
  • 29 April 201236. Bill C
    quid pro quo, government for sale in dutchess!! and cheap too!!! Address; Zip Code 108 rombout ave, beacon NY, 12508
  • 26 February 201235. Patrick S
    I am in favor of the DCCGP Address; Zip Code 10 Ladue Rd Hopewell NY 12533
  • 24 February 201234. Doreen T
    A limit seems reasonable. Address; Zip Code 12603
  • 08 September 201033. Catherine W
    County funds are not meant to be private slush funds for campaign contributors from outside the county. Let's get honest and keep the sunshine on this issue! Address; Zip Code Rhinebeck 12572-1325
  • 14 June 201032. Sean Jm
    I am a former Rockland County resident (now living in Dutchess) and Clean Government Works Address; Zip Code 12570
  • 10 June 201031. Thomas B
    We don't want monied interests out side our government influencing governmental decisions. Address; Zip Code 19 North St., Beacon, NY 12508
  • 08 April 201030. Victoria F
    With the corruption in the government, we have criminals & con artists from other states moving here. It makes me fearful for my children's future. Address; Zip Code Poughkeepsie 12601
  • 12 March 201029. Chris H
    Stop the corruption NOW! Address; Zip Code 12572
  • 18 February 201028. Chelsea W
    Government by the People and for the People Address; Zip Code 98 Lattintown Road, Newburgh, NY 12550
  • 11 October 200927. Natalie E
    Let's clean it up! Address; Zip Code 8 Vista Drive, Poughkeepsie, 12601
  • 10 October 200926. Ken T
    Government BY the people ! This means all people not just the greedy wealthy! Address; Zip Code 12550
  • 10 October 200925. Vincent M
    - Address; Zip Code 12522
  • 06 September 200924. William As
    An idea whose time has come Address; Zip Code 65 Gifford Avenue Apt #1, Poughkeepsie 12601

browse all the signatures

Information

Lesley MillerBy:
Nature and EnvironmentIn:
Petition target:
Dutchess County Executive and County Legislature

Tags

No tags

Share

Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title

Widgets