Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Quinn says "no" to lobbying money

This is a big step in the right direction:

'NO-MONEY HONEY' QUINN NIXES LOBBY $$

Others on the council quietly grumbled that Quinn was going to end up making it difficult for those who remain after she leaves office under term-limit laws.

Now that is quite amusing!

Photo from NY Post

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

On the surface Quinn's decision looks good. I'm a cautious optimist, however, and I say only time will tell if her intentions are true. There are lots of legal loopholes that allow lobbying money to be passed under the table unobserved and totally off the Radar!

Actions Speak Louder said...

Anonymous is correct is being cautiously optimistic.

However, I'm more on the pessimistic side. Let Quinn be totally transparent regarding all money she raises.

Quinn must fully renounce all efforts to overthrown Term Limits - a now sacred civic concept. Quinn must now push for Term Limits for all elective and appointive offices throughout New York State.

Quinn must furiously fight against any and all those who make any effort to overturn Term Limits.

Let's see.

Constant Reader said...

Quinn is going to be on the call-in "Brian Lehrer Show" on AM 820, WNYC. It runs 10AM -12 noon; I can't say how early in the program she will be on, but what an opportunity to give her a piece of our collective minds. Be warned: Brian keeps the tone fairly civil, so if you get too down and dirty he will not let you finish (though he almost never actually disconnects folk).

Anonymous said...

A product of the machine (as madam president is) owes favors to the gang.

And you know once in the mob, you can neva neva refuse a fava.

So unless she is ready for a sustained campaign, we can chalk this up to a bone thrown to the goo-goos (as the good government crowd is called).

Anonymous said...

As W.C. Field once said of some bimbo. "Her talent lies between her thighs"!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't that last "zinger" apply more appropriately to C.M. Katz? Or maybe it does suit them both!

Anonymous said...

It would have been more productive if the Post named the grumbling council members who are unhappy with Christine's precedent. I bet I can name at least 48 off the top of my head.