Jim Alesi Campaign Financing - Follow the Wine (and Beer) Trail

(Guest essayist BurbProgressive follows Alesi's money and connects the dots. What else is out there that folks aren't paying attention to? -- btp)

Jim Alesi is known well for spreading member item pork around the district like a Boy Scout in a 4th of July Parade throwing candy to kids on the side of the road.

So I wondered… does Mr. Alesi get his money from constituents who believe he’s a good guy and want to see him re-elected, or is it a select few special interests that drive his campaign. I decided to look into where Mr. Alesi gets his money. I used sources such as followthemoney.org and sunlightny.org to do this research.

Here’s what I found. Alesi has raised $232,778 in the 2007/2008 Election Cycle. However, that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Let me take a side trip and introduce you to the Sands Family. Marvin Sands was the CEO of Canandaigua Wines (now Constellation Brands) from 1945 to 1993, and died in 1999. His Sons, Richard and Robert, are CEO and COO of Constellation.

In August 2007, Richard and Robert Sands, along with wives, family members, and Marvin Sand’s Trust Fund donated a total of $25,000 to Alesi’s Campaign Fund. This, combined with a Constellation Brands corporate donation of $2,400 in September 2007 means the total Sands Family donation for 2007 was $27,400.

A single family funded more than 11% of Alesi’s 2007 contributions

Now let me be clear, I’m not saying anything illegal about this. The Sands family, both indiviudally and through the Constellation Brands Corporation have made sizable political donations in the past, to both Republicans and Democrats.

What I have a problem with is the number, size, and timing of these donations. Why give so much in a non-election year (2007), to a candidate that has historically had little trouble getting re-elected, and no known 2008 opposition at the time of the contributions? Could it have anything to do with specific legislation?

So my question to Mr. Alesi is this: Why so much money all at once from a single family? Does an amount of money like this make you more or less objective when introducing alcohol-lobby pushed legislation such as Senate Bill 1914 and Senate Bill 1915, both introduced earlier in 2007, and Bill 6883, introduced in early 2008.

If you look in Project Sunlight to see who lobbied for Alesi-introduced bills 1914 and 1915, it’s Anheuser Busch, the Beer Wholesalers Association, Metropolitan Package Store Association (a liquor retailer alliance), and the Wine Institute.

Who also donated to Alesi’s campaign? Anheuser Busch, the Beer Wholesalers Association, Metropolitan Package Store Association, and a Wine Wholesalers Association.

I’m not passing judgment on the specific legislation introduced here. It may very well be good stuff. What I’m questioning here is the appropriateness of a single family with a special interest donating so much all at once, and if that influences legislation.

This is why we need Clean Money / Clean Elections.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

8 Comments »

Comment by btp
2008-06-10 14:47:57

Exactly. When wealthy special interests control the attention span of our electeds, how else can we expect those electeds to pay attention to the common good?

CMCE, please.

 
Comment by ladkiddo
2008-06-11 07:39:50

Well done!
You make a great case for CMCE.
What an advantage to being an incumbent the way it stands now!

 
Comment by davesnyd
2008-06-11 07:50:13

Well, I for one have to say that if our politicians are going to be bought and paid for, I’d rather they be in the back pocket of “big beer” than, say, many other industries.

Who else will drink to that?

 
Comment by Grievous Angel
2008-06-11 08:36:38

Nice work. This is the sort of thing that induces either frustration or apathy in voters.

 
2008-06-11 09:13:03

It’s amazing how weak our campaign finance laws are in this state. It’s one step from “do whatever you want”.

Nice post and welcome aboard.

 
Comment by Historical Pessimist
2008-06-11 09:44:54

Great post. Let’s hope that Jack Davis hasn’t killed CMCE laws with his Supreme Court case against the Millionaire’s Amendment. Expect that decision in the next week or two. Since the justices’ questions seemed to zero in on the amendment’s “trigger provision” (certain relaxations of limits for non-millionaire types when their well-funded opponents spend over a certain amount), and this is a crucial part of CMCE laws, there is a real expectation/fear that CMCE will be dead by the end of June. Thanks, Jack.

 
Comment by jiminybizbo
2008-06-11 10:57:48

Maybe this explains how he broke his leg falling off the ladder while breaking and entering into that house. He’s been sipping too much of the profits of his ways!

 
Comment by Rottenchester
2008-06-11 10:59:48

Good post. I’d like to see more investigation into the campaign finance reports of the incumbent Assembly and Senate candidates. This is the kind of open-sourced citizen journalism that can really help pry loose some incumbents.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Election Day Countdown

All content on this site © 2006-2008 RochesterTurning.com, All Rights Reserved.
Read about Joe Bruno's shady campaign cash.