NYT front page article on William Thompson --- reporting or editorial
Today's New York Times has a front page article, top left column, on Bill Thompson, a candidate for mayor in what is generally viewed as an undistinguished group of candidates. The title of the article, "As Pension Chief, Thompson Gave Work to Donors" connotes a bias from the outset. The article itself demonstrates no instances of wrongdoing or illegality.
Thompson's job from 1991 to 2009 was New York City Comptroller. Among his responsibilities in that role was overseeing the City's $85 billion pension fund, now $100 billion. The article focuses on campaign contributions received from investment managers who were given allocations to manage some of this pension money. None of the contributions were outside of legally prescribed limits. It is completely safe to say, that with the amount of money under management and the degree of discretion that New York comptrollers are allowed to have, many more investment managers gave money to Thompson's campaigns that did not receive allocations. They would have been seeking access or attention and that is normal.
The supposed "smoking gun" in this reporting is an investment manager that Thompson met during his first campaign as he was introduced to him by Russell Simmons, the hip hop entrepreneur. This money manager specialized in convertible bond investments, an area to which the narrow and boring New York fund had no exposure. The money manager Tracy Maitland, or "financier" as the NYT calls him, became a supporter of Thompson under all legal contribution limits and eventually in 2008, seven years after meeting Maitland, Thompson "poured"$324 million into his fund. Since that time the investment has grown on average by 8% annually, an exceptional performance given the environment that we have lived through. Based on that performance the current comptroller John Liu invested an additional $292 million in Maitland's fund. The Times states, as evidence of some hallucinated collusion, that Maitland's convertible bond fund has earned more that $2 million from the City. Based on performance, they obviously deserve it and more.
This article goes almost beyond being outrageously ludicrous. It notes that Thompson did meet with money managers that he met at political fund raisers. To quote the Times, "In some cases, he met with those investment managers in his government offices." Oh my God, not at the end of a urine stained subway platform or a back alley on the lower east side. To say the obvious it is reasonable to hear pitches from investment managers if one manages a large amount of money. To listen is not to choose, to receive a legally limited donation in the relatively small sizes allowed is not an arm twister.
Obviously we are in the silly season of a mayoral primary. The candidate list is not particularly strong, said politely. The early presumed leader was Christine Quinn who is Speaker of the City Council. She has been hobbled as the campaign progressed by her close ties to departing Mayor Bloomberg and bluntly speaking, however unfair, I'm not sure that her openly gay status is a big hit with with black and hispanic voters as it is in her council seat district of Greenwich Village and Chelsea. As she has now fallen in the polls considerably, the viable candidates are Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson. de Blasio has vaulted into the lead with a savvy ad campaign and a populist stance against Bloomberg's aggressively successful pro-development activities that focused mainly on Manhattan. Thompson has a high favorability rating but lags in the polls behind de Blasio. He still remains a threat as the only black candidate who could receive substantial minority support as the race moves toward a close on September 10, light years in a close political race.
While the Times has not yet made an endorsement, today's article makes it clear that it will be di Blasio. Currently serving in the low key role of Public Advocate and having once been a city counsel member, di Blasio's breadth of experience could be questioned. His business acumen is unknown and his ability to deal with the many business interests, especially real estate, in New York City is also an unknown. He is an ambitious, outspoken, seemingly self-righteous liberal in a mold that the Times would favor and could be a risky break from the successful continuation of world class city building ambitions of the Bloomberg administration, so successful that the Times had trouble finding ways to criticize him and make him subservient to their editorial page. He basically ignored them, and gave the City millions of dollars of his own fortune to accomplish things that he wanted done but that lacked public funding.
I live in a suburb maybe four miles from the beginning of New York City, the borough of Queens, so am not a voter in this primary and have no particular favorites. It's not a great field, far from it, and the few debates have been anything but enlightening or elegant.
Nevertheless the NYT reporting today on Thompson is over the line editorializing, or campaigning, not factual reporting in any but the most venal sense. Sad but true from the so-called "paper of record".
From this less than completely informed perspective and as a non-voter, the Times has now made me a supporter of Thompson even though he lacks notable charisma, any formidable public speaking skill, and has played the political role too carefully. As a caretaker of the Mayor's role, he could be the best choice.
Thompson's job from 1991 to 2009 was New York City Comptroller. Among his responsibilities in that role was overseeing the City's $85 billion pension fund, now $100 billion. The article focuses on campaign contributions received from investment managers who were given allocations to manage some of this pension money. None of the contributions were outside of legally prescribed limits. It is completely safe to say, that with the amount of money under management and the degree of discretion that New York comptrollers are allowed to have, many more investment managers gave money to Thompson's campaigns that did not receive allocations. They would have been seeking access or attention and that is normal.
The supposed "smoking gun" in this reporting is an investment manager that Thompson met during his first campaign as he was introduced to him by Russell Simmons, the hip hop entrepreneur. This money manager specialized in convertible bond investments, an area to which the narrow and boring New York fund had no exposure. The money manager Tracy Maitland, or "financier" as the NYT calls him, became a supporter of Thompson under all legal contribution limits and eventually in 2008, seven years after meeting Maitland, Thompson "poured"$324 million into his fund. Since that time the investment has grown on average by 8% annually, an exceptional performance given the environment that we have lived through. Based on that performance the current comptroller John Liu invested an additional $292 million in Maitland's fund. The Times states, as evidence of some hallucinated collusion, that Maitland's convertible bond fund has earned more that $2 million from the City. Based on performance, they obviously deserve it and more.
This article goes almost beyond being outrageously ludicrous. It notes that Thompson did meet with money managers that he met at political fund raisers. To quote the Times, "In some cases, he met with those investment managers in his government offices." Oh my God, not at the end of a urine stained subway platform or a back alley on the lower east side. To say the obvious it is reasonable to hear pitches from investment managers if one manages a large amount of money. To listen is not to choose, to receive a legally limited donation in the relatively small sizes allowed is not an arm twister.
Obviously we are in the silly season of a mayoral primary. The candidate list is not particularly strong, said politely. The early presumed leader was Christine Quinn who is Speaker of the City Council. She has been hobbled as the campaign progressed by her close ties to departing Mayor Bloomberg and bluntly speaking, however unfair, I'm not sure that her openly gay status is a big hit with with black and hispanic voters as it is in her council seat district of Greenwich Village and Chelsea. As she has now fallen in the polls considerably, the viable candidates are Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson. de Blasio has vaulted into the lead with a savvy ad campaign and a populist stance against Bloomberg's aggressively successful pro-development activities that focused mainly on Manhattan. Thompson has a high favorability rating but lags in the polls behind de Blasio. He still remains a threat as the only black candidate who could receive substantial minority support as the race moves toward a close on September 10, light years in a close political race.
While the Times has not yet made an endorsement, today's article makes it clear that it will be di Blasio. Currently serving in the low key role of Public Advocate and having once been a city counsel member, di Blasio's breadth of experience could be questioned. His business acumen is unknown and his ability to deal with the many business interests, especially real estate, in New York City is also an unknown. He is an ambitious, outspoken, seemingly self-righteous liberal in a mold that the Times would favor and could be a risky break from the successful continuation of world class city building ambitions of the Bloomberg administration, so successful that the Times had trouble finding ways to criticize him and make him subservient to their editorial page. He basically ignored them, and gave the City millions of dollars of his own fortune to accomplish things that he wanted done but that lacked public funding.
I live in a suburb maybe four miles from the beginning of New York City, the borough of Queens, so am not a voter in this primary and have no particular favorites. It's not a great field, far from it, and the few debates have been anything but enlightening or elegant.
Nevertheless the NYT reporting today on Thompson is over the line editorializing, or campaigning, not factual reporting in any but the most venal sense. Sad but true from the so-called "paper of record".
From this less than completely informed perspective and as a non-voter, the Times has now made me a supporter of Thompson even though he lacks notable charisma, any formidable public speaking skill, and has played the political role too carefully. As a caretaker of the Mayor's role, he could be the best choice.
posted by John Borden at 12:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home