In 2010, I ran and was elected to the New York State Senate because I didn’t agree with how the state was being run. It was spending beyond its means, property taxes were escalating to unsustainable levels and small businesses were hurting.
At that time, Blank Slate Media (this paper’s parent company) called the legitimacy of my candidacy into question, citing most of my campaign contributions as having come primarily from family and friends. In fact, it went so far as to inexplicably print the names and addresses of my family members. The argument was that my support was insignificant and not wide enough among the business community to have me taken seriously as a candidate. We won that election.
Now, two short years later, this same paper has once again made my fundraising efforts the center of recent, weekly coverage. Except now, it seems to imply that the local business community has taken almost too much interest, pointing to contributions I received from various Limited Liability Corporations (LLC’s).
Oddly, what had been classified as a necessity notably lacking in my first effort, is now cast as somehow negative. In reality, the vast majority of my contributions are still from constituents within my district.
The exclusive coverage I seem to enjoy begs the question as to why none of my colleagues, be they Republicans or Democrats, State or local officials, have ever had to answer this paper’s questions about campaign finances.
Even a most cursory review of their filings will indicate that every elected official in the state – from the governor on down to our local supervisor and town council members – receives donations from individuals, corporations, and LLC’s. Yet not even my local counterparts, who represent the same neighborhoods and the very same constituents, have ever been the subject of Blank Slate scrutiny and that puzzles me.
Let’s shoot straight. I can judge by the campaign contributions filed by the owner of Blank Slate Media that I’m probably on the wrong side of his political leanings. That’s fine. It takes different opinions to make our system work. But with 30 days left before the election, is it asking too much for this paper to at least examine the issues? Might there be some discussion as to each candidate’s capacity to address those issues? This notable absence is the proverbial “elephant in the room” and it’s a disservice to your readers who turn to you for an honest interpretation of our community’s challenges.
I pose the question bluntly to the publisher: Have I been a good state senator? You may decide I haven’t been and worse, may endorse my opponent. All I ask is that you express so much to your readers with an explanation as to how you came to your decision. I welcome criticism as much as praise, so long as the discussion is issue driven, and not a partisan witch hunt. It’s that almost blatant partisan bias that discourages me from accepting your invitation to a candidate interview.
People are tired of games and that’s why I ran for this office. When I went to Albany, rather than make false campaign promises, I made a promise to myself: to build consensus and get things done for our community. I’m proud to say I enjoy a very cooperative relationship with counterparts from both side of the aisle and it’s paid off for our communities. We closed billions of dollars in deficits without raising a single tax or fee, enacted a property tax cap, and delivered a middle-class state income tax cut while creating thousands of jobs.
In fact, our legislative sessions were described as the most productive in the last 50 years. That progress is what’s at stake so I hope this paper will soon treat this election with the balanced coverage it deserves.
State Senator
Jack M. Martins
