NYS Dems pack budget full of ‘self-serving’ perks, watchdog group has ‘nothing positive to say’ about it

New York Post - May 8th, 2025

Democratic leaders in New York have packed the overdue state budget with policy measures aimed at benefiting their own reelection efforts. Key elements of the package include delaying a cap on lawmakers' outside income until 2027 and increasing the limit on donations eligible for public campaign financing. This budget, criticized as self-serving by figures like John Kaehny of Reinvent Albany, is set to be voted on and includes provisions that could aid Governor Kathy Hochul against a potential challenge from her lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado. The changes allow lawmakers to continue benefiting from side jobs and shift campaign finance rules, raising concerns about the intent of the original campaign finance reforms.

The context of these changes is rooted in a broader debate over campaign finance reform and the influence of money in politics. The increased donation limit has drawn criticism for undermining efforts to encourage small donations from everyday citizens. Moreover, the change in primary election rules to require governors and lieutenant governors to run on the same ticket could consolidate influence within the party and limit competition. Critics argue these adjustments should have been subject to public debate rather than included in backroom budget negotiations. The implications of these changes highlight ongoing tensions between legislative processes and democratic reforms in New York's political landscape.

Kathy Hochul Democratic Party New York State Budget Antonio Delgado Election Reform John Kaehny Reinvent Albany Campaign Finance Reform Public Campaign Financing

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical examination of the New York state budget, focusing on perceived self-serving actions by Democratic leaders. It effectively highlights issues of public interest, such as campaign finance reform and legislative ethics, which have significant implications for governance and democracy. However, the article's accuracy is limited by a lack of detailed evidence and diverse sourcing, which affects its reliability. The balance is skewed towards criticism, with insufficient representation of supporting perspectives, impacting its ability to present a comprehensive view. Despite these shortcomings, the article is timely and engages with relevant political debates, offering a clear and readable narrative. To enhance its impact and foster more informed discourse, a more balanced approach with transparent sourcing and a broader range of perspectives would be beneficial.

Accuracy

The story makes several factual claims that require verification, such as the budget including measures that benefit Democratic leaders, the delay of a cap on lawmakers’ outside income, and changes to the campaign financing system. While the article provides some details, such as the increase in the donation matching limit from $250 to $1,050, it does not offer sufficient evidence or sources to substantiate these claims thoroughly. The article's accuracy is compromised by the lack of direct citations or data supporting the assertions, necessitating further verification from credible sources.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on the Democratic leaders' actions, primarily through quotes from John Kaehny of Reinvent Albany. While it includes a defense from Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, the overall tone leans towards criticism without equally representing the viewpoints of those who support the budget measures. The inclusion of bipartisan support for some changes is mentioned but not explored in depth, which could have provided a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally well-structured and uses clear language to convey its points. The narrative flows logically, making it relatively easy for readers to follow the main arguments. However, the tone is somewhat biased, which could affect the reader's perception of the information's neutrality. Despite this, the article's clarity in presentation is a strong point.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on quotes from John Kaehny and a brief statement from Carl Heastie. It lacks a diverse range of sources, such as independent experts or additional stakeholders, which would enhance the credibility and depth of the reporting. The absence of direct references to official documents or statements from other involved parties limits the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the basis for its claims or the methodology used to gather information. There is little explanation of how the conclusions were drawn, and potential conflicts of interest are not addressed. The lack of transparency in sourcing and context diminishes the article's ability to provide a clear and trustworthy narrative.