Spitzer Took Money From Controversial Electric Plan
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) – Eliot Spitzer won’t return $50,000 in campaign contributions he accepted in 2003 from the company that hopes to gain state approval on a controversial project to run electrical transmission lines through Central New York to serve New York City.
The donations from New York Regional Interconnect Inc., an electric power company based in Albany, were made Christmas Eve in 2003 to General Spitzer’s campaign committee for governor, state elections records show. Although the Democrat hadn’t yet formally announced his candidacy, public speculation was under way.
“The contributions were made well before the attorney general’s office became involved in the proceedings,” said Spitzer campaign spokeswoman Christine Anderson. “Eliot has taken on the most stringent fundraising standards of any of the candidates in the race in not accepting campaign contributions from businesses or individuals with business before his office.”
Mr. Spitzer’s office is currently reviewing the electricity plan.
In Monday night’s debate between Mr. Spitzer’s rivals, Republican John Faso and Democrat Tom Suozzi said they wouldn’t accept donations from the company. The company has not offered any money to either candidate.
Mr. Suozzi had criticized Mr. Spitzer for taking money from special interests such as the transmission line company, calling it a symbol of Albany’s pay-to-play system of dysfunctional politics.
Mr. Faso said the project would put a transmission line “ripping through the fabric of our communities.”
The company is a limited liability corporation, so it isn’t subject to the $5,000 contribution limit on corporations. Contributions from a limited liability corporation are restricted to $50,000.
Mr. Spitzer, with a huge lead in the polls and in financing, declined to attend the debate and others sought by Messrs. Suozzi and Faso. The Democratic primary is Sept. 12.
Central New York residents are opposed to the 200-mile long line from Utica to Orange County in the lower Hudson Valley. Opponents of the plan by the private company, New York Regional Interconnect, are urging Governor Pataki and federal lawmakers to block any use of eminent domain to take private land, including environmentally sensitive and historic areas.
Backers say the new lines are needed to provide desperately needed electricity to New York City, parts of which suffered through long blackouts this summer.
The Spitzer campaign on Tuesday changed its position on another ethical issue that Faso is pressing against the front-running Democrat.
Mr. Faso has asked the state lobbying commission to investigate a case in which Mr. Spitzer rode the jet of a lobbyist who represents Indian tribes seeking approval for casinos and is also part of a consortium seeking the state’s lucrative thoroughbred racing franchise. Mr. Spitzer reimbursed Richard Fields $4,301 for the flight for Mr. Spitzer and a staff member from Phoenix to New York City via Tucson and Cincinnati. That payment was based on federal rules because state rules were vague.
Mr. Faso said Mr. Spitzer underpaid by about $30,000, citing lobbying laws that could result in fines against the lobbyist.
“Mr. Spitzer has clearly seen the error of his ways,” said Faso spokeswoman Susan Del Percio. “Now he must stop his practice of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars which could only be labeled play-to-pay money from special interest groups.” She said Spitzer should return the donations from Fields and Interconnect.
“The Spitzer campaign has followed the letter of the law when it comes to reimbursement for air travel,” Anderson said. “What we did was correct and proper, however … going forward, if charter flights are used by the campaign we will reimburse for all costs and thereby go further than New York State and federal election law, which we have strictly followed to date.”