Kevin Marshall's America
Bob Reilly, anti-MMA advocate, whose positions are sold to the highest bidder
Disclaimer: The original title I wrote was “Bob Reilly sells MMA Vote to the Highest Bidder,” which was misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory. After some careful consideration and discussions with others in the comments section, it’s been changed.
UPDATE Friday 5/13/2011 10:11am – Since publishing yesterday, poster “Colonie” and a handful of other mutual friends/acquaintances have reached out to me and assured that Reilly’s position is not based on any assurances or contact with Unite Here or the AFL-CIO.
—–
State Assemblyman and professional disabled persons impressionist Bob Reilly’s blockage and opposition to regulated Mixed Martial Arts in New York State is getting more nonsensical as the real reasons behind it become clearer.
Reilly recently spoke with Ariel Helwani of MMAFighting.com (a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner) regarding the new pre-fight insurance policy instituted by Zuffa, parent company of the UFC and the recently acquired San Jose-based Strikeforce promotion.
The new insurance policy would provide coverage for fighters that get injured while training for a fight. Zuffa, who had shopped for a company willing to provide coverage for over a year and a half, already covered fighters who were injured during the course of a fight itself.
Reilly found the timing of the policy suspect, and was critical even while praising the company for its efforts. From the article:
“I think what MMA should be doing is, instead of providing insurance for injuries, is to do away with injuries.”
When I explained to Reilly that the UFC fighters were already covered for injuries suffered in fights and the new insurance would cover injuries, suffered in or outside of the gym, while training or not for an upcoming fight, Reilly added:
“It’s certainly not a bad thing that they provide this insurance, but it really does little or nothing to solve the problem of what will happen to fighters financially, of the physical damage done to fighters or the fact that this violent sport begets violence in our society. So it does nothing to address the systemic problems of MMA.
“I think it’s a positive thing, but I don’t think it’s a positive step. In the sense that it doesn’t address the systemic problems of MMA. But it’s certainly not a negative thing.”
Reilly’s opposition is pathological, which is nothing new. The only consistency in his arguments have been his method: he’ll cite a reason for not legalizing it, then when his claims are refuted by facts, he backtracks and makes up completely new reasons. It’s maddening, but hey, that’s politics, right?
Except Reilly’s nonsensical blathering and stubborn opposition works to the detriment of New York State. MMA could bring in revenue for the State, with advocates conceding a proposed and unprecedented 8.5% tax on the gate of MMA events (boxing promotions only have to pay 3%). New York is one of only two in the entire country that hasn’t legalized MMA and is the only one with an Athletic Commission. In addition to revenue lost from major shows occurring in nearby New Jersey, estimates are that at least 70 smaller, regional shows a year (overseen by Athletic Commission regulations) would occur if the sport were legalized.
If it seems like MMA opponents like Reilly have an ulterior motive, it’s because they do.
Various sources have confirmed that the source of the blockage is a dispute between UNITE HERE, which is the parent organization a local culinary union in Las Vegas, and Zuffa owners the Fertitta brothers. The Fertittas also own Station Casinos, which are the only casinos in Las Vegas that do not have a contract with Culinary Union Local 226. Helwani, who interviewed Reilly, earlier this week uncovered a memo from UNITE HERE member the New York Hotel Trades Council outlining their opposition to MMA.
In short: MMA is being blocked because of an out-of-state labor dispute.
As for Bob Reilly? UNITE HERE has been a consistent contributor to his campaigns, the State Democratic Election Committee, the Democratic State Assembly Committee, Working Families, Inc., and in 2006 were Reilly’s second largest individual contributor.
So New York State, which more than ever needs new forms of revenue, is having a major one – almost a no-brainer – blocked because of politicians like Reilly, who sell their votes to the highest bidder. Out-of-state interests trump our State’s financial situation, if the price is right.
UPDATE 8:40pm – from the comments section:
Stephen Koepfer: Kevin, assuming this is all MMA directed lobby cash by Unite Here is a big stretch, but, let’s assume it is. What have they done done since 2008. It is 2011. Where is your evidence that they are still any kind of significant barrier in NY?
Stephen & others: this is the problem with giving me a blog and having me write blog posts during my breaks at work. Sometimes I can get carried away with my word usage, and it can be – albeit unintentionally – misread and misleading. That’s my bad, and on issues such as this I should definitely exercise more caution.
I want to make it clear though: I’m not saying it’s cash that’s given to a campaign and said “hey, here’s X thousands of dollars, don’t vote for MMA.” I am saying that Unite Here specifically has a vested interest in keeping this from the vote, and they have a champion in Bob Reilly, for whom they are a major contributor. No single organization throws that much money at a candidate for a single issue, but when they do have so much invested and such a significant portion in a candidate, they do have sway on issues that concern them.
My point isn’t that UNITE HERE paid Bob Reilly specifically to say no to MMA, but that UNITE HERE has a lot of pull with Reilly due to their significant contributions, and as such may have had a significant influence on his position.
But that’s a good question. Where HAVE they been since 2008? I wondered myself and did some digging.
In 2005 UNITE HERE created a big shake-up when they split from the AFL-CIO and joined the Change to Win Federation. After many years of doing a lot of their own lobbying and money-spending, they mended fences and re-affiliated themselves with the AFL-CIO in September 2009. Whereas in 2008 UNITE HERE in its various forms (Unite Here Tip State & Local Fund, Unite Here Tip Campaign Committee, Unite Here State & Local Fund among others) spent over $4 million on New York State campaigns, in 2010 their contributions dipped significantly: a little over $1.6 million. A lot of that money that used to come from UNITE HERE was now coming through the AFL-CIO.
Reilly was involved in a tight race in the Fall of 2010, where he was re-elected to his fourth term by a mere 542 votes. In October and November, with Reilly losing ground, the State Democratic Committee increased its fundraising efforts and the money flowed in with renewed vigor for that and other races. In those two months, the New York State AFL-CIO Cope Fund contributed a total of $31,000 to The New York State Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee. Guess how much the New York State Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee donated to Friends of Bob Reilly in those two months?
$30,000. No guff.
——-
—–
Related articles
Share it!
38 Responses to New York State Assemblyman Bob Reilly’s position on MMA influenced by major contributor
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
argh.. making me more and more disillusioned.. how is this not investigated, leading to him fired, fined and possibly serving time in jail? and I don’t even care for UFC personally..
add this to a FCC commissioner accepting the Comcast lobbyist job 4 months after approving their merger (in the news the other day)..
I think it is unfair to Mr. Reilly that by the logic of deduction, his position is a result of union contributions.
Your statement-( UNITE HERE lines his pockets: they’ve been a consistent contributor to his campaigns, and in 2006 were his second largest individual contributor. )
Is both misleading and at the least a gross exaggeration.
You can criticize the man’s position on MMA, and in fact, I tend to agree that their are plenty of valid and logical criticisms on his position. However, to insinuate that he is somehow profiting by his position, or corrupt is just plain lazy…
Can you clarify? Because they are among his most loyal contributors, and they did account for the second largest individual contribution (legally/on record) to his 2006 campaign.
Do you know what is a pretty sinister way to hide your corruption? Donate your entire salary to charitable causes to the tune of nearly half a million dollars over 6 years, all while living off of a very modest pension form the state. The payoff?… a couple thousand dollars in campaign donations from a union who shares a similar agenda….
its almost too easy…..
Could you perhaps post a link or list the actual total of donations provided to Bob Reilly?
What I’m guessing you will find is that the value of donations are rather “small” and that the argument that your making that “that the tail wags the dog” so to speak- The union is dictating the agenda, is wrong.
Yes I’m sure they support Bob Reilly because of his stance on MMA. Does that mean Bob Reily’s stance is driven by this union, I believe you will find not.
As I’ve already stated I think the the argument made by MMA proponents of legalization are fairly strong. However, to suggest Bob Reilly position is corrupt is a lame and tired suggestion.
$2,000 in a single contribution alone in 2006. They also donated $52,500 to the Working Families Party that same year, and over $150,000 over a two-year period (2006-2008). No small change, and guess who got the line in that (and pretty much every) election? Plus $25,000 to the State Democratic Election Committee in 2007, then another $25,000 to the Democratic State Assembly Committee in February 2007. Then, a year later, another $20,000 to the State Democratic Election Committee, and on and on.
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/contribandexpend.html
I will concede that “lines his pockets” was a poor choice of words and misleading, so I’ve removed it; I meant to imply that they are heavy contributors to his campaign both directly and through their “healthy” support of both the State Democratic Committee, Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee, and various PACS, not that they give HIM money to put in his personal bank account.
Working families party is synonymous with democratic candidates- particularly candidates who support unions. That comes as is little surprise that they would support the WFP.
Also,I think Bob Reilly has made it clear he is a supporter of Unions. and I’m sure if you research his donations you will find many Union donations
Again what it boils down to for me is that I don’t think you should drag the guy through the mud or insinuate corruption. i think Bob Reilly has strong feelings on the subject. Justified or not.
As you appear to have knowledge of NYS politics you should also realize that not much gets done in the assembly without the consent of Sheldon Silver.
Meaning that while Bob Reilly has been vocal about this issue and has drawn the lions share of the criticism, if Silver were for MMA in NY it would highly likely be a done deal. Same goes for Gov Coumo.
What does that mean?
1.) MMA in NY although extremely important to you the fans of the sport is politically not a particularly driving force in NYS politics/government
2.) the potential revenue stream from MMA for NYS has been exaggerated and will not act as an economic savior to NYS.
In terms of money: if you had the gates the UFC had in New Jersey here in New York for the last two events – which UFC would do at least two a year at the Garden alone – it’d account for over half a million in revenue. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, though: MSG would do better gates (due to higher prices for events like this) and doesn’t include the various licensing fees, etcetera that the Commission would collect. Then you factor in the fees for all the fighters throughout the State, and the various promotions, etcetera, and you’re talking literally millions of dollars. You can say it’s a drop in the bucket, but in an age where we’re obsessively pinching every dollar and cutting State aid to programs that are much smaller drops in that bucket, it absolutely counts.
Also,I think Bob Reilly has made it clear he is a supporter of Unions. and I’m sure if you research his donations you will find many Union donations.
Yes, and one of those Unions who is a very major contributor and player to Reilly and the Democratic Party (that he is no small potatoes in) is lobbying against MMA because of an out-of-state conflict with the Fertitta Brothers’ casinos.
As a member of the Tourism, Arts, and Sports Development Committee, Reilly was instrumental in keeping the bill from getting to vote for some time.
Reilly is a strong supporter of Unions. There’s nothing wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with allowing your support of organizations and their contributions to you (directly and through PACS & State committees) and the State Dems as a whole to dictate your vote on a separate issue.
I’d like to believe that Reilly truly does believe that MMA would make New York a more violent place to live and be a detriment to society; really, I do. However, that just doesn’t jive. Am I to believe that a guy who is so rational on so many issues is now simply irrational on this one? And why exactly did he never speak out about boxing, but then when the MMA issue was brought up and he was confronted with it, he stated that he’s no longer a fan of boxing because it’s more violent than it used to be (huh?).
See, that’s the thing. He gets dragged through the mud – though I consider it being called to account – because none of this, not his positions or his attitude towards it, makes any sense.
I think another proponent to why MMA has not been legalized in NY is that it will only benefit and prosper in NYC, and not support smaller markets like ours in Albany (although they say it will). Yes they’ll do a show in Buffalo because you have Toronto and Niagara Falls nearby, but Albany does not have the Hotels to support a UFC event nor is a 15,000 seat arena desirable. When Ferrtita was on ESPN Radio last month promoting the Toronto fight he couldn’t even pronounce Albany correct. What legalization will do however is bring smaller, independant mma promoters into the smaller cities in NYS which may not have the proffessionalism and safety guidelines as UFC and Zuffa. Regardless of my opinion I still am all for the legalization of MMA in NY and hope it happens and becomes very successful.
“What legalization will do however is bring smaller, independant mma promoters into the smaller cities in NYS which may not have the proffessionalism and safety guidelines as UFC and Zuffa. “
Common misconception. Safety guidelines in NY would be established and overseen by the New York State Athletic Commission, not the individual promotions or Zuffa. Same way they do boxing.
Yea, you’re right. I was thinking that as I was writing it. It may however be promoted differently which would cause concern.
NY needs this revenue, I would also like to see my first fight here in albany.
Maybe he’s just not a fan of MMA, and no matter how much you beg and plead he’s not gonna change his mind? Sorry Kevin, but you come off sounding a little too much like you’re wearing a tinfoil hat in this post.
My recent editorial on the topic.
http://nymmanow.blogspot.com/2011/05/zuffas-union-blues-and-new-york-mma.html
“$2,000 in a single contribution alone in 2006. They also donated $52,500 to the Working Families Party that same year, and over $150,000 over a two-year period (2006-2008). No small change, and guess who got the line in that (and pretty much every) election? Plus $25,000 to the State Democratic Election Committee in 2007, then another $25,000 to the Democratic State Assembly Committee in February 2007. Then, a year later, another $20,000 to the State Democratic Election Committee, and on and on.”
Kevin, assuming this is all MMA directed lobby cash by Unite Here is a big stretch, but, let’s assume it is. What have they done done since 2008. It is 2011. Where is your evidence that they are still any kind of significant barrier in NY?
I want to make it clear, and my apologies if it was misleading: I’m not saying it’s cash that’s given to a campaign and said “hey, don’t vote for MMA.” I am saying that Unite Here specifically has a vested interest in keeping this from the vote, and they have a champion in Bob Reilly, for whom they are a major contributor. No single organization throws that much money at a candidate for a single issue, but when they do have so much invested and such a significant portion, they do have sway on issues that concern them. My point isn’t that UNITE HERE paid Bob Reilly specifically to say no to MMA, but that UNITE HERE has a lot of pull with Reilly due to their significant contributions, and as such may have had a significant influence on his position.
But where HAVE they been since 2008? I wondered myself and did some digging.
In 2005 UNITE HERE created a big shake-up when they split from the AFL-CIO and joined the Change to Win Federation. After many years of doing a lot of their own lobbying and money-spending, they mended fences and re-affiliated themselves with the AFL-CIO in September 2009. Whereas in 2008 UNITE HERE in its various forms (Unite Here Tip State & Local Fund, Unite Here Tip Campaign Committee, Unite Here State & Local Fund among others) spent over $4 million on New York State campaigns, in 2010 their contributions dipped significantly: a little over $1.6 million. A lot of that money that used to come from UNITE HERE was now coming through the AFL-CIO.
Reilly was involved in a tight race in the Fall of 2010, where he was re-elected to his fourth term by a mere 542 votes. In October and November, with Reilly losing ground, the State Democratic Committee increased its fundraising efforts and the money flowed in with renewed vigor for that and other races. In those two months, the New York State AFL-CIO Cope Fund contributed a total of $31,000 to The New York State Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee. Guess how much the New York State Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee donated to Friends of Bob Reilly in those two months?
$30,000. No guff.
Unite Here has not conributed to Bob Reilly since 2006.
How do you justify this comment Kevin?
“As for Bob Reilly? UNITE HERE has been a consistent contributor to his campaigns”
So, unlike the title of your article, you are now saying that Bob Reilly did not specifically sell his vote on MMA to the highest bidder. Rather, a Union donated to the state demorcatic committee, that in turn supported a democratic pro-union candidate in a tight election against a Republican, which “may have had a significant influence on his position.”
Of course they supported him…MMA or not.
I’m saying he’s beholden to them for the vote.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not a fan of Reilly. But I think you are making a real stretch here and promoting a view that the Unite Here union in NY has more influence over the issue of regulated MMA than it actually has. As far as Reilly goes…he just needs to shut up and educte himself.
No no, I see your point and it is very well taken. I even reflected it as such and changed the title of the blog post itself with an explanation.
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all, though. It’s clear to me that they do still have a very real interest in not having this passed in New York. This isn’t and wouldn’t be the first time that a special interest has helped dictate the way a vote goes…Hell, that’s the reason they exist. The interests UNITE HERE and in turn the AFL-CIO have are varied, and the Station Casinos thing is clearly – to me anyway – a sticking point with them. Why else would this be blocked in committees and taken off budgets during negotiations?
I respect your willingness to change the title. I also want to say that I do agree that Unite Here may have an interest in the issue as a means of retribution against Fertittas. However, interest and significant influence over the issue in Albany are two different things.
BTW, watch this debate between Reilly and Whalen leading to last year’s election. Quite interesting.
http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/521754/debate-for-109th-assembly-district—reilly-vs–whalen/
As a frequent campaign donor and member of the labor community I can tell you that I donate to candidates that support my issues. Why? Because I want them to be re-elected because I suspect, based on their record, that they will likely support other issues that I may have an interest in in the future. Labor donates to campaigns for the same reasons that everyone else does: to (re)elect people who share their perspective.
Kevin, despite your turn around, accusing the Assemblyman of corruption or favoritism from the outset is disappointing. I understand that you’re passionate about MMA but Bob’s opinion seems honest despite it being wrong.
Kevin, in journalism school you should’ve learned that just making comments like “no-brainer” does not make it fact.
If this is solely an opinion piece, then please put it under the opinion headline.
However you are mistakenly representing opinions as facts.
Oates77 – I’m not a journalist and this blog is opinion. It presents itself as little else.
Kevin- I certainly appreciate the fact as you argue that in a time of fiscal uncertainty, that any revenue could be helpful to NYS. Helpful yes,some sort of economic saving grace? No. I reiterate this because this has been a consistent theme of those pushing for the legalization of MMA in NY. I understand the logic, but it remains rather naive considering the fundamental and more important political decisions at hand ;i.e. Tax cap, pension,Millionaires Tax, medicare, medicaid, Union contract, State worker layoffs, Gov consolidation, and many more.
These are issues that stand to potentially alter the landscape of NY considerably. The potential revenues from MMA may be measured in the Millions (at best). These other fundamental issues are weighed in terms of billions and stand to impact all New yorkers. Not just MMA fans.
The point here is I think that your reason (MMA fans as a whole) and push needs to remain grounded in the argument that despite its violent appearance, the injuries in MMA appear to be rather overstated. Not in the overwhelming value of MMA economically which is a pipe dream.
Last, let me reiterate to you once more that Bob Reilly’s connection to Unite Here is inconsequential to his stance. I cannot get into detail of how or why I know this, but Bob Reilly has no personal or ulterior motives to banning MMA in NY than the reasons he has stated. Right or wrong that is the truth. I’m am sure is stance and reasons are irritating to you the fans of MMA,but at a time when NYS politicians are being caught in scandals left and right, its not really fair to connect a guy who has served with consistent and ethical principals(whether you agree with them or not).
Colonie - Because I have your personal e-mail and can verify who you are, I’m taking you on your word and trust it.
Your candor is certainly appreciated….
Is Colonie Bob O’Reilly himself?
Jimmy - No.
Just reposting this link as blogger had a problem and I had to repost the editorial.
Regarding Colonie’s comments, yes, MMA is a drop in the financial bucket. And I too agree (though may not have the inside knowledge that you do) that Unite Here’s influence is way over stated.
I have argued in the past that financially justifying legal and regulated MMA is not our best approach. Of course there is some significant financial benefit, but turning the MMA issue into a “violence or money” choice is not a winning strategy.
The real meat of this is that the state has an obligation to regulate professional sports for the safety of the athletes…as they do for all sports. This is why we have the NYSAC. Bottom line is that the State is obligated to do so for its citizens.
Secondly, the 1997 law banning “Ultimate fighting” was actually designed to ban a sport – “No Holds Barred” – which is not practiced any longer. MMA is not NHB. They are two different animals. Criminalizing MMA is akin to haveing illegal NASCAR because drag racing on city streets was once made illegal back in the day.
One of the big problems is that the average voter has no idea that MMA is not NHB. And this is why the “money or violence” argument does not work well. It reinforces the old stereotypes. In that way I see why Reilly makes the prostitution argument – that we would sell violence for money. But, the problem is that MMA is not NHB…thus negating Reilly’s assertion and the “money for violence” argument.
At the end of the day, this issue ios about the simple fact that professional sports require regulation.
LOL…forgot the link:
http://nymmanow.blogspot.com/2011/05/zuffas-union-blues-and-new-york-mma.html
@Stephen
I certainly appreciate your position here, and definitely respect your willingness to separate your obvious enthusiasm for MMA and desire for legalization in NY, from skewing or forming your judgment on the political process. The truth as is often the case, is much less sinister or complex than one might want to believe.
I also agree that regulation is also important to ensure that the sport and its athletes are provided with the proper training, medical care, insurance etc. And to prevent the under ground or unsafe fighting which no doubt exists.
Your reasoned position and approach is what will be needed to prevail in your fight. Not angry emotional and misguided comments (Of which I have seen plenty!). As I can tell you are actively involved in the MMA effort, please pass along my message in this regard.
@Colonie
Thanks for the kind words. I will certainly pass on the sentiment and knowledge that there are others who appreciate our position (since I don’t know who you are).
LOL…I certainly do have my judgements of the political process. But, I try to keep those under my hat and present a fair argument in my debates. Even if it means ruffling some feathers of MMA supporters.
If you wish to contact me off the blog, my e-mail is nymmanow@gmail.com
Here is an interesting article about Reilly…
“Assemblyman Bob Reilly Has No Problem with Amateur MMA”
http://uscombatsports.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=235%3Anews&id=7954%3Aassemblyman-bob-reilly-has-no-problem-with-amateur-mma-&Itemid=337
Although I have no comment on the UFC issue in general, I appreciate the manner in which this argument has taken place (no personal attacks, etc.). I bring up an issue on the first comment made by Tom Haverford. He reads one article and he’s calling out the wolves, calling for people to be placed in jail. Mr. Marshall, although this is a blog you have a responsibility to make sure people know this your opinion, not investigative journalism. Others will read your opinion and take it as fact as we can see by Mr. Haverford’s comment. I appreciate the retraction of your original title, although a misleading caption still remains on your photograph.
Nate (#23) thank you for your comment on campaign donations. It’s not secret that unions and other organizations will give money based on party lines. I don’t think it’s some huge discovery that Bob Reilly received campaign donations. And if he has an opinion that jives with that of an organization that contributes to his campaign, so what. That’s the point. Don’t make a mountain out of a mole-hill just because you disagree with him.
shubbie -
That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a blog, called Kevin Marshall’s America, and none of it is written in a neutral tone, including this post. There is also a big disclaimer on the right-hand side of the page saying it’s a Reader Blog.
That’s like saying a letter that appears under the section “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR” should state that the letter itself is not a news story. I know you disagree, but authors of blogs and opinion pieces can’t be held accountable for the haste of others or inability (or unwillingness) to practice deductive reasoning.
I’m pretty sure I understand what a blog is, but I appreciate you providing me with a definition. If you didn’t have a responsibility to let people know that this is your opinion then there would be no disclaimer, right? And I actually do agree with you. You are not responsible for anyone else’s opinions. You are, however responsible for what you say about other people. You had to change your title because it was just not true – you took, what’s the word? Oh, RESPONSIBILITY for what you wrote.
I was not attacking you, or your opinion. I actually don’t care. I was reading this blog because I was interested in the topic. I was trying to make a point about how people jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts (comment #1). It was a generalization about how people read blogs and form their own(sometimes misleading) ideas. I apologize if my choice of words was not clear.