Lynch calls on Stephen to Come Clean about Doughnut Donations

This reminds me of (4.00 / 3)

. . . a certain ex-congressman in the 2nd CD (last name rhymes with "ass") whose largest lifetime campaign contributor was an insurance company that abandoned the US and relocated to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.

But that deserves a diary of its own.  In the near future.

Go Governor Lynch!

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 20:17:19 PM CDT

Dollars for donuts (4.00 / 4)

Back in 2008/09 there was some litigation in New York in which a small DD franchisee alleged that she and other small operators were being pushed out on a pretext so that DD's could switch the franchise to Konstatino Skrivanos, who owned, at that time, app. 100 DD locations. This took place after DD was sold to an investment group including The Carlyle Group.

I believe this is the same Skrivanos whose donut shop operations are funding the Stephen campaign.




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 21:14:03 PM CDT

Links to Skrivanos Donuts Stories (4.00 / 2)

here are a couple of links:

Konstantino Skrivanos already owns a baker's dozen Dunkin' Donuts locations in Brooklyn, and more than 100 locations along the East Coast, a lawyer for one local store owner claims.

Cindy Gluck, a franchisee who owns Dunkin' Donuts stores in Park Slope and Flatbush, said she was given an option of either facing a costly lawsuit or selling her stores at a financial loss to Skrivanos.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...

A Jewish woman from Borough Park and her Muslim business partner, an immigrant from Egypt, are fighting for their livelihood after their two franchises were terminated by Dunkin' Donuts for minor infractions. According to co-owner Asam Habib, recently interviewed by the New York Post, "It's simple. We build up the businesses for them, then they cut us out so they can resell them."

http://www.wikidfranchise.org/...

Don't know what happened to the lititgation. Interesting stories however, particularly the allegation that private equity firms investing in these companies are forcing out small operators in favor of large companies.  Which still begs the question - why is all this money going to Johnny Stephen's campaign here in New Hampshire?



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 08:05:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was about to say... (0.00 / 0)

I almost said that I was going to have to boycott Dunkin' Donuts but in my case I have endorsed Tim Robertson for Governor.  So maybe I should be going to Dunkin's every chance I get, at least till the primary.  Too late for me today however; I did go out for coffee this morning but I went to the cafe in the atrium of the UNH library.

(Robertson is so far behind Lynch in the polls, the pollsters are not even bothering to do polls of the Democratic primary.  And, Republican frontrunner Johnny Stephen is not all that far ahead of Robertson.)

The issue of corporate campaign contributions is a tough one.  I wasn't happy with the Citizens United decision, but it is the law of the land and frankly this time Scalito's legal arguments did (for a change) make sense.  There are things we can do about how corporations are chartered and organized; and there are things we can do about transparency.  Transparency makes a huge difference, as Target recently learned the hard way when they gave over $100k to a candidate whose views were abhorrent to their core customers.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:34:49 AM CDT

disclosure n/t (4.00 / 1)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:28:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and about the LLC tax... (0.00 / 0)

The influx of donations into Stpehen's campaign from LLC's which own Dunkin' Donuts shops probably has everything to do with the LLC Tax.  Even though the LLC Tax passed in NH last year (and repealed this year) raised little if any money, it's still a hot issue. LLC's are still an untapped source of revenue.  A corporation currently pays (in most cases) a lot more tax than an equivalent LLC. And there is no good reason for it: LLC's are suppposedly synonymous with "small business" but in fact some huge businesses (e.g., Amazon.com) are LLCs.  

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:45:53 AM CDT

Wrong (4.00 / 1)

These LLC's are located in Massachusetts and run donut shops in Massachusetts and Connecticut.  They are not NH Dunkin Donuts, do not appear to be doing business in New Hampshire (they are not listed on the SoS site), and therefore are not subject to any tax in New Hampshire, let alone the extension of the interest and dividends tax to LLC's.

Target did not give to a candidate. Target gave to a group called MN Forward, which is required under Minnesota law to disclose all of its donors. MN Forward ran ads in favor of an anti-marriage equality candidate for governor.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 11:48:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

many more buyers of donuts and coffee (4.00 / 1)

than there are owners of LLC's so what's the point? Politically its meaningless, just Republican business whiner people who want Bush style breaks to continue.

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:30:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Speaking of Coming Clean... (0.00 / 0)

Lynch himself has a few things to come clean on--- such as his refusal to debate his two challengers in the primary, Rep. Tim Robertson & fomer Rep. Frank Sullivan.  Would anybody want to comment on why the Governor dodged a debate?

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:16:50 PM CDT

there is still time... (0.00 / 0)

WMUR & the Union Leader are sponsoring debates in 5 of the 6 contested top of the ticket races next week. There is already a Republic Party gubernatorial primary debate scheduled for Sept. 10th at 7pm.  I am sure it would still be feasible to schedule a Democratic Party debate the same day as the GOP faceoff.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:12:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a sensible use of his time (4.00 / 1)

Governor Lynch still has one of the highest popularity ratings in the country, has very high approval within his party, and enjoys commanding leads in polls for the general, and he still has the state to run. After his previous elections, his positions are generally well-known. He wouldn't stand to gain anything from participating in a debate against a couple of mostly-unknown candidates, while they would at a bare minimum gain badly-needed exposure.

This tactical analysis would apply to any popular, well-known incumbent with unknown opponents. It changes if one of those opponents suddenly starts to gain traction (see Miller v. Murkowski), but there's no reason for the incumbent to voluntarily provide an opportunity for that traction to begin.

At the same time, I expect you'll keep asking, because "Why is he afraid to debate me?" is an easy attack line for a challenger to employ and from a tactical sense is also a reasonable move given the limited set of available options. I would suggest pairing it with a specific issue if that's the direction you want to go - give a reason why you want to debate, a policy difference between Governor Lynch and your preferred challenger. It's way too late in the primary calendar for that to work well unless you find some really compelling difference, though - you want to establish an attack line early and try to make it resonate.

Please note, I am not affiliated with any campaigns this year; this is all my purely tactical and strategic analysis of the situation independent of policies, positions, and personalities. The same analysis would apply if Andrew Cuomo in New York were facing an unknown, underfunded challenger, or to Dave Heineman, the popular Republican governor of Nebraska who faced a pair of unknowns in his primary.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 14:28:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that is correct about the strategy... (0.00 / 0)

Well yeah, strategically it makes little sense for Lynch to debate two challengers who would be about 90 points behind him in the polls if there were polls being done.  It makes even less sense when one of the challengers is an excellent debater: Tim Robertson is very articulate and very smart.  

It would be useful for Lynch to stand up and tell us what he thinks about the budget and about tax policy.  I mean, it would be useful for the people, who know that the state faces a massive budget crisis.  I am not saying it is useful for Lynch's 2010 re-election campaign.

Robertson & Sullivan (Frank Sullivan, not Kathy Sullivan) are both interested in fixing our overreliance on the property tax.  Sullivan's favored revenue source is something the governor might be willing to consider if the right proposal came along, casino gambling.  Robertson favors the personal income tax, which is something which the Governor is adamantly opposed to and something which neither Lynch nor his party's leadership wants to talk about.

One of the reasons why the right gambling proposal hasn't come along is because casinos just aren't that great a cash cow.  Even if we  managed to make a much better deal for ourselves than what the gaming industry offered us in 2009-2010, the costs would still outweigh the benefits.  

The personal income tax exists in 41 out of the other 49 states, but the lack of one has become one of the things which defines our identity as a state.  We are one of only 5 states (along with Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee & Washington) which has no income tax while also lacking an offsetting cash cow. Alaska, Texas & Wyoming have oil and gas royalties; Nevada has casinos.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 15:19:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]