Calcaterra Battles Enrollment And Residency Questions In Race Against LaValle

Regina Calcaterra, clutching a clipboard, walks towards a stretch of tiny attached houses in a small senior’s development in Brookhaven, Long Island. It is 95 degrees on a recent Thursday afternoon, but Calcaterra, with her carefully calculated map of voters, does not seem fazed.

After a few knocks at each house, Calcaterra leaves behind a campaign flier with a handwritten note. Moving on, an older woman allows for a short back-and-forth through her screen door. She asks Calcaterra if she is a Democrat.

“Good,” she says when Calcaterra replies yes. “But you’re not going to win in this district.”

Kenneth LaValle, after all, is a fixture in this part of Suffolk County, with deep roots that stretch through most of the wealthy, beach-dotted community. He has been in office since 1976, making him one of the longest-serving members of the State Senate.

“LaValle’s delivered so much for this district that there are stadiums and schools named for him,” said Republican County Legislator Ed Romaine, who represents a portion of the district. “He has left his mark in a lot of ways over a long period of time.”

He has left less of a mark so far on the campaign trail, and canceled an in-person interview two hours before it was scheduled to occur.

“The senator will run this campaign the way he always has—by taking every opponent seriously,” said Joanne Scalia, LaValle’s campaign manager.  “He welcomes the debate.”

He has not had to campaign much for about as long as anyone can remember—even amid the heavily Democratic mood in 2008, LaValle ran unopposed after his Democratic challenger was bounced from the ballot.

But this year, decades in office is no guarantee for re-election—in fact, many believe, just the opposite.

There is even more opportunity, Calcaterra hopes, in the nearly 80,000 voters who skipped voting for LaValle at all in 2008, despite the fact that he was the only choice. Calcaterra said she was one of the ones who abstained. The 2008 election, she said, is what pushed her from a cushy job as a lawyer dealing with public pension-related matters into a political career.

Early on, key Democrats saw her potential. State Sen. Jeff Klein, the deputy majority leader and chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, recruited Calcaterra over a year ago, giving her enough time to begin laying the groundwork for what many expect to be a tough campaign.

Calcaterra grew up in the district, attending Centereach High School after a tumultuous childhood spent in and out of homelessness. A few days before her 14th birthday, she was placed in a foster home not far from where she was living and, after a quick reading of the law, decided to emancipate herself from her mother.

On top of the general anti-incumbent mood, Calcaterra is hoping to appeal to voters chafing at the exorbitant cost of living in eastern Suffolk. Since 1980, property taxes have skyrocketed 550 percent, some of the highest increases in the state.

The district was once a Republican bastion, but its registration has tilted increasingly Democratic over the years. In 2000, Republicans had an edge on Democrats by 30,000 votes. Today, that margin has shrunk to just over 11,000.

Calcaterra may be getting some support from the Senate Democrats, but there are some Democrats who view her as an outsider, a big-city lawyer only now coming home to Long Island without paying her local political dues. And Senate Democrats have vulnerable incumbents in the immediate area that are in desperate need of money and manpower, like Democratic incumbent Brian Foley, perhaps the top Republican target.

Calcaterra will also have a distracting primary challenger to face, a potential sinkhole of cash and time, neither of which Calcaterra can afford to waste. Greg Fischer, a stay-at-home father and publisher of a newsletter devoted to his cause called The Political Patriot, has raised questions about Calcaterra’s residency. He has filed a complaint and is hoping to take her to court, arguing that she does not meet the State Constitution’s requirement that legislative candidates live in the state for five years, which he interprets to mean a consecutive five years.

Calcaterra purchased and resided in a house in New Hope, Pa., after taking a job at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, a firm based out of Philadelphia that was prosecuting the WorldCom fraud case. Three years later, records show she purchased a house in Suffolk. Calcaterra argues that she rented property in New York while living out-of-state, but her campaign declined to provide proof of such a residence.

Calcaterra has expressed confidence that she will beat back any legal challenge, but Fischer may still succeed in affecting the race, raising questions about Calcaterra that her campaign was preparing to field from LaValle. That could complicate the politics of dealing with the issue.

Driving down Middle Country Road, Calcaterra shows off her knowledge of the area. She points out the store where she had her first job, and shows the street that leads to her high school.

She has already demonstrated she knows how to raise more cash than the incumbent, cashing in on a series of lucrative house parties thrown by friends and volunteers. She out-raised LaValle nearly two to one during the last cycle, raking in over $146,000. She has a significant burn rate though, having spent over $75,000. LaValle has almost $270,000 on hand, carried over from other cycles.

Calcaterra has picked up endorsements from the Retail Workers Department Store Union/UFCW, the Empire State Pride Agenda, NARAL Pro-Choice NY and others, but there are still many groups in the district with deep loyalties to LaValle.

She encountered one that morning, arriving at the offices of the local CSEA for an endorsement interview. The labor group stacked the interviews one after the other—Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos dipped out the back quickly after Calcaterra came in the front—and after meeting with them, she seemed happy but slightly defeated.

“They said they were very pleased with some of my answers,” she said, adding that they were especially impressed with her knowledge of public employees’ pensions.

“But,” she added of the union’s response to her, “Senator LaValle’s been good to them over the years.”

---

Regina Calcaterra responds to The Capitol’s article:

Dear Editors:

 

The article published by The Capitol about my campaign
(“Calcaterra Battles Enrollment and Residency Questions in Race Against
Lavalle”) was unfair and unbalanced, completely ignoring many of the
positive realities surrounding my campaign. I feel I have a duty to myself and
my campaign to respond point by point identifying each inaccuracy.

 

Point 1: 
When I visited the senior residential community, your reporter witnessed many
positive reactions from those who opened their doors to me who said that they
will vote for me and were so pleased that I am running. While I understand that
not every interaction could be reported, not one of the very positive
interactions by voters was discussed in the story.

 

Point 2: 
Your reporter spoke with many Suffolk County Democratic Party supporters of my
campaign and failed to include any of them in the story. However, you included
a statement by my opponent’s
Republican Party supporter. Furthermore, the article included an anonymous statement
suggesting that Suffolk Democrats are somehow upset by my campaign because I
did not pay my political dues. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that both the local and
state Democratic parties have embraced my candidacy and are eagerly supporting
me.

 

Point 3: I resent being characterized as a big city lawyer with a “cushy”
job. Over the past 22 years of my professional career, I have worked tirelessly
to have a positive impact on those in the First Senatorial District and others
around the state. While I discussed these accomplishments, none were reported,
including my work with an amazing group of disabled veterans for several years
or my work as a litigator against corporate fraud, which has brought back
millions of dollars to our state pension systems. Believe me, all that was hard
work and was anything but “cushy.”

 

Point 4: Many details regarding my residency were also omitted
after I took pains to answer questions raised by your very publication. I was
born in New York, raised in New York and have lived continuously in New York.
When I was recruited by my law firm to work with them on several matters,
including winning back pension money lost due to the WorldCom fraud, I
purchased a second home near Philadelphia. However, I maintained a balance between
both states during my time on the case and always maintained my New York
residency as well. Furthermore, the original paragraph attributed words to me
that I never said. The failure to include these details in the original version
showed that you constructed the story out of pre-conceived notions about my
candidacy.

 

Point 5: 
You chose to highlight the rate at my campaign spends money versus my opponent.
As a challenger, I must spend money on my own office space, a professional
fundraiser, staff, communications, palm card printing, etc. In contrast, my
opponent’s spokesperson, office, website
and mailings are all sponsored by taxpayer dollars. Frankly, I’m ecstatic to be competitive with someone
awash in special interest money and taxpayer-assisted resources.

 

Point 6: I am saving the best and most outrageous inaccuracy for
last. I never, ever said – and will never say – that I had done a “quick reading of the law” before seeking emancipation at the age of
14. The ridiculousness of this line is outrageous and frankly quite offensive,
making light of the incredibly sad and serious position I was in as a foster
child.

 

I am less offended, however, than I am upset for my supporters.
They know that we have momentum and there is change in the air, in much part
due to their efforts. It would be irresponsible to fail to respond on behalf of
those who have committed to vote for me and have committed the last year of
their lives toward my candidacy.