The article tries to massage some kind of connection between tax breaks and a re-election campaign. From the information provided, I don't see it. In particular

The article tries to massage some kind of connection between tax breaks and a re-election campaign. From the information provided, I don't see it. In particular, if you or I clocked up $26m in tax breaks for a tax year, that would suggest that you or I were investing (say) $50m into the state every year. In that case, as the state, I would be very happy to dedicate an employee or two to making everything run as smoothly as possible, and yes, getting expected behaviour out of the tax system is part of that. While I have sympathy for people who run tiny companies that have different experiences, it should be clear to the pragmatic that the people who have more money to spend should receive more attention. For example, the person who wants to build a 150 floor skyscraper in New York will be talking to a different part of the zoning commission than the person who wants to convert a garage into a coffee shop, and that's a good thing. Where is this anything other than sound commercial practice for New York? Is there any evidence that this wasn't the case for other companies in similar positions? I'd be suspicious if (say) the state used this as a bargaining tool, but it could easily be standard practice. With the updated article link, sure, the whole thing looks fishy, but I still don't think this example is necessarily a case of it.