REAL FIXES FOR ALBANY
While the 2005 New York State legislative session resulted in an on-time budget and some reforms, it’s premature to take the "dysfunctional" sign off the Capitol. Lobbying, ethics, campaign finance disclosure, authorities, and freedom of information laws were strengthened as part of the frenzy of legislative agreements.
But in most areas, lawmakers picked the "lowest hanging legislative fruit." For example, one reform closed a loophole that allowed state officials to escape punishment for ethics violations by merely leaving public service. While that is a step in the right direction, it does not address more fundamental problems in Albany, such as gift-giving by lobbyists, lax ethics enforcement and a preference for secrecy.
To get at the root causes of Albany’s problems deeper reforms are needed. In order to remove the "dysfunctional" label, lawmakers must tackle the three biggest sources of Albany’s troubles:
1. Redistricting. Aided by voter data and sophisticated computers, New York State has raised the task of drawing legislative district lines to an art—Salvadore Dali meets Elbridge Gerry (the grandfather of gerrymandering). Incumbent legislators, with the consent of the Governor, establish the political boundaries of legislative districts. Such "designer districts" are drawn to virtually eliminate political choices for voters. This practice is a major reason why so few incumbents get beat — in over 2,500 state legislative races over the past 24 years, only 34 incumbents were defeated in the general election!
Drawing these districts not only makes a mockery of the state constitution’s requirement that districts are "compact" and "contiguous" (one looks like Abraham Lincoln riding a vacuum cleaner), it also contributes to a poisonously partisan political culture. Why appeal to independents, if all you need to win reelection is offer political red meat to your partisan base?
Until district lines are chosen by a non-partisan, independent commission, competitive elections and legislative compromises will be the exception, not the political rule.
2. Ethics. New York’s ethics law and its enforcement are anemic. Legislators sit in judgment over themselves when an alleged ethics violation is investigated. Amazingly, the proceedings of this system of self-regulation are conducted in secret. For the executive branch, a five-member State Ethics Commission consists of political appointees (the Governor chooses three, the Attorney General and Comptroller get one each).
Self-regulation is not the only problem. "Revolving door" provisions are weak. For example, a top aide to either the Senate Majority or the Assembly Speaker can move from policymaker to lobbyist in one day if they time it right. Gifts "limits" are a joke too. New York’s current limit has been interpreted to allow gifts up to $75 per receipt, meaning that lobbyists can buy a legislator breakfast, lunch and dinner for $74 each — and do it every day.
Until an independent ethics commission is created, with adequate authority and resources, and until that system has clear ethical guidelines and is open to public scrutiny, New York State government will continue to be prone to scandals and corruption.
3. Campaign finance. Any discussion of how to fix Albany must address the state’s scandalous campaign finance law that allows contributions of more than $80,000. New York State’s campaign contribution "limits" allow individuals and political action committees to contribute as much as $84,400 each year to political parties that can then be spent on behalf of candidates’ elections. Sky-high campaign contributions are matched by unlimited donations to "soft money" accounts.
These contribution "limits" encourage lawmakers to dial for dollars from big donors and special interests, instead of appealing to average New Yorkers. What would you do, make one call to a potential $84,400 donor or make 840 calls to potential $100 donors? And reliance on big donors drives the legislative agenda of lawmakers. These big contributors don’t make donations out of the collective goodness of their hearts — they want something in return.
Until campaign contribution limits are dramatically lowered and a voluntary system of public financing for candidates is put in place, Albany’s entrenched status quo will be maintained.
These three areas offer a real test of lawmakers’ commitment to reform. How Governor Pataki and state legislators answer these questions should be the standard by which the public determines if Albany can pull down the “dysfunction” sign.
Blair Horner is NYPIRG's Legislative Director. He writes a weekly column - Blair Horner's Capitol Perspective - for the NYPIRG website. You can read the latest edition here. The collected Capitol Perspective archive is here.