Last week, New York may have taken a step toward significantly changing the way elections are financed.  Currently, candidates for state office in New York – like much of the rest of the nation – rely on private contributions to fuel their campaigns.  Not surprisingly, many of those who give those contributions are expecting that their donations will help their interests – be they personal or occupational – after the candidate wins elective office.

New York law makes it easy to pull in donations from those with deep pockets; the state has the highest campaign contribution limits (of any state that has limits) in the nation.  Under state law, one can make a legal campaign contribution of over $115,000 to a political party and can donate nearly $70,000 to candidates for governor.

Who writes those checks?  The wealthy and those who have business before the government.

For those seeking – or holding – elective office, hitting up those who are most interested in contributing makes good economic – and campaign – sense.  Under state law, making one phone call to a possible $10,000 contributor is a more efficient approach than making 100 calls to potential $100 contributors. 

While it is clearly more efficient, it raises the risk of corruption.  A big campaign donor with an economic interest before the state is expecting an elected official to be responsive, or that donor may contribute to a challenger.

And New Yorkers have seen the corruption that has resulted from a campaign financing system that relies on a relatively small number of big contributors.

What can be done to reduce that risk?  Under various U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there isn’t too much that can be done to reduce the influence of the wealthy and powerful, or to reduce the risk of the corruption that stems from some of those relationships.

There are two approaches, however, that can reduce those risks and meet constitutional muster.  First, the state can dramatically restrict the ability to make campaign contributions from those seeking government contracts or from professional lobbyists seeking government action.  Roughly half the nation has some form of “pay-to-play” limitations; New York should too.

Second, the state should do all it can to remake its campaign finance system from one that relies on a small number of large donors – and the resulting higher risks of corruption – to one that relies on a large number of small donors.  New York should drastically reduce the size of its legal campaign contributions and establish a voluntary system of public financing.  A public financing system typically allows for a public match for small contributions.   In New York City, for example, every $1 raised in small contributions is matched with an $8 donation in public resources.  New York City’s system was approved overwhelmingly by voters as part of a city government overhaul after a series of scandals and it’s been steadily improved over more than 25 years.

Which brings us to last week.  As part of the budget agreement last March, the governor and state lawmakers agreed to establish a commission that would be charged with setting up a voluntary system of public financing, thus setting up an alternative to the private contribution system.

The budget was approved on March 31^st and the commission was charged with establishing the public financing system by December 1^st of this year, giving the commission eight months to do its work.

In all-too-frequent Albany fashion, the governor and the legislative leaders failed to choose the commission members until last week, frittering away more than three months of the eight months available to the commission. 

The nine members now have to hit the ground running in order to set up the public financing system.  As mentioned earlier, they don’t have far to look for a model of how it is to be done (see New York City’s program, which is three decades old). 

But it must do its work in an open and transparent way, not simply follow the dictates of Albany’s top political leaders.

Nevertheless, it is a start.  And once their work is concluded, the commission members may have offered candidates a clear alternative to the state’s “pay-to-play” campaign financing system.  An alternative that relies on clean public resources and one that relies on the support of a large number of small contributors.  A system that reduces the risk of corruption and is far more likely to engage voters of average economic means.  Last week was an important step.  Now the commission must quickly get to work to come up with a proposal and engage the public.  For New York’s ailing democracy, there’s not a moment more to waste.

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its session and examined one of the most problematic issues facing American democracy:  how best to draw political boundaries to ensure fairness and equality.  The question facing the justices was what role should federal courts play in correcting overtly partisan gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is a long-time practice in the United States in which political parties rig the boundaries of elected officials to maximize their own partisan advantages.  The term originates from redistricting decisions made in Massachusetts during the early 1800s.  In 1812, Massachusetts adopted new constitutionally-mandated electoral district boundaries. The Republican-controlled legislature had created district boundaries designed to enhance their party’s control over state and national offices, leading to some oddly shaped legislative districts.  Then-Governor Elbridge Gerry signed the legislation. The shape of one of the state senate districts in Essex County was compared to a salamander by a local Federalist newspaper in a political cartoon, calling it a “Gerry-mander”.  Ever since, the creation of such districts has been called “gerrymandering.”

Reformers have decried this practice for decades.  In effect, control by state legislatures and governors of the redistricting process allowed elected officials to choose their voters, instead of the other way around.  As a result, electoral challenges became much more difficult, voters were denied real competition for office, and the nation became more polarized.

In the past, the Supreme Court has weighed in on intolerable redistricting practices.  The Court had ruled against gerrymandering that allowed racial discrimination.  The Court had ruled that district must be roughly the same population size in order to ensure “one person, one vote.”

Yet, last week the Court decided that it will not rule on redistricting that is obviously and overtly partisan.  The decision focused on two cases, one in North Carolina and the other in Maryland.

In both cases, the dominate political party dramatically changed district lines to their own political advantage.  In particular, last week’s 5-4 ruling means that North Carolina’s current Republican-drawn map delineating its 13 Congressional districts — a map that critics have said is among the country’s most egregious examples of hyper-partisanship — will stand. The decision will likely embolden lawmakers around the country to craft seats for their respective parties with the aid of increasingly sophisticated computer mapping tools.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that the drafters of the Constitution understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

Chief Justice Roberts did not say the current system of drawing districts is desirable as a matter of policy. “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” he wrote.  But the federal courts simply cannot intervene.

As a result of their decision, dominant political parties can eviscerate electoral competition in states.  This is not, however, the first time that the Court has acted to protect the power of a dominant class.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The ruling effectively freed corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court’s ruling represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.”

In both cases, the Court ruled in favor of those who dominate elections in America – the two political parties and the wealthy and organized that provide the bulk of campaign spending.  In both cases, the public is denied meaningful electoral debates and the opportunities to hear different ideas.  Both cases weaken representative democracy. 

There is a lesson to be learned: don’t expect the Supreme Court to save the day.  Ultimately it is up to us, the voters, to get engaged and fight for the changes that strengthen our democracy.

Last week, state lawmakers wrapped up the 2019 legislative session and it represented a big change from what New Yorkers have seen in the recent past.  Sweeping changes to the state’s law regulating home rental apartments, an impressive expansion in the state’s voting laws, decriminalization of marijuana possession, and other important issues were approved. 

And it wasn’t just a list of big policy changes, the sheer volume of lawmakers’ work showed a dramatic uptick in production.  For example, the number of bills that were approved by both houses jumped over 50 percent from last year and represented the highest total in well over a decade.

Why?  Having one political party dominating the state’s political establishment is the main reason.  Democrats have large majorities in both the state Senate and the state Assembly and coupled with a Democrat in the governor’s mansion, makes it much more likely that legislation can get done. 

One of the important issues that was addressed was global warming.

As part of the session, the governor and state lawmakers agreed on a bill that is considered one of the most ambitious in the fight against climate catastrophe.

The key provisions of the legislation are clear: electric power production must be carbon free by 2040, an 85% reduction in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050, with the other 15% offset by qualifying carbon offset projects, like forest restoration, preservation of carbon sinks, and more.

How will these goals be accomplished?  The legislation leaves the detailed decisions to a “climate action council.”  The council will consist of 22 members and they will have a couple of years to make the technical decisions on how New York will transition to a carbon-free economy. 

There is no denying that action is needed.  According to the world’s experts, unless actions are taken in the next decade, the world may face a catastrophic collapse in its environment that will lead to misery for billions of people.

The world’s experts agree that action needs to be taken to move to the world to an economy that does not rely on power from the burning of fossil fuels by the year 2050, or the most dire warnings of environmental catastrophes will come true.

The United States must play a leadership role in following the science and re-organizing the world’s economy based on the use of non-fossil fuel to one that relies on renewable, power – like solar, wind and geothermal sources.

And the U.S. has a moral obligation to lead as well. The United States is one of the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse gases – the stuff that is keeping the heat in the atmosphere and fueling global warming.  The U.S. is also the world’s leading economy, so its actions matter.

But the President refuses to “believe” in basic science and the result is gridlock on needed actions.  Thus, states like California and New York must lead.

If New York was a nation, it would be one of the largest economies in the world.  Combined with actions in California – with a state-based economy that is larger than New York’s – policies to begin the shift to renewable power would show the nation how it can achieve a carbon-free future.

That’s why the action last week was so important.  Approval of sweeping legislation to respond to the looming climate catastrophe is exactly the leadership needed.

But there are lots of questions.

In the past, New York’s political leadership have made promises of shifting the state’s power systems from fossil fuel-powered to renewable power.  Promises that sounded good at the time, but never came close to being achieved. 

Taking the steps to achieve the goals of this legislation is something that New Yorkers must closely monitor.  If they are to succeed, the changes that will be necessary under this legislation must have broad public support. The governor’s office must ensure that detailed annual public reports are issued documenting the progress being made, the legislature must hold public hearings to closely examine those reports, and the public must stay informed to ensure that the state’s leadership feels accountable for their actions – or inactions.

Changing the trajectory of the climate is an immense task – one state alone simply cannot make much of a dent in what is happening worldwide.  But change must start somewhere. If not us, who? If not now, when? By developing the policies to avert economic and environmental collapse, New York can show the nation what can be done and how the United States must lead the world.

ALBANY GETS READY TO WRAP UP THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

This week is the scheduled last week of the 2019 legislative session.  The session can be viewed as historic: Complete Democratic Party control of the state government has resulted in a slew of legislation passing, many of which had festered due to partisan gridlock – like narrowing the Limited Liability Company loophole that allowed real estate developers to make much bigger campaign contributions than other businesses – and others that could dramatically alter state policies – like permanent extension of rent control.

As lawmakers head for their scheduled exit, there are a number of issues that are still outstanding.  Issues like legalizing the use of marijuana, authorizing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants in the United States, reducing the use of fossil fuels, authorizing an Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution, and legalizing online sports betting, among other issues.

Historically, such a smorgasbord of issues can get wrapped up into one giant piece of legislation, known in the halls of the state Capitol as the “big ugly.”  Like the horse trading that is part of the grand finale of budget negotiations, lumping seemingly unrelated bills together into one giant bill is a frequent way in which Albany finalizes legislative deals.

Why?

The “big ugly” strategy works well in a capital in which the governor and the legislative leaders control the flow of legislation.  It is far more efficient to aggregate legislation and negotiate it all simultaneously, than to do each piece discreetly.  That approach also helps legislators to take “tough” votes – lawmakers can say that they had concerns about a particular issue, say marijuana legalization – but had to vote for a final agreement because of other, more popular, issues.

From the public’s perspective, it’s ugly.  Often issues get thrown into the mix that have not been publicly discussed – even among legislators.  As Newsday reported, former Gov. David Paterson said that horse trading sometimes resulted in passing bills that conflicted with established laws “but it’s so late in the session nobody knows.”

As of now, we do not know how – or when – the session will actually end, but if history is any guide, this week will be busy.  Looking at previous session, lawmakers usually pass more bills in the month of June than they do the previous five months.

While the package of end-of-session bills is unknown, what is known is that – like in all previous sessions – lawmakers and the governor have used the legislative session to rake in campaign contributions from lobbyists and their clients.  It appears that during this legislative session, the governor and state lawmakers held about 180 campaign fundraisers, usually within walking distance of the Capitol.

If an elected official is holding a campaign fundraiser in the capital, do you think they are expecting constituents to be there?  These events are designed to hit up Albany’s lobbying corps for campaign contributions.  And lobbyists are the same people asking for legislative favors.

In Albany, it’s perfectly legal to consider legislative favors during the day and then accept campaign contributions from those same people at night.

It’s legal here, but it doesn’t have to be.

Six states (Alaska, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Tennessee) place unique campaign financing restrictions on lobbyists as a group, twelve other states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin) limit lobbyists’ campaign giving during the legislative session.

The courts have weighed in on these types of restrictions.  In a case dealing with Tennessee’s restriction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit stated, “Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a campaign contribution or simply a gift, calls into question the propriety of the relationship.”

When the governor and state lawmakers wrap up this session, ultimately the public will have to decide if it was productive.  But from elected officials’ perspective, the campaign contributions haul from lobbyists and their clients made it successful.

It is long past time for a change – one that limits this brazen practice and one that offers an alternative, a voluntary system of public financing.

Last week, a blockbuster story ran in the New York Times: “Warning of ‘Pig Zero’: One Drugmaker’s Push to Sell More Antibiotics.”  The investigative report examined how the pharmaceutical industry is pushing the overuse and misuse of antibiotics on farm animals – in the case of the Times story, pigs.

Why should humans care?  Many of the antibiotics used on farm animals are ones that humans rely on too.  And the overuse of these antibiotics is fueling the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, also known as “superbugs.”

Farm animals get doused with antibiotics due to the dirty and stressful conditions in which they live. Those conditions help breed disease and raise the risk of infections.

Most people who hear that antibiotics are losing effectiveness think about doctors wrongly prescribing the drugs to humans.  Many physicians can and should make better decisions about antibiotic use in human health care.  However, in the United States, about two-thirds of the antibiotics that are considered important to human health actually are sold for food animal production.

Sick animals should be treated with antibiotics.  But often, as the Times reported, meat producers give the drugs to large numbers of animals that are not sick to prevent diseases commonly spurred by unsanitary, overcrowded, and stressful living conditions.  Compensating for industrial farming conditions is not an appropriate use of life-saving medicines.

Overusing antibiotics in any setting fuels the spread of drug-resistant bacteria. It’s no different on farms.  When animals receive regular doses of antibiotics it breeds resistant bacteria that can travel off farms via the meat itself, direct contact with animals, or through water and soil.  Those bacteria may find their way to people and infect them with illnesses that may not respond to available antibiotics.

The overuse of antibiotics has become such a worldwide problem that experts estimate that, unless something changes, deaths from antibiotics-resistant superbugs will exceed the number of cancer deaths.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20 percent of antibiotic-resistant infections originate on farms.  They get into the world’s food supply and put humans at risk.

The harm is becoming more and more apparent. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that currently at least 23,000 Americans die from drug-resistant infections each year, but researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine think it could be seven times as many—up to 162,000 deaths annually.

In November 2017, the World Health Organization called on meat producers to stop using medically important antibiotics for routine disease prevention and to reserve these medicines for sick animals.

The movement is getting help from some unlikely heroes not noted for responding to health concerns – major fast food chains.  After hearing from consumers, McDonald’s, Subway, KFC and more have committed to reduce antibiotic use throughout their meat supply chains.  Health advocates are now calling on Wendy’s, the third largest burger chain in the U.S., to phase routine antibiotic use out of its beef supply chain.

State lawmakers in California and Maryland have placed restrictions on antibiotic use in food-producing animals. Now it’s time for New York’s elected officials to heed the warnings from medical experts.

New York state lawmakers can help address this health crisis by supporting legislation to limit antibiotic use.  State Sen. Kavanagh (Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Romeo (Rochester) recently introduced legislation that would place appropriate limits on the use of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals at farms across New York State. 

Their legislation will prohibit the routine use of medically important antibiotics to prevent disease and reserve the drugs solely to treat sick animals or to control a verified disease outbreak.

The way meat is produced should not undermine modern medicine.  As lawmakers head toward the end of the legislative session, they should act to protect both New York’s rich agricultural tradition and the public’s health.