Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives took a big step toward strengthening America’s democracy. The leadership pushed through H.R.1. H.R.1 included several voting reform measures, strengthened voting rights protections, and a proposed overhaul to the nation’s campaign finance system. In particular, H.R.1 set up a system of public financing based on a voluntary, small-donor matching system of public financing for Congressional races and strengthened the existing public financing system for presidential elections.

At its heart, H.R.1 would strengthen the role of average Americans in our political system – those who cannot write big checks. By creating a campaign finance system that would promote reliance on a large number of small donors, instead of the current system which relies on a relatively small number of large campaign contributors, H.R.1 reduces the risk of corruption and would encourage candidates to get more voters engaged in elections.

Of course, the House is not the final decisionmaker, H.R.1 must be approved by the U.S. Senate and the President. And it’s fair to say that the near-term prospects for passage are not good.

House Democrats pushed H.R.1 through, but they knew it was unlikely to be embraced by the Senate and the President. If the Democrats take control of the Senate and the White House, would that mean a version of H.R.1 would become law?

Let’s look at a similar situation in New York. For decades, the Democrat-controlled state Assembly approved versions of campaign finance reform similar to that proposed in H.R.1. They knew that even if the governor agreed with them, the legislation would be killed in the state Senate—which has been largely controlled by Republicans for decades. And they were right.

As of January, 2019 the Democrats have taken control of the state Senate and the Party now controls the lawmaking of New York’s state government. Will they act to approve public financing?

Some ten weeks into the Democrats taking the reins of state government, it looks like the answer is “no.”

Governor Cuomo inserted a proposal to establish a voluntary system of public financing for state elections into his budget in January. So far, so good. In the state Senate, an overwhelming majority of Senators have previously supported public financing, indeed the current Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, introduced a bill along the same lines as the governor last year. That made things look more promising.

And as mentioned earlier, the state Assembly has approved public financing most years for the greater part of three decades.

So, it looked like big changes would come to Albany.  Thirty years after the Moreland Commission on Government Integrity described New York’s campaign finance system as a “disgrace,” state lawmakers would be considering a proposal by the governor to create a voluntary system of public financing that, like New York City’s, relies on small-donor matching.
   
This looked like the year it would get done. But now, at the last minute, it appears that the Assembly Majority is getting cold feet.

At an event last week, the Speaker of the Assembly said it appeared unlikely that the Assembly would approve public campaign financing in the final budget agreement. The Speaker was quoted in numerous media reports that the Assembly Democratic Majority now does not support public financing.

After decades of approving a significant campaign finance reform plan, knowing it would get defeated in the state Senate, now – according to the Speaker – the Assembly doesn’t have the votes to pass it when it can become law.
 
If public financing gets derailed, the big bucks will continue to roll in and Albany will be worse off.  And the broken promise in Albany will undermine the pledge made by Democrats that if they take control nationally, they will pass public elections financing as contained in H.R. 1.

New York State should show the nation not only how to advance bills, but how to pass comprehensive changes aimed at reducing the risk of corruption as well as pulling back on the power of wealthy interests.

The fate of public financing is expected to be determined next week. New Yorkers desperately hope that Albany will finally deliver real reform that reduces corruption and boosts democracy. It looks like the fate of public financing is held in the hands of the Assembly Democrats and the political leadership of the governor and the Senate Majority.

In the Spring of 2011, Governor Cuomo announced “SUNY 2020,” a plan to allow annual public college tuition hikes. Called “rational tuition,” the plan’s regular tuition hikes justification was that it would ensure that incoming public college students would know what they were signing up for in terms of future tuition costs.

The tuition plan had another component: Under SUNY 2020, the state promised that it would not reduce the general operating funds of the State University and the City of New York University systems in following years’ budgets. The provision, called the state’s “maintenance of effort,” was to make sure that increased tuition would not be offset by decreased state support. Thus, new tuition dollars were to be used for improving student services, not to fill budget holes created by diminished state support.

Unfortunately, while the state has maintained its level of funding at the 2011 levels, it has not raised funding in the face of rising costs due to inflation, contracted salary increases and rising utility costs. As a result, despite the promise that the state wouldn’t reduce support for the public university systems, that is in fact what happened.

The gaps in funding led to cuts in student services, reductions in faculty hires, and clawing back of some of the tuition dollars to pay for maintaining existing programs.

The situation has become so bad that the Legislature has repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, approved legislation to fulfill the state’s promise and boost resources for both SUNY and CUNY to offset the impacts from inflation and rising fixed costs. Governor Cuomo has consistently vetoed that legislation, creating the ongoing budget crunch faced by public colleges.

But the crunch is even worse than it appears. Another provision of the SUNY 2020 plan was that SUNY and CUNY colleges were required to cover any additional tuition costs not covered by state financial aid assistance.

Previously, when public college tuition went up, lawmakers ensured that the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) would increase too. Thus, the poorest college students would get their tuition costs covered by financial aid no matter what level of tuition was charged by the state.

Under SUNY 2020, that system was ended. Instead of the state providing coverage for the full costs of the annual public college tuition hikes, the colleges themselves now had to come up with the extra money to cover these increased costs for their poorest students.

The growing gap is taking a bigger and bigger bite out of stagnant state support. For example, SUNY tuition is $6,870 for this academic year. The maximum TAP award covers $5,165, meaning that the local campus had to make up the shortfall. That policy adds to the financial stress felt by public colleges and universities.

This budget “one-two punch” – one from an inadequate SUNY 2020 program and the other from a shift in financial aid from the state to public college – has resulted in serious budget shortfalls on SUNY and CUNY campuses.

According to one SUNY campus administrator, revenues are simply not keeping pace with necessary increases in expenditures. One factor cited was the lack of increases in direct state support since 2012. In response to an anticipated $5 million budget deficit, one SUNY campus implemented a 90-day hiring freeze for replacing retiring faculty.

A CUNY college President released a statement that they expected a $5 million budget shortfall and were implementing across-the-board department budget cuts and vacancy-control measures. The announcement also made clear that the increased tuition revenue from the latest tuition hike would cover mandatory, predictable collective-bargaining costs.

The erosion of state support and the creation of growing funding gaps is translating into an erosion of student services and quality of education. Students are experiencing difficulty in getting into the classes they need to graduate, limited services such as library hours, and advisement gaps across the CUNY and SUNY system. According to a CUNY survey, over a third of CUNY students reported not being able to register for a course they needed for their major. Of those students, half couldn’t register because there were not enough seats available.

Not being able to attend required classes also has the effect of forcing students to stay in college longer – which increases costs and often college loan debts. And higher tuition costs shifts the burden of public college financing from the state to the families of those attending SUNY and CUNY.

State lawmakers have been hearing a chorus of concern from campus administrators, faculty, and students from across the SUNY and CUNY systems. By the end of this month, New Yorkers will know if lawmakers are willing to push back on the governor and shift away from New York’s stagnant state budgetary support to a more robust system that increases support in the face of rising fixed costs. Until then, students, parents, faculty and administrators will be on the edge of their seats.

Elected officials across the nation, are advancing a “Green New Deal” to respond to the terrifying threat posed by global warming. The plan has tremendous national visibility since it was raised by new Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey.

The Congressional version calls for sweeping changes in American society to drive the nation to net zero fossil fuel emissions by 2030.

Governor Cuomo has embraced the term to describe his plan for eliminating fossil fuels as a power source for the state’s electricity grid by the year 2040. State legislators have embraced the term and introduced bills along those lines as well.

The idea of a “Green New Deal” is not new, its origins go back a decade or so and have been advanced in various forms by the Green Party in both national and New York State elections. Its moniker harks back to the New Deal plans advanced by President Roosevelt in the 1930s as an organizing principle to attack the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was not a single proposal, but a set of plans that attacked the nation’s economic situation. The idea was to keep advancing plans to use the power of the national government to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. It was a response to a national emergency, one that the nation could see and was experiencing.

The “Green New Deal” offers a similar mindset: The world is facing an environmental catastrophe and the United States must reorganize itself to rely on non-fossil fuel-generated power.

However, the devastation generated by the planet heating up is sometimes hard to see in the moment. The planet heats up slowly and the impacts – more severe weather, droughts in one area and unprecedented rainfalls in others – are less obvious. Coupled with the deliberate falsehoods uttered by the Trump administration and its ideological and economic allies to sow doubt over the science, Americans are not as prepared to take on the threat as they were in the 1930s.

Yet, the threat is real. According to the world’s experts, the lack of meaningful action to date has accelerated the changes to the world’s climate and is heating the planet to its “boiling point.” A report issued last Fall by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), found that the world is perhaps a decade away from the possibilities of runaway global warming – a tipping point when it would be almost impossible to stop the worst consequences. Keeping the increase in the planet’s average temperature to no more than 1.5°C (or 2.7°F) than it was 150 years ago, is viewed by scientists as the maximum amount the earth can sustain before the impacts move from severe to devastating.

The report, (which included over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries) was written to give the world “the authoritative, scientific guide for governments” to deal with climate change.” Its key finding was that meeting a 1.5°C (2.7°F) target is possible but would require “deep emissions reductions” and “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Furthermore, the report finds that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C (3.6°F) would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being” and that a 2°C temperature increase would expedite and intensify extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts. The report also found that “Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.”

The United States has generated more of the world’s greenhouse gases – which cause global warming – than any other nation. Our nation has a moral responsibility to lead the world on how to attack this problem. In order for the world to hit the new zero fossil fuel goal by mid-Century, the United States would have to meet it far sooner. And in order for the United States to lead, given that national policy is stonewalled, states like New York must be even more aggressive in taking on the challenge to point the country in the right direction.

Hence the calls for a “Green New Deal.”

Despite the science and the compelling need for action, the phrase has become a political weapon used by opponents to attack environmentalists, and by incrementalists to defend milder, less controversial positions. Opponents run the gamut from those who flat out deny the science, to those who cite technological challenges, costs, economic impacts and political resistance to urge a gradual approach.

Opposition dooms billions to lives of misery over the rest of the 21st Century and denies young people their owed inheritance of a habitable planet. Most fundamentally, incrementalism fails the test for the actions needed to solve the climate crisis. The inexorable climate devastation that modern society set in motion are not subject to negotiation and compromise.

New York State must lead the way with ambitious goals, ones that: dramatically improve the energy efficiency of the state, eliminate the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity by the year 2030, prohibit the sale of fossil fuel-powered new cars and invest in electric vehicles and charging stations to meet that demand, and invest in mass transit systems. The technology is available, the urgency is clear. What is missing is the political will.

Whatever one wants to call it, a “Green New Deal” is needed.

Voting reforms, civil justice changes, expansion of reproductive rights, state financial shortfalls, economic development strategies, all have dominated the recent discussions over the coming year’s New York budget. Yet one important issue has received too little attention: protecting New York’s drinking water supplies.

Drinking water is one of New York’s most important resources. But as a result of climate change, outdated water infrastructure, and New York’s toxic chemical legacy, this precious natural resource is in peril. From harmful algal blooms growing worse due to warming waters, to the drinking water contamination crises on parts of Long Island, in Newburgh, Hoosick Falls, and elsewhere, New York must adopt aggressive policies to ensure water is protected for all.

According to a recent analysis of government data, the drinking water of over 2.8 million New Yorkers has levels of 1,4-dioxane that are above the most stringent levels recommended for safety. This is also the case for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) for over 1.4 million New Yorkers. And that’s only for communities that have conducted testing – many haven’t had to test their water yet.

PFOA and PFOS endanger public health at very low levels of exposure, resulting in developmental effects to fetuses, thyroid disorders, ulcerative colitis, high-cholesterol, preeclampsia, and kidney and testicular cancer.  Studies find that exposure to 1,4-dioxane can cause liver cancer and chronic kidney and liver effects.

If PFOA, PFOS and 1,4 dioxane had been regulated years ago, communities may not have had to face the pollution problems they are currently contending with. Unfortunately, too often steps to protect water aren’t taken until after a water contamination crisis has already unfolded.

This is a vicious cycle that the public is counting on New York to break. New Yorkers can’t wait for people to get sick from exposure to dangerous chemicals to take action.

Thankfully, the New York State Drinking Water Quality Council in December of last year recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (or MCLs) for PFOA, PFOS and 1,4 dioxane. 

MCLs are legally enforceable drinking water standards, and they are essential to prevent exposure to dangerous chemicals found in water supplies. While recommendations were made last December, as yet no regulations to implement those standards have been issued. It is now up to the Department of Health to adopt MCLs regulations that will protect the most sensitive populations and begin statewide testing immediately.

Last week, EPA made clear they aren’t going to set drinking water standards for these chemicals for some time. The longer New York doesn’t have standards for MCLs on the books, the longer, and greater the chances, people get exposed to unsafe levels of these chemicals.

New York lawmakers began the 2019 legislative session in January, but when it comes to drinking water, there’s still a lot left to do. The governor has proposed $2.5 billion in strengthening state drinking water infrastructure, but only allocated $500 million for this year. Water infrastructure needs alone are huge in New York state – it’s been estimated that over the next 20 years, New York will need to invest $80 billion to make all the needed repairs, upgrades, and replacements – and that doesn’t include the costs associated with treating chemicals like PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane. $500 million – while needed – is just a drop in the bucket. More state support will be needed.

In addition, there is much more to do than simply spending money (although that is needed). One key step would be to expand regulation of contaminants already found in drinking water. There are over 80,000 chemicals on the market that are unregulated, which means that even though they may not be safe for public health, they can be in our products or water anyway. PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane are only the start. New York must test for unregulated chemicals, set MCLs and ban the use of chemicals that pose health risks.

The public has the basic right and expectation that the water from their taps will be safe to drink. As the federal government rolls back environmental protections, protecting water and health must be at the top of the policymaking agenda in 2019.

A lot is happening in Albany. Unified Democratic control of the governor’s mansion and both houses of the Legislature, coupled with pent-up demand for action – which had been long stymied due to partisan gridlock – has triggered a frenzy of legislative action.

One resurrected issue is campaign finance reform. After years of inaction, the governor and the Legislature agreed to change the way Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are treated for the purposes of campaign financing. Under the old system, LLCs were handled differently than other businesses. Under longstanding New York law, corporations are capped at making no more than $5,000 in direct campaign contributions in one year. LLCs, on the other hand, have been considered “humans” for the purposes of donating to campaigns and thus could give much, much more. In fact, one real estate developer skillfully used his stable of LLCs to donate millions of dollars to state candidates and parties in a single election cycle.

That system has now been overhauled and LLCs are now treated like corporations. This is a long overdue and significant change, but alone it doesn’t fundamentally change the campaign financing system in New York State.

New York State relies on private donations to fund its political campaigns. Since New York has the highest campaign contribution limits of any state with limits, candidates focus their fundraising on those who can give the most – and those individuals and entities more likely than not have business before the government.

Political campaigns in the United States are typically financed by a relatively small handful of donors. In a recent New York State election cycle, only 6% of candidates’ money came from donors who gave $250 or less. In contrast, 78% came from non-party-organizations (such as PACs) and individuals who gave $1,000 or more. Thus, average people are marginalized in the current system.

New York law has another wrinkle: Every four years those already generous donation limits go up. Last week, they went up again, and now contributions of nearly $70,000 can be lawfully given to the governor. Over $100,000 can be given to the political parties.

Who gives those contributions? A relatively small number of wealthy individuals and special interests seeking to influence the system.

Due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, little can be done to limit the spending by the wealthy and powerful. However, a voluntary system of public financing can be made available as an alternative to the current “pay-to-play” system.

New York City has such a system of public financing. Candidates who voluntarily choose to participate see their contributions amplified when they raise donations of $250 or less. In those cases, each $1 raised is matched with $8 in public funds.

The highly regarded NYC system has shifted campaign fundraising strategy from relying on a small number of big bucks donors to a system relying on many small dollar donors. It has given candidates a powerful incentive to turn their attention toward small donors. Studies done by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute project that if New York State established a campaign financing system similar to the one in New York City, candidates would be far more likely to reach out to small donors – thus changing the political calculus for candidates.

And here is the big test for Democrats in Albany. For decades they have run for office while embracing public financing proposals. In the Democratically-controlled Assembly, since the late 1970s, public financing legislation has been approved. Governor Cuomo has repeatedly advanced legislation in his budget plans – including again this year. Senate Democrats, when they were the legislative minority, repeatedly called for creation of a public financing system.

It’s show time. The governor has a public financing proposal modeled on New York City in his budget. So far, however, the Legislature’s reactions have been muted. Indeed, there have been rumors that some lawmakers are not so keen to have a plan enacted that would encourage new voter participation and make the electoral system more competitive. Ultimately, the Democratic majorities in both houses will have to approve – or oppose – the governor’s plan by the time the budget is adopted by the end of March.

When that happens, New Yorkers will know for sure if lawmakers are true to their word and if some sanity will come to New York’s notorious campaign finance system.