For the past two weeks, a former top aide to governor Cuomo has been on trial for corruption.  According to federal prosecutors, he was a key figure in a widespread bribery scheme that included shaking down those seeking government contracts for special treatment in exchange for campaign contributions and money for him and his associates.  The trial continues and the individual is presumed innocent.  But this trial – combined with others in recent years – offers unique insights into what ails Albany.  There are four overarching problems that emerge when reviewing the totality of the corruption cases brought in New York.

Problem #1: New York’s Limited Liability Company campaign finance loophole raises the risk of corruption.  The “LLC Loophole,” which treats each Limited Liability Company as an individual person for purposes of how much may be donated, has allowed some donors to give well over a million dollars.  And those donors almost always have business before government.

For example, in the trial against former Senate Majority Leader Skelos, one real estate developer spent more than $10 million in campaign donations since 2005 alone, funneled through 26 different limited liability companies – LLCs he controlled.  In return, that developer received tens of millions of dollars in tax benefits from the state.

What should be done?  LLCs should be treated like any other business entity and be subject to a $5,000 campaign contribution limit.  All business entities should be required to disclose their controlling interests and all subsidiaries’ contributions should be aggregated into one overall limit.

 Problem #2: Allowing outside income for elected officials raises the risk of corruption.  In many of the corruption cases, the opportunity to use one’s public office for private gain – “cashing in” – emerged as a serious problem.  In the case of former Assembly Speaker Silver, it was well-documented that he was able to use his power to amass millions of dollars in outside fees, for little work – other than applying his power as Speaker.

Unfortunately, the former Speaker’s case is not unique.  The recent convictions of elected officials underscore how lucrative it can be for lawmakers to inappropriately use the powers of their public office for private gain.

What should done?  After the Watergate scandal, Congress reformed its system and placed limits on outside income for lawmakers.  In a report, it concluded, “. . . substantial outside income creates at least the appearance of impropriety and thereby undermines public confidence in the integrity of government officials.”  New York State should follow suit.  All public officials, including those in the executive branch, must have strict limits on outside income.

 Problem #3:  There is too great a risk of corruption in how New York awards government contracts.  The investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office into allegations that state contracts were rigged to benefit campaign contributors to the governor underscores the need for action in this area.  For example, it’s been alleged that Buffalo’s largest construction company simultaneously paid a private lobbyist close to the governor $100,000 annually and kicked in $250,000 to Governor Cuomo’s re-election campaign in 2014.  The result, according to the U.S. Attorney, was that a huge Buffalo Billion project was steered to that company.

In addition to that case, Governor Cuomo’s former Executive Deputy Secretary is alleged to have solicited money from “companies with business before the State.”  In return, it is alleged, the former aide took official actions that would benefit these companies.

 What should be done?  The first step would be to limit campaign contributions from those seeking government contracts.  Under New Jersey’s pay-to-play law, businesses that “have or are seeking” government contracts are prohibited from making campaign contributions prior to receiving contracts.

Second, the New York Constitution established a separately-elected State Comptroller who is charged with monitoring the state finances.  Unfortunately, in recent years the governor and the Legislature have approved laws that have cut back the Comptroller’s oversight functions, coinciding with the period in which pay-to-play activities and bid-rigging were allegedly occurring.  Those powers should be restored.

Problem #4: Lack of independent oversight of ethics raises the risk of corruption.  Why is it that public officials think they can get away with these, and other, corrupt actions?  Because they believe that they would not get caught.  And if it weren’t for federal investigators, they would have – in some cases did – get away with it for years.  Ethics watchdogs must be independent – not political creatures.

Yet in New York, the ethics watchdogs are direct political appointees and are not structured to be independent.  In a 2015 comparison of state ethics laws, New York’s ethics enforcement received a grade of “F.”

What should done?  The state’s current ethics agencies should be abolished and replaced with a truly independent one.

Each of the first seven months of this year will see the beginning of trials for new, high profile, corruption cases.  Hopefully, New Yorkers will also see action from the governor and state lawmakers to respond to this corruption crisis.

Earlier this month, the European Union’s climate change center (the Copernicus Climate Change Service) named 2017 as the second hottest worldwide temperature on record, just behind 2016.  The EU said that the Earth’s surface temperature averaged nearly 58.5 degrees Fahrenheit, which is over 2 degrees warmer than the average in pre-industrial times.

2017 was slightly cooler than the warmest year on record, 2016, yet warmer than the previous second warmest year, 2015.  What made last year’s temperature so striking was that it was the hottest without an El Nino effect on the Pacific Ocean.  El Nino is a weather pattern that results in the release of heat from the Pacific.  Its absence last year should have led to a cooler average worldwide temperature – which it did – yet 2017 still ranked second hottest in recorded history.

And while some may take some solace in the dip in average temperatures, researchers from the University of Arizona last week raised a new alarm about climate change.

According to their research, global surface temperatures surged by a record amount from 2014 to 2016, boosting the total amount of warming since the start of the last century by more than 25 percent in just three years.

You heard that correctly, a full one-quarter of the jump in the average temperature of the Earth occurred in just three years.

One of the authors of the report commented, “As a climate scientist, it was just remarkable to think that the atmosphere of the planet could warm that much that fast.”

The spike in warming from 2014 to 2016 coincided with extreme weather events worldwide, including heat waves, droughts, floods, extensive melting of polar ice and global coral bleaching.  According to the University of Arizona researchers, natural variability in the climate system is not sufficient to explain the 2014-2016 temperature increase.  If fact, they concluded, “Our research shows global warming is accelerating.”

Also, more bad news from the impact of climate change was released by California researchers.

Researchers from the University of California at Davis found that current levels of greenhouse gas emissions are putting nearly half of California’s natural vegetation at risk from climate stress, with transformative implications for the state’s landscape and the people and animals that depend on it.

Their study, published in the journal Ecosphere, examined what would happen to California’s vegetation if the world is incapable of limiting greenhouse gas emissions versus keeping to the limits included in the Paris climate agreement.

They concluded that at the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, “about 45-56 percent of all the natural vegetation in the state is at risk.” If the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is reduced to the rate called for in the Paris agreement, those numbers are lowered to between 21 and 28 percent of the lands at climatic risk.”  Of course, even that impact will be devastating, but only half as bad than if the world does nothing.

Yet, it’s very possible that little will be done.  The world looks to the United States for leadership, but in what can only be described as a shockingly ignorant statement, President Trump tweeted during a recent winter cold spell, “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!”

Maybe he thought he was being funny, but he’s not.  It’s not at all funny for the millions of people who are already suffering from the impacts of climate change – impacts like heat waves, famine, flooding, and war.  It’s not funny to places like Bangladesh, a nation in which millions may lose their homes as a result of rising sea levels.  It’s not funny to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people — who contribute almost nothing to warming the planet — but who end up being most harmed by it.

The disgraceful comments by the President aside, the world is long past time for talk and future goals.  The time to act is now; by stopping the expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure, investing heavily in 21^st Century renewable forms of energy (like solar, wind and geothermal), requiring more efficiency in energy use, and a shift from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric ones.

Given the negligent behavior of those running the federal government, states must take the lead.  New York must lead; if not this state, which one?

And so it begins:  Call it the kick off to New York’s “corruption palooza” – the first of the now expected seven corruption cases going to trial in each of the first seven months of the year.

The first, starting this week, is the trial of a former top aide to Governor Cuomo.  Of course, he is presumed innocent. Federal authorities have charged him with schemes that sought to enrich himself and others through bribes, and using his position to help particular companies receive “hundreds of millions of dollars in state contracts and other official state benefits.”  These companies were involved in the state’s major economic development projects, including the “Buffalo Billion” initiative of the Cuomo Administration.

The charges also detailed that favored companies donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Governor Cuomo’s re-election campaign in addition to offering bribes to the now-former Cuomo Administration official named in the probe.  One of the alleged co-conspirators has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with federal prosecutors.

When former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara presented his charges, he stated that the governor was not implicated.  “There are no allegations of any wrongdoing or misconduct by the governor, anywhere in this complaint,” Mr. Bharara said.

And the corruption “hits” just keep coming.  Following the beginning of the January trial, there are six more to come:

• In February, the scheduled trial of a former New York State Senator begins related to charges from an alleged scheme to secretly funnel campaign contributions into pockets of a staffer.
• In March, the scheduled trial of a former Nassau County Executive begins for an alleged kickback scheme to help a restaurant owner receive over $20 million in grants and loans. In exchange, prosecutors said the county executive received fancy vacations, an expensive watch, and new hardwood flooring for his house.
• In April, the scheduled retrial begins of the former state Assembly Speaker for allegedly using his legislative power to drive benefits to favored business clients while enriching himself.
• In May, the scheduled trial begins of the former SUNY Polytechnic Institute President who allegedly was involved in the economic development schemes mentioned before.
• In June, the scheduled retrial begins of former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos who allegedly used his power to strong-arm businesses for pay for no-show jobs for his son.
• Finally, in case there was any thought the corruption tide has ended, in July a just-charged sitting Assemblywoman will be in federal court to defend herself against charges that she used her public office for personal enrichment.

The defendants in these cases are entitled to the presumption of innocence; however, these trials are the latest installment in a seemingly unending series of investigations, indictments, and convictions involving the corrupt actions of dozens of public officials.  Indeed, New York has been repeatedly dubbed as one of, if not the most, corrupt states in the nation.  At least 33 legislators and a state Comptroller have left office since 2000 due to corruption-related issues.

No matter the outcomes for the individuals involved, the trials will undoubtedly paint an unflattering picture of politics in New York.

In normal times, such looming trials would pressure public officials to act.  But so far, there has been virtual silence on the issue of corruption from New York’s political elite.  Obvious responses should include: strengthening the oversight of the awarding of government contracts, more transparency in budgeting, real campaign financing limits – particularly on those seeking government favors, and meaningful, well-resourced, independent ethics and contracting oversight and enforcement.

In this re-election year, we’ll soon see if the public clamor over corruption will impact Albany’s legislative thinking.  If not, the voters will have an opportunity to express their opinions this coming November.

The fight to get public pension fund officials to pull out of investments in oil, gas, and coal companies hit a new level of intensity last week.  The City of New York announced that it was using its considerable financial clout to advance the fight over climate change by unveiling their plans to sell off $5 billion of the City’s pension investments in fossil fuel companies.  The rationale was that the companies – primarily oil – made business decisions that harmed the City – and the planet.

Most notably, the Mayor and City Comptroller identified the economic losses incurred by significant storms that have hit New York, particularly Superstorm Sandy, which devastated parts of downstate.

And while the action to pull investments out of oil, gas and coal companies is an important milestone in the worldwide campaign to weaken the power of oil companies, there was more to the City’s announcement.  At last week’s news conference, New York City Mayor deBlasio also said that the City will take five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—to court. New York City is seeking damages that the oil giants caused by directly contributing to climate change. The City is also accusing the companies of privately being aware of the effects burning fossil fuels has on the planet for years while denying them in public.

With the lawsuit, New York joins a growing number of cities, and the Attorney General of New York, to use the court system to help bring to justice the oil industry for its decades of deceptions about the dangers of burning fossil fuels – deceptions which have contributed to the extreme weather events impacting the world. This is an important option at a time when the Trump administration and the leadership in Congress are denying climate science exists, pulling out of global accords, and backing away from enforcing existing public health and environmental regulations.

The campaign to take the industry to court gained momentum last year after the Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria seriously damaged Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.

The legal challenges echo the successful campaigns of the states to take on the tobacco industry in the 1990s.  In that effort, legal challenges revealed not only the fact that the tobacco companies knew for decades that smoking caused lung cancer, it also brought to light the political, public relations and general skullduggery that the industry used to influence lawmakers and bamboozle the public.

It wasn’t until the legal challenges were concluded, in the late 1990s, that the public was finally granted real protections from the harms caused by tobacco products – a full 25 years after the U.S. Surgeon General first sounded the alarm about the linkage between tobacco use and cancer.

It has been well-reported that the oil industry has known since the 1970s that the burning of fossil fuels would result in global warming and changes to the planet’s climate.  It is also well-established that instead of alerting the world to those dangers, as any responsible human being would, they instead chose to launch sophisticated lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine that linkage.

Whether they did so in a way that triggers sanctions by the courts remains to be seen.  Reckless corporate behavior is not necessarily illegal.  However, the growing legal challenges underscore the importance of an independent justice system.

If it weren’t for the court system, we might all be sitting in bars that allowed smoking and young people might still be targeted by cartoon figures like Joe Camel.  You often hear complaints about litigation; that we are too litigious a society.

America’s, and New York’s, judicial systems are not perfect, but they are the only arenas in which the average American can take on the powerful; be it the tobacco industry, the oil companies, or even the President of the United States.  It may just take actions by the nation’s legal system to avert an environmental catastrophe.

As governors move through their tenure, the focus of their State of the State addresses change.  In the first few years, governors shape their addresses as part of a reform package.  As they are in office, and if they get re-elected, that tone changes.  More and more of the State of the State reflects the achievements of the Administration; after all, they are now the status quo and “reforms” imply failures.

Governor Cuomo delivered his eighth State of the State address last week.  As he gears up for his apparent re-election campaign, his address took a traditional approach – it focused on his achievements.  In his speech, which ran over an hour and a half, he unveiled his full policy agenda for the 2018 legislative session.

The address was organized around three themes – or as the governor called it a “three front war” – (1) discrimination and sexism, (2) challenges to the state’s health and safety, and (3) economic challenges that stem from actions in Washington.  Of the 90-plus minute speech, these three sections were covered in about an hour.

But they were not equally discussed – at least in terms of time.  The governor spent roughly 15-20 minutes on the first two themes and 30 on the threats emanating from the Trump Administration and the Congress.

Clearly, the governor was presenting himself as an opponent of the actions taken by Washington, in particular the President.  In a “blue” state like New York, a state in which the President is immensely unpopular, positioning himself as the President’s opponent is a political winner.

The proposals advanced by the governor were numerous and covered much of the policy “waterfront.”  He gave considerable attention on his women’s rights platform as well as criminal justice reform proposals like significantly reducing the use of cash bail.  His speech advanced broad policies in the areas of criminal justice reform, workforce development, protecting the environment, modernization of New York City’s mass transit system, and strengthening voting protections.

The governor referenced the state’s $4 billion budget deficit, but did little to discuss why the deficit has occurred and how he will close it.  In terms of corruption, a problem which has plagued the state for years, the governor said little.

Instead of addressing “home grown” problems in New York, the governor chose to characterize the threats facing the state as national, particularly resulting from the actions of the President and the Congress.  In particular, the governor said that he would launch a campaign to “repeal and replace” the tax changes approved in Washington last month.

Articulating the problems as national, not the result of state actions or inactions, allows the governor to sidestep the difficult – and possibly unpopular – actions he will have to take during the course of the legislative session.

Clearly, a budget deficit – estimates which range from $1.7 billion to as high as $7 billion – will result in service reductions or revenue increases, or both.  Reducing services or raising the cost to state residents is undeniably unpopular and it was not surprising that the governor spent little time articulating his solutions.  Those revelations will occur when the governor unveils his budget proposal next week.

And while it wasn’t surprising that the governor spent little time on corruption-fighting measures, after all some of his aides are implicated, it is a big issue that will not go away.

Reacting to the State of the State address, New York’s leading civic organizations called for action.  They cited the looming six upcoming corruption trials of high ranking former public officials that begin this month.

Each month of the session, a high profile corruption case will begin.  No matter the outcomes for the individuals involved, the trials will undoubtedly paint an unflattering picture of politics in New York.  These cases, plus the dozens of resignations and convictions of other public officials has resulted in New York repeatedly dubbed as one of, if not the most, corrupt states in the nation.

The groups urged the state’s leaders to approve a package of Restore Public Trust reforms that include strengthening independent oversight of the state’s system of awarding government contracts, new campaign contribution limits for those seeking government contracts, greater budget transparency, new limits on the outside income of public officials, and the creation of independent oversight entities.  New laws are only as good as they are enforced.

How well the governor and the state legislature address corruption should be a key measure for how voters evaluate candidates this coming November.