Even by Albany’s scandal-stained record, last week was unique: 2 state Senators were found guilty of corruption in two separate trials.  Former State Senate Majority Leader John Sampson and current Deputy Majority leader Tom Libous are now facing prison time for violating the public’s trust.

Given the historic nature of those convictions, it would be reasonable to expect reaction from Albany’s political leadership.  But that was not the case.  Instead of news releases and calls for action, only the sounds of crickets were heard from the state Capitol.

When pressed, the governor made two, seemingly inconsistent arguments:

(1) That enough had been done to strengthen the state’s ethics laws; and,

(2) That the legislature wouldn’t agree to any additional changes.

Is the governor giving up on ethics reform?

Just a little background on how Albany got here.  After dozens of lawmakers were sanctioned due to ethical misconduct, a new low was hit earlier this year with the arrest and indictment of the now-former Assembly Speaker.  In reaction, the governor sprang into action.  Within days, the governor had organized a venue for him to discuss the need for sweeping, unprecedented ethics reforms.  The governor even promised to hold up the budget if his plan was not approved.

The budget that passed did contain new ethics measures, which at least to some extent, requires more disclosures of outside income by lawmakers.  Yet, the plan was widely viewed as an insufficient response to the weaknesses in the state’s ethics laws.

A month later, the now-former Senate Majority Leader was indicted for unethical conduct.  Once again, a member of Albany’s political leadership was under an ethics cloud.  But this time, no calls for reform were uttered by the governor.  In fact, for the rest of the legislative session, the governor and the legislative leaders ignored the growing chorus calling for new ethics measures.  Lawmakers wrapped up the end of the session with the obligatory pats on the back and headed home.

But the public views ethics as a big problem:  A recent poll found that 90 percent of New Yorkers agree that ethics at the state Capitol needs improvement.

Fast forward to last week, two more lawmakers were convicted for abusing their public office.

Reformers are urging that the governor convene a special session devoted exclusively to ethics.  But the governor will have none of it.

When pressed by reporters, the governor stated, “A special session to do what? I mean, we’ve proposed every ethics law imaginable. We’ve proposed and accomplished unprecedented disclosure.”  The governor also told reporters in another media scrum, “I haven’t heard anything from the Senate or the Assembly saying, ‘Our minds are changed, we now want to pass a bill that we didn’t want to pass.’ So for the taxpayers to spend a lot of money to bring the legislators back to Albany for the same outcome they had several weeks ago makes no sense.”

In one key way, the governor is quite right:  While the governor can call the legislature back to Albany, he can’t make them do anything.  But doing nothing makes it clear to New Yorkers exactly where their elected officials are when it comes to cleaning up Albany.

By giving up, the governor is giving political cover to those lawmakers who oppose reform.  The governor is, in effect, defending the status quo.

That’s not what New Yorkers want.  90 percent of New Yorkers see Albany’s ethics as a problem.  They send elected officials to Albany to solve problems, not dodge them.

Right now the governor is helping the dodge.  Governor Cuomo is someone who prides himself on getting things done, on bringing people together.  When it comes to ethics, the long parade of crooked pols underscores just how much more needs to be done.

The governor shouldn’t be throwing in the towel; he should be taking up the challenge.

Four years ago, state lawmakers approved a plan that changed its relationship with the state’s public colleges and students.  The plan contained two major changes: public college tuition would be raised automatically and the state would commit not to cut state support for those institutions and would not use the increased tuition to close budget holes.

As part of the deal to increase tuition up to $300 annually, the state pledged to maintain its support.  According to state officials, “In return, the State committed to maintain [the state and New York city university systems] current funding year-to-year – this preserved budgets for curriculum innovation and ensured students were not back filling State cuts.”

This component of the plan was a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provision, which mandated the state provide a steady level of funding to public colleges that would not depend on revenue generated from tuition.

The idea was that this MOE should have allowed the State University of New York and the City University of New York to invest the funds generated by the tuition hikes toward expanded academic and student support services.

But it turns out that there was a major caveat to the state’s promise.

Buried in the fine print of the 2011 legislation was that the MOE was defined to mean that the state would spend no less than the total amount it spent the year before.  Yet, annual inflation erodes the purchasing power of the dollar; in essence keeping state support at a steady level meant a cut.  Moreover, the fine print also left vague what services would be covered by the MOE.

When the plan was approved in 2011, critics thought the result of annual tuition hikes would be a shift in the cost of attending public college from Albany to the students and their families.  Sadly, it appears that they were right.

Tuition at state public colleges is expected to increase by as much as 42% by the time the law expires on July 1, 2016.   While tuition has jumped dramatically, state support for SUNY and CUNY has remained largely flat.  As a result, the cost to maintain SUNY and CUNY’s services at the same level as it was in 2011 has increased by nearly $200 million combined.

The state made up the difference by using the increased tuition dollars, undermining its promise to students and their families.  Eroding state support coupled with rising tuition has had an impact: Prior to the 2008 recession, the state paid more than half of SUNY’s operating costs. Now student tuition and fees account for 64 percent of SUNY’s operating costs and the state pays a mere 36 percent of those costs.

During that time, the state has not felt budgetary shortfalls: In fact,New York State’sbudget has grown from $134.8 billion in 2011 to $143.8 billion in 2015, roughly a 7.5 percent increase.That’s right, while the state has spent 7.5 percent more than it did at the beginning of the Cuomo Administration, students have been forced to pay more and the state has shortchanged public colleges in the budget.  Clearly, priorities have been elsewhere.

The effect has been to shift the burden of operating New York’s public colleges from the state to college students and their families.

Lawmakers now understand the mistake in the MOE and have overwhelming approved a fix.  The legislation requires the state to provide funding tocover all mandatory costs of bothSUNY and CUNY.  Those mandatory costs include items like utility bills, building rentals and other inflationary expenses incurred by both the state and city universities and the state university health science centers.  The legislation has broad support:  SUNY, CUNY, faculty and student groups all supported the bill and it passed the Senate 62-1 and passed Assembly 146-1.

Now the ball is in Governor Cuomo’s court.  When the legislation is sent to his desk, will he approve it and keep New York’s promise to ensure that increases in public college tuition enhance public higher education?  New Yorkers will soon see.

Last week, a Siena Research Institute poll reported that 90 percent of New Yorkers thought that government corruption is a serious problem.  When 90 percent of New Yorkers agree on anything, it’s amazing.  So you’d expect that elected officials would get the message and respond.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that they simply don’t care enough.

Albany’s failure to enact ethics reforms was highlighted last week with the release of the first campaign finance reports of 2015.  The report showed New York’s campaign finance system is essentially a “Wild West” – with no sheriff.

The campaign reports showed that big bucks continued to flow to Albany’s leadership. Governor Cuomo reported collecting over $5 million in campaign dollars, with 3 ½ years to go before his possible reelection.  Attorney General Schneiderman reported raising $2.3 million.  The new Speaker, Carl Heastie, started the year with only $30,000 in his campaign warchest.  By mid-year, the new Speaker had collected over $300,000 in campaign contributions.  The new Senate Majority Leader, John Flanagan, was equally successful in collecting campaign bucks, raising nearly $280,000 in the first half of the year.

But the loopholes in the campaign finance system were striking.  According to Capital New York, a network of limited liability companies tied to Orange County developers funneled the governor $250,000 in 2015, more than any other source. These donations were made less than a week after the governor vetoed a bill that leaders of a Hasidic village tied to the developers described as restricting its development.

In addition, the donations highlighted the problems with the much-maligned way it treats contributions from limited liability companies.  A series of nine checks from vaguely-titled LLCs entered Cuomo’s campaign account.  Eight of these checks had Brooklyn, NY addresses listed in Cuomo’s campaign disclosures.  According to Capital NY, however, those LLCs’corporate addresses were listed in the town of Monroe, NY – a town which contains the Hasidic village.

The campaign filings also disclosed the legal, but still lousy, ways that campaign contributions can be used.  Of the $5 million raised by the governor, $100,000 was paid to a law firm which is representing the governor’s office in a federal probe into how the governor killed off the Moreland Commission Investigating Public Integrity.

The state Senate Republican Campaign Committee was reported by the Daily News to have sent $50,000 to former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, just two weeks after he was indicted by the US Attorney for allegedly shaking down a real-estate developer and a medical-malpractice insurance firm to hire his son with no-show jobs and business deals.

Why?  There is rampant speculation that the $50,000 was to help cover the Senator’s legal bills.

And the filings showed that the influence of big money is trickling down to the local level as well.  According to the Albany Times Union, a new political action committee created by several business owners located in Saratoga had raised over $46,000 in five weeks.  The PAC is

Interviewing candidates for city elections and support those who support its agenda.  The Saratoga PAC’s fundraising has exceeded the amount raised by the political parties and candidates.

Unfortunately, for New Yorkers, the state’s disgraceful campaign finance system continues to thrive.  And despite the rhetoric about the need to reform Albany’s ways, there have been no serious efforts to curb campaign finance abuses.

The governor needs to do more.  While no one would expect him to politically unilaterally disarm, he must take steps to force a real debate over ethics and campaign finance reforms.  Reforms that would plug campaign finance loopholes and end the use of contributions for legal defenses; that would curb campaign donations from lobbyists and those with business before the government; that would cap the amount of money lawmakers can receive from their outside business dealings; and that would finally put in place an independent watchdog to monitor the system.  The governor must take the first step by calling lawmakers back to Albany for a special session devoted exclusively to ethics reforms.

Until then, New Yorkers should focus their anger by keeping in mind Albany’s failures when they troop to the polling place next year.

The New York Times recently exposed how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the lobbying arm of Big Business in America,was advancing the cause of the tobacco industry around the world.  The U.S. Chamber has been lobbying to block the efforts of nations to enact pro-health measures that seek to reduce the carnage caused by smoking.

The Times documented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s tactics in fighting against health measures to reduce tobacco use, measures such as smoke-free indoor public places, graphic warning labels on tobacco products, restrictions on tobacco marketing and increased tobacco taxes.  According to the Times, the U.S. Chamber has been deeply involved in efforts ranging from Latin America, to Europe, and to Asia.

In some cases, the U.S. Chamber directly opposed health policies.  In letters to those countries’ public officials, the U.S. Chamber has voiced strong “concerns” about such laws; even threatening that opposing the tobacco industry’s wishes could result in significant economic harm.

The Times uncovered evidence of the U.S. Chamber pitting countries against each other in trade disputes.  For example, the Times reported that the nation of Ukraine became embroiled in a lengthy international trade dispute with Australia at the request of the U.S. Chamber’s local affiliate.

In addition, the U.S. Chamber has been systematically engaged in opposing measures in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that would protect countries’ sovereign rights to implement public health policies.

The Times quoted one World Health Organization official, “[The U.S. Chamber] represents the interest of the tobacco industry…They are putting their feet everywhere where there are stronger regulations coming up.”

While the chamber has local branches in the United States, it also has more than 100 affiliates worldwide.  According to the Times, for foreign companies, membership comes with “access to the U.S. Embassy” according to the Cambodian branch, and entree to “the U.S. government,” according to the Azerbaijan branch. Members in Hanoi get an invitation to an annual trip to “lobby Congress and the administration” in Washington.In Estonia, the U.S. ambassador serves as honorary president of the chamber’s local affiliate.

Of course, to those who closely watch New York’s politics, the growing clout of the tobacco lobby and its allies comes as no surprise.  From 2000 through 2008, New York policymakers took major steps—banning smoking in all public and workplaces, raising tobacco taxes, mandating that all cigarettes had to meet fire safety standards—that made New York the nation’s leader in protecting the public’s health.

Since that time however, the tobacco lobby rebuilt its strength.  During the years 2011 through 2014, the tobacco industry’s political operation has strengthened.  In 2013, tobacco giant Altria (formerly known as Philip Morris) topped the charts in lobbying spending in New York State.

The growing political clout of the tobacco lobby has paid off.  Funding for the state’s tobacco control program has been slashed by half and now ranks 21^st in the nation in terms of adequacy, despite New York raising billions in tobacco revenues and a huge increase in overall spending in the state budget.  In addition, the current Cuomo Administration has advanced no new significant tobacco control measures.

Let’s remember that the tobacco industry is unique – it makes a product that used as directed, addicts and kills.  And it has for decades lied to the American people and many around the world about the dangers of their products.  When government officials get bamboozled by the industry’s deceptions, or capitulate to Big Tobacco’s – and their allies’ – political clout, people die.

The Obama Administration should make it clear that the tobacco industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce do not speak for it and the Administration should rescind whatever informal deals it has with the Chamber.

In New York, Governor Cuomo should stand up to the industry and expand the fight against the number one cancer killer in New York by boosting state support for its anti-smoking programs.

The dust hasn’t completely settled yet, but the 2015 legislative session is in the books and New Yorkers can draw some conclusions about the activity of their representatives.

A recent review of the 2015 session identified some surprises.  For example, while there has been considerable discussion over the session’s failures, an overview of the legislative activity tells a different story.  The 2015session saw the highest number of bills passed compared to the previous six years.  Of course, passing more bills does not necessarily mean that the bills were consequential.

However, while the 2015 session saw a hike in the number of bills that passed both houses, the total is still much lower than the overall historical trend.  The four years that saw the fewest bills pass both houses are 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  Looking at the trend over a longer period shows that the number of bills approved by the Legislature has been in steady decline.  Since 1920 through the mid-1970s, state lawmakers had approved increasing numbers of bills, peaking during the Administrations of Governors Rockefeller and Wilson.  Starting with the Carey Administration, the numbers began to decline, with the least legislative activity during the current Administration.

The analysis also showed that Governor Cuomo has been less likely to abuse his power to issue messages of necessity.  Under New York’s constitution, bills cannot be voted on for three days after they have made their way to the floor of the legislature.  This rule makes perfect sense: it allows lawmakers time to review bills before voting on them.

However, the constitution also allows the governor to circumvent that rule by allowing bills to be voted on immediately in times when there is some “necessity,” at least in the governor’s view.  In the five years of Governor Cuomo’s tenure, an average of about 13 bills have passed both houses per year with a message of necessity.  The current governor’s record compares favorably to his immediate predecessors, the Spitzer/Paterson Administrations, which on average annually issued 41 messages of necessity and the Pataki Administration, which issued on average a whopping 90 messages per year.

There has been little change in the number of bills approved by the governor, and his actions track those of his most recent predecessors.  However, there has been an increase in the number of bills vetoed by Governor Cuomo.  This is one area in which we do not know how the governor will react to the 2015 session: many of the bills passed are in the flurry of June, 2015 activity and the vast majority of those bills have not yet been acted upon by the governor.

The analysis showed that legislative activity increased each month that lawmakers were in session, culminating with huge number of bills being approved in June.  Also, the analysis showed that Albany-based campaign fundraising peaked in March, the month when lawmakers are dealing with the state budget.

As I mentioned earlier, numbers alone do not tell the full story of a legislative session.  What is clear is that the session, at least numerically, was consistent with previous years.  What makes this session unique are the arrests and indictments of the legislative leaders.

Unfortunately, those arrests did not fundamentally change the way Albany operates; the faces changed but not much else.  The legislative leaders continued to control the process in both houses.

It continues to be the case that if the leader opposes bills, no matter how popular, they are blocked.

Here are some examples:

The Child Safe Products Act which would have regulated toxic chemicals in children’s products. The bill had two-thirds of the Senate as sponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Assembly, and was supported by the governor.  Yet, the Senate leader killed the bill by blocking it from coming to a vote.

The same was true of Senate legislation to ban the dumping of fracking waste, which had a majority of Senate sponsors; a bill to ban microbeads; legislation to improve elevator safety; and legislation to improve patient protections.  All of these efforts had the votes to pass, but were killed by the Senate leader’s opposition.

The numbers show that despite all of the indictments and promises for change, Albany’s status quo remains firmly entrenched.  Hopefully, the public will not accept a system that undermines legislative innovation and reform.Voters must demand more or ensure that lawmakers pay the price in next year’s elections.