Money in New York Politics

The Brennan Center regularly compiles the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi. 

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

NEW YORK

Gov. Cuomo Discusses Passing Reform This Session with Activists

Under mounting pressure from good-government groups, unions and the Working Families Party, Governor Andrew Cuomo met with advocates of campaign finance reform to discuss passing publicly financed elections before the end of the state legislative session in June. Cuomo said he wants his eulogy to list three accomplishments: marriage equality, gun control and public financing. The Working Families Party in particular has made the subject a legislative priority, and progress on the issue is likely to be a consideration as the party decides whether to endorse Cuomo for his fall re-election campaign. The party will nominate its candidate for governor on May 31st.  Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, said he was optimistic about prospects of passage. “Our discussions with the governor and Senator Klein have moved from the need to get campaign finance reform, to specifically how it can get done,” he stated. Assembly Democrats, and both wings of the Democrats in the state senate, already support the much-needed changes. State senate Republicans, who rule the chamber in a coalition with breakaway Democrats, have been the greatest obstacle to reform. However, Republican Senate Co-leader Dean Skelos has stated that he is open to certain mechanisms of publicly funding campaigns such as a voluntary tax check-off. The pilot public financing program for the state comptroller race, which legislative leaders—including Republicans—and Governor Cuomo authorized in the 2014-15 budget, is supported by the state’s abandoned property fund.

Republican State Comptroller Nominee to Accept Public Financing

At the New York State Republican Party convention on Wednesday, delegates unanimously nominated Robert Antonacci to run for state comptroller come November. Antonacci has been Onondaga County’s comptroller since 2007. He will face incumbent Democratic Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli in the fall. Antonacci has enthusiastically indicated that he will be participating in New York’s trial public financing program, which allows comptroller candidates to receive money from the state’s abandoned property fund to match small donations. "My family can't self-finance a statewide elected race. But for the campaign finance pilot program, I would not be in the race," he stated. In what has amounted to an ironic situation, Antonacci, whose party has traditionally opposed public financing, will be opting into the system, while DiNapoli—citing problems with the program’s design—will not be participating. Last month, after criticizing public financing, New York GOP Party Chairman Ed Cox admitted that the pilot program would broaden “the field on the Republican side for potential comptroller candidates.”

U.S. Rep. Grimm’s Ex-Girlfriend Pleads Not Guilty to Violating Campaign Laws

U.S Representative Michael Grimm’s (R-NY 11) former girlfriend pleaded not guilty to charges of violating campaign finance laws last week. Federal prosecutors charge that Diana Durand reimbursed straw donors that gave money to Grimm’s 2010 Congressional campaign. Three donors were allegedly provided with a total of $10,600 for their contributions by Durand. She faces a maximum of eight years in prison if convicted on all charges. Durand’s attorney defended his client, stating that she has a poor understanding of campaign finance laws and did not intentionally commit the crime. An investigation into Grimm’s 2010 campaign is still ongoing. Unrelated to his campaign, Grimm has been recently indicted for tax evasion, perjury, and hiring undocumented workers, during his tenure as the co-owner of a health food restaurant in the Upper East Side. He has vowed to stay in Congress, and continue his 2014 reelection campaign. 

Money in Politics This Week

The Brennan Center regularly compiles the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi. 

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

NEW YORK

Vandewalker: Public Financing “Pilot” Program Designed to Implode

Writing in Newsday, Ian Vandewalker, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, praised New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli for opting out of the state’s poorly crafted public financing “pilot” program. Despite calls by the public and several good government groups to comprehensively reform New York’s campaign finance laws, Governor Cuomo and the legislative leadership failed to deliver a real public financing system, instead agreeing upon an experiment limited to the 2014 comptroller elections. The state’s notoriously dysfunctional Board of Elections was empowered to implement the law for this year’s upcoming comptroller race. “[T]he system was designed to implode,” said Vandewalker. Furthermore, the bill, which was passed in a state budget agreement in early April, fails to lower sky-high campaign contribution limits, close campaign funding loopholes, or mandate greater disclosure of independent expenditures by special interest groups.  

Watertown Daily Times: Comptroller Right to Opt-out of Public Financing “Pilot” Program

The Watertown Daily Times praised Comptroller DiNapoli for not participating in New York’s public financing pilot program for election campaigns. Although DiNapoli has been a strong supporter of reform, he said the limited measure introduced during last-minute budget negotiations in early April, was “designed to fail, by lawmakers who either do not really believe in, or don’t understand, public campaign financing at all.” If implemented, the half-hearted effort at reform, would have allowed opponents to point to the poorly crafted model as an example of the failure of public financing. It has unfortunately already provided an excuse for Governor Cuomo to disband the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption. Calling the reform an inadequate response to the corrosive epidemic of corruption in the New York legislature, the Watertown Daily Times said that “lawmakers should go back to the drawing board.”

Federal Court Overturns New York’s Aggregate Contribution Cap Following McCutcheon v. FEC

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty issued a five-page ruling in New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, overturning New York State’s aggregate campaign contribution cap on donations to independent political groups. New York State restricts the total amount one person may contribute to all candidates and political action committees to $150,000 per election cycle. The case, brought by the New York Progress and Protection PAC—a conservative super PAC that sought to prop up Republican mayoral nominee Joe Lhota last year—argued that Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon had the right to contribute more than $150,000 to independent groups that supported Joe Lhota. Judge Crotty indicated that although he was obliged to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which recently invalidated federal aggregate contribution limits, he disagreed with the court’s analysis and lamented that regular citizens “are too often drowned out by the few who have great resources.” Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said that “It's not just the American public that is unhappy with these decisions but a lot of the judiciary below the [U.S] Supreme Court.”

Money in Politics This Week

The Brennan Center regularly compiles the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi. 

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

NEW YORK

Governor Could Have Responded to McCutcheon Decision with Reform

In a Journal News op-ed, Lawrence Norden and Frederick A.O Schwarz of the Brennan Center, wrote that Governor Cuomo’s refusal to pass meaningful reform in the state budget was especially disheartening in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Despite his promise to pass comprehensive public financing reform for all state elections, the governor approved a narrow and ineffective pilot program for the Comptroller’s office only. This “reform” package did nothing to reduce campaign contribution limits or close loopholes that disproportionately benefit incumbents. Last year, the Moreland Commission found New York’s campaign finance laws to be wholly inadequate. McCutcheon has the potential to exacerbate the problem if New York’s aggregate limits are struck down—which would allow a single individual to donate over $2.4 million to political candidates and committees in an election cycle. In this environment, another corruption scandal is inevitable.

Campaign Finance Laws Empower Donor Class Over Middle Class

In conjunction with the U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down aggregate contribution limits, the lack of real reform in the New York State budget empowers the 1 percent, wrote Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post. The donor class now has greater opportunities to buy access to our elected officials. “We live in a world where…public policy is auctioned off to the highest bidder,” vanden Heuvel said. The systematic dismantling of campaign finance laws explains why we’ve failed to make progress on other issues—everything “from lower taxes to deregulation.” Nevertheless, there are ways that citizens can fight back against the avalanche of big money in politics, ranging from federal legislation to a constitutional amendment, all outlined in the article.  

Poughkeepsie Journal: Moreland Commission Should Not Be Shutdown

Last week, the Poughkeepsie Journal criticized Governor Cuomo’s decision to dismantle the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, stating that its “job is far from done.” With more than 30 state lawmakers who have been embroiled in legal or ethical dilemmas since 2000, the state needs an independent watchdog with subpoena powers to not only examine individual instances of wrongdoing, but also to propose solutions to systemic problems of corruption that plague New York. In its 2013 report, the commission outlined examples of illegal and unethical behavior by campaign contributors and lawmakers looking for big checks. However, it did not identify the perpetrators by name. It was expecting to deliver another report by the end of this year and refer the names to law enforcement. “At bare minimum, the state must let the panel complete these tasks.” The U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, has taken possession of the commission’s files and indicated that his office will investigate any evidence of corruption.

“Reform” Deliberately Designed to Fail

In City & State, Morgan Pehme called out New York State political leaders—the “four men in the room”—for creating a façade of good government reform, while perpetuating a status quo which greatly benefits incumbents. The budget adopted last week constructed a new pilot public financing program for the state comptroller’s race. The only problem; it was “concocted deliberately” so that it would fail. The notoriously dysfunctional state board of elections was allocated the responsibility for managing this program. It had to be prepared to implement the law in time for the approaching 2014 elections. Pehme explained that the failure of public financing would allow incumbents to claim that “this experiment should never” be attempted again. It is no surprise that Comptroller DiNapoli, a stern supporter of public financing, choose to opt-out of the ill-crafted proposal. Legislators now need to go back to the drawing board to create a comprehensive reform proposal that includes public financing for all state races and adequate funds for enforcement.

Money in Politics This Week

The Brennan Center regularly compiles the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi. 

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

NEW YORK

New York Times: Most Fundamental Reform Missing from State Budget

Governor Andrew Cuomo and state legislative leaders passed New York’s 2014-15 budget last week without a comprehensive small donor public matching system—instead establishing a very limited pilot public financing program for the state comptroller’s race in 2014. Adding to this lapse in leadership, Governor Cuomo said he will disband the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, labeling the narrow ethics reforms in the budget a triumph. This was an especially disappointing development in light of the myriad of corruption scandals that engulfed several legislators in recent years, including three of the last five Senate Majority Leaders or Co-leaders. Newspapers throughout the state saw through the spin. The New York Times opined that the budget’s inadequate ethics reforms do not “come close to attacking the root of the corruption problem” in Albany. “The most fundamental reform,” the Times continued, namely public matching funds for small donations in all state races, “is missing.” 

Syracuse Post-Standard: Public Financing “Pilot” Program a Cop-out

The Syracuse Post-Standard reiterated the shortfalls of the 2014-15 New York budget in an editorial last week. Calling restricting public financing to the comptroller’s office a “cop-out,” the upstate newspaper said that New York City’s successful model demonstrates that a “pilot” program is unnecessary. If such a system would have been implemented, it could have enabled candidates who can’t garner big checks from special interests to compete with small dollar donations from constituents. Unfortunately for now, the status quo, which allows incumbents to build up their war chest to scare off any potential competitors, remains intact.

Albany Times-Union: State Elected Officials Failed to Address NY’s “Most Glaring Failure”

On Tuesday, the Albany Times-Union termed Governor Cuomo’s failure to pass comprehensive ethics reform the state government’s “most glaring failure.” Last year, the Moreland Commission—which the governor appointed to examine New York’s corruption and campaign finance laws—issued a thorough report detailing the legal and ethical breaches that have become so commonplace in Albany over the past few years. In response to the inadequacy of the current system to address pay-to-play politics, the commission recommended several reforms including public funding to match small donations. Unfortunately, Governor Cuomo and legislative leaders “concluded that reform is appropriate only on a very small scale, and only as long as it doesn’t apply to themselves.” The outcome is surprising considering that most legislators, as well as the governor, claimed to support full public financing for all races.

Crain’s New York Business: Ethics Deal Does Little to Deter Corruption

On April 4, Crain’s New York Business criticized New York lawmakers for their inability to deliver on ethics reform. “At least 30 [state legislators] have left office since 1999 because of transgressions ranging from inflating their expenses to sexual harassment to taking bribes,” the editorial stated. Yet the reform provision in the budget made only minor changes to state corruption laws and delegated slightly greater enforcement authority to the state Board of Elections. It did nothing to address the problem of legislators pushing bills or steering funds at the request of special interests and campaign contributors. The decision to eliminate the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption was especially troubling, Crain’s said—just as the investigators “had dug their teeth into a plethora of questionable dealings.”

Upstate Newspapers: Ethics Reforms Insufficient to Address Corruption

The Rochester-based Democrat & Chronicle called Governor Cuomo’s inability to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform his administration’s “most notable first-term failure.” The alternative to public financing for all races—a limited measure for the state comptroller election in 2014—was too little and too late, given the election year. The Buffalo News concurred, saying the plan was a “laughingstock.” The dysfunctional state Board of Elections is inadequately prepared to implement a public financing program for the comptroller’s office this election cycle. Moreover, sky-high campaign contribution limits, and loopholes for special interests hoping to get noticed by politicians, are still the norm in Albany for the foreseeable future. Overall, the budget bill was not a compromise for anyone, it was a disappointment.

Money in Politics This Week

The Brennan Center regularly compiles the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

NEW YORK

Moreland Commission Co-chairs: Pass Election Reforms

In a Daily News op-ed on Sunday, two of the co-chairs of the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption explained why they recommended public financing as a solution to the persistent problem of pay-to-play politics in Albany. Kathleen Rice, the district attorney of Nassau County, and William Fitzpatrick, the district attorney of Onondaga County, were among a number of legal experts and district attorneys tasked with examining the state of New York’s corruption and campaign laws. What the commission uncovered was not only illegal acts, but numerous “legal activities that would shake anyone’s trust in our government.” As Rice and Fitzpatrick explained, “Unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about donating $100,000 to a politician’s reelection committee, then receiving millions in the form of a helpful tax break in a spending bill.” However this year offers a unique opportunity to end the corruption scandals in Albany, and return state government back into the hands of citizens. “Imagine how much good the government could do if our elected leaders had built-in incentives to spend more time talking to and serving their constituents rather than doing the bidding of well-connected donors?” Such a system is a real possibility—Governor Cuomo has included a holistic package of reforms recommended by the commission in his budget proposal. The only question that remains now is whether the governor and the legislature will pass it.

New York Times: Public Financing Can Clean Up Albany

This week, Eleanor Randolph, of the New York Times editorial board, endorsed Governor Cuomo’s public financing proposal to reform elections in New York. Randolph wrote that campaign finance is incredibly important, as the way elections are funded predetermines who can run for public office. Under the current system, only the wealthy or those with a vast network of well-heeled donors can compete. The reform plan, which would match small donations from constituents with public funds, has “worked well for decades in New York City.” Randolph applauded the Public Campaign Action Fund’s ad campaign pushing public financing, which analogizes the decrepit state of the Statue of Liberty with the corrosive political environment in Albany. Although the Statue of Liberty took years to repair, she notes, it “would take just a day or two for Albany’s politicians to enact this crucial reform.”

Horner: Time for Cuomo and Legislature to Take Real Action on Reform

Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, in a commentary piece for the WAMC Northeast Public Radio, demanded that Governor Cuomo and the legislature take real action on campaign finance reform. “For at least 30 years, New York governors have called for sweeping campaign finance reforms. But for all that talk, Governors Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson achieved virtually no reforms,” he stated. Horner commended Cuomo for including reform in his budget—which forces the legislature to debate the issue. A majority of assemblymen, as well as the Senate Co-leader Jeffrey Klein have come out in favor of comprehensive reform with a voluntary public financing option. Horner concludes: “Given the tremendous institutional power of the executive, the support of the state Assembly, and the apparent support among many Senators, the fate of meaningful campaign finance reform will hinge on whether the governor can round up the necessary Senate votes.... How that plays out will be a real test for the governor.”

Closed-Door Budget Negotiations: Déjà Vu All Over Again

At this time last year, the State Senate had blown through the last scheduled day of session without finishing its legislative business for the year. The chamber, still in a state of post-coup deadlock, was unmoved by increasingly angry calls from the governor to convene in extraordinary session to pass the bills necessary to keep government entities afloat in the new fiscal year. Approval ratings for the legislature were at an all-time low, and for good reason.

Sound familiar?

Both chambers of the legislature may technically be functioning this go-round, but the rest of the scene looks all too familiar – missed deadlines, questionably effective attempts by the governor to spur the legislature to action, and even lower approval ratings.

This time, of course, legislative leaders and the governor are deadlocked over the budget (which is now three months overdue), not majority leadership of a chamber. But little else has changed. The public leaders’ meetings on the budget have been light on substantive conversation and heavy on finger-pointing. The real negotiations – the contents of which we are forced to glean from often vague comments to the press – are happening behind closed doors.

After several three-way closed-door negotiating sessions with the governor, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson decided to break with the governor over the weekend and forge a two-way budget deal. When asked what caused the breakdown, Speaker Silver was vague on the details:

“Obviously the governor called us, his staff, and briefed us on his version of a three-way deal, which was a number of things that didn’t affect the budget, that, you know, didn’t help us get there, and things that neither house wanted.”

It’s unclear precisely what elements Silver refers to here, and while details of the two-way deal have trickled out over the last day, the legislative leaders are doing little to bring the budget debate into daylight now that it is entirely within their control. Today, Senator Sampson told reporters asking about the budget deal that they were “conferencing it,” which is to say they are discussing it in another closed-door meeting, this one attended by the Senate Democratic conference. It’s difficult to say if the Assembly is even doing that much.

It is worth noting that the roots of last year’s coup could be traced in part to an opaque budget process that offered little opportunity for open and substantive debate. Apparently our lawmakers haven’t learned their lesson.

A Better Budget?

Today, the Senate democrats unveiled a series of proposals to reform the state’s budget process, which this year has dragged on a week beyond the mandated deadline with no apparent end in sight.

Most of the proposals – which are outlined in six separate bills – focus on better long-term financial planning and external oversight of the budget designed to eliminate waste. One bill would move the budget deadline back to May 31, following the recommendations made by the Senate’s Select Committee on Budget and Tax Reform in a report also released today.

While we have not yet analyzed the legislation in detail, we’re glad to see the Senate thinking constructively about ways to reform the state’s broken budget process and we hope that the Assembly also seriously considers reform. If the Senate does not have the cooperation of the lower chamber, it should at the very least demonstrate its commitment to a better budget by continuing to build upon the steps it has taken toward greater transparency. New Yorkers certainly deserve to have their tax dollars managed more wisely, but they also have a right to be privy to the decisions made about how their money is to be spent.

With the Governor's Role in Dispute, It's Time to Look Critically at '3 Men in a Room'

The heated debate surrounding Governor Paterson’s political future has spawned a subsidiary discussion about his role in the upcoming budget negotiations.

The budget, which is due April 1st, is typically negotiated between the Assembly Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Governor and behind closed doors. In light of last week’s events, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver suggested that Lieutenant Governor Ravitch should participate in these budget talks. Based on reporting in the Daily News, Senator Eric Adams took this to be a suggestion that Governor Paterson shouldn't have a role in the talks (Silver disputes this is what he meant). The Senator called such a suggestion offensive.

In years past, the results of budget negotiations have come to light at the last minute, and rank-and-file members received thousands of pages of budget bills only days before the deadline and the scheduled vote, giving them little time to read the bills and no opportunity to suggest substantive changes. Last year’s budget process was, by many accounts, the most secretive in decades.

So here’s a different idea: rather than bickering about who should participate in the closed-door budget talks, why not do away with them altogether? Why not debate and revise the budget in the open forum of the legislative chambers and then reconcile the differences in open conference committees as required by the Budget Reform Act of 2007? The Senate is already taking steps to open up the budget process, but all parties could go further to provide the public with access to the conversations that ultimately determine the state’s fiscal future.

A Blueprint for Fixing Albany

Today, the New York Times ran an editorial assessing the problems in New York and what needs to be done to fix them. Calling the state a “national embarrassment” and “a $131 billion monster controlled by a crowd of smug officials whose main concern is keeping their soft jobs,” the Times outlines a must-do list for state lawmakers. The editorial says what recent polls have already suggested – with the 2010 election a little over a year away, lawmakers fail to reform state government at their peril.

The editorial lays out a laundry list of areas for improvement that it will profile in detail in the coming weeks:

• Ethics Reform. The Times calls for “independent monitors with powers to oversee the ethics of those in the state government and Legislature.”
• Campaign Finance. Advocating a public financing model, the Times calls for “strict rules for reporting and using that money.”
• Budget Reform. The Times demands a more transparent budget process.
• Pension Reform. Of the fact that the comptroller is the sole trustee of the state’s pension fund, the Times says, “This should not be happening anywhere, but especially not in Albany.” The editorial supports Cuomo’s proposal for a 13-member commission to manage pensions, but cautions that the commissioners must be carefully chosen.
• Modernize Voter Registration. Echoing the paper’s support of a national proposal to reform the voter registration system, the Times says it’s time to make it easier to register to vote in New York.
• Redistricting Reform. One of the causes of stagnation in Albany is the process by which legislators draw their own districts – and choose their own voters. The Times advocates putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission.

Some members of the New York state legislature are probably beyond redemption, but for those who still wish to accomplish something for New York State, the blueprint outlined by the Times is a great place to start.

Process Matters

Imagine this: It’s March of 2009, and newly-minted Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith is negotiating his first budget. He’s promised a more open and transparent budget process to the public and to Tom Golisano, the man who helped Smith’s party regain control of the Senate, and he wants to stick to his word despite pressure from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to keep things under wraps.

So Smith and his fellow Democrats decide to draft a budget resolution that will allow members to debate and vote on the outlines of the budget in advance of the deadline, in effect allowing members to draw up the blueprint that Smith will use in crafting the actual budget with Assembly Speaker Silver and Governor Patterson.

All of this actually happened. This next part is a little more hypothetical.

Let’s say that instead of pulling the plug on the resolution and negotiating the budget in the most secretive process Albany has seen in years, they draft the resolution. The Finance committee holds a hearing or two, where Tom Golisano testifies about his concerns with the tax increases proposed in the resolution. Nobody fiddles with their blackberry during the hearing.

The resolution comes to the floor for debate and a vote. Senate Republicans air their grievances with aspects of the resolution, and maybe the chamber even incorporates an amendment or two. Maybe the “millionaire tax” stays in, maybe it doesn’t. The senate votes on the resolution, and Smith goes into budget negotiations with Silver with the opinion of the full Senate as his guide.

Maybe Tom Golisano is still mad about the millionaire tax, but he has to concede that Smith delivered on his promise to give the public, including the tax’s opponents, a chance to speak their minds. Senate Republicans still don’t enjoy being in the minority, but they can’t stick Smith with the argument that he has made the legislative process in Albany less open than it was under their rule.

Fast forward to June 10, 2009: Is Malcolm Smith still Senate Majority Leader?

"Up Close" on Albany's Dysfunction

On Sunday, our colleague Eric Lane was on WABC's "Up Close" to discuss dysfunction in Albany. The video of Eric's appearance is here. In the preceding Up Close segment, Malcolm Smith also mentioned the Brennan Center's work.

Why Rules Still Matter

Yesterday, the day 3000 pages of budget bills hit state legislators’ desks in advance of a vote scheduled for only 48 hours later, the Times ran a story on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's unprecedented power in Albany. The story details Silver’s stranglehold on the legislative process in general, and the budget process in particular, attributing this year’s secret-even-for-Albany negotiations to Silver’s penchant for closed-door meetings and something hovering between oligarchy and autocracy. Readers of the article could be forgiven for thinking that we've never been further from meaningful reform in Albany, but we prefer to see the article as an illustration of why legislative rules are so important -- and why it may be darkest just before the dawn.

It will take more than one or two individuals to loosen the Speaker's 15-year grip on the legislative process; the legislature needs the weight of an entire chamber to act as a countervailing force. A robust committee process, regular and substantive legislative analysis, and rules that protect the voices of rank-and-file members can all help ensure that the locus of power in the legislature lies with the body of representatives elected by New York voters, and not with any one individual. With the recommendations of its Temporary Committee on Rules Reform due in just a week or two, the Senate may well become this essential counterbalance to unchecked power.

Now back to those budget bills. Speaker Silver has often touted the punctuality of his budgets, arguing that open budget negotiations might get in the way of meeting the state deadline. Looking around the country during budget season, it’s clear that this is a false tradeoff. Ohio, faced with the same number of weeks to consider its budget as New York, holds extensive budget hearings. Virginia, acting under similar time constraints, posts all budget documents, including early proposals, on a website where members of the public are welcome to comment. A total of nine states have budget deadlines similar to New York’s, but only New York shuts rank-and-file legislators and the general public so completely out of its budget process.

Silver's Response to Brennan Center Report Misses the Mark

In response to yesterday’s release of the Brennan Center’s report Still Broken: New York State Legislative Reform 2008 Update, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver issued a statement suggesting that our report misrepresents the legislative process in the Assembly. We thought we’d set the record straight. Our responses to excerpts from Silver’s statement (in italics) are below.

In analyzing the work of the legislature, the Brennan Center report completely omits the state budget, as well as countless bills that pass either house every year.

This is incorrect. The analysis that forms the basis of the report included all of the budget bills listed on the New York Legislative Session Information page for 2006 and 2007 except the Legislature and Judiciary Budget Bill and the State Debt Budget Bill in each year. The statistics regarding substantive floor debate, meaningful dissent, and committee deliberation regarding these bills generally conform to the poor performance of both houses in considering the rest of the major legislation analyzed in this report.

The fact of the matter is that while the budget process in New York has become somewhat more transparent in the last few years, it is still far too opaque. Budget deals are still cut behind closed doors – once the budget bills are drafted, most details of budget reductions, tax increases, and member items are briefed and debated outside of public view.

The budget bills included in our analysis are S6456C, S6457C, S6458C, and S6459C in 2006, and S2106C, S2107C, S2108C, S2109C, and S2110C in 2007. To download a PDF with summaries of these bills, click here.

Among the other important reforms the Assembly has adopted over the years to create greater transparency include the passage of rules that:

• End empty seat voting to ensure that Assembly members fully participate in the legislative process and are publicly accountable for their votes.

• Create an open and transparent budget process through joint Assembly – Senate conference committees that analyze and hear public testimony on every aspect of the state’s fiscal plan.

In the 2008 report, the Brennan Center applauds the Assembly’s efforts to conduct budget oversight hearings (though all too often these hearings have been perfunctory); and the joint conference committees on the budget represent some improvement in budget transparency (although, as mentioned above, the system is still far too opaque).

On the subject on conference committees generally, no mechanism exists for bill sponsors or committee chairs to call these hearings to reconcile differences in important legislation. The Brennan Center encourages both chambers to allow committee chairs, bill sponsors, or the leadership to convene conference committees, which should represent members of each party proportionally to representation in the full chamber.

The Brennan Center’s 2006 report recognized the Assembly’s important first steps toward reform, including ending empty seat voting, obligating standing committees to meet once a month, requiring attendance at committee meetings, and reducing the maximum number of committees on which a member can serve. However, the 2006 report shows that these reforms did not solve many of the problems endemic in the legislature, and more work is necessary to ensure a transparent and robust deliberative process.

• Mandate that all Assembly bills are approved by a standing committee other than the Committee on Rules, guaranteeing the participation of committees in the legislative process.

The Committee on Rules is not the only one to keep legislation from consideration by other committees with jurisdiction over the issue at hand. The Assembly rules allow the chair of the Ways and Means Committee to request bills outside its jurisdiction with the approval of the Speaker. While the rules do not grant the Codes Committee the same authority, anecdotal evidence suggests that irrelevant bills are also frequently referred to the Codes Committee – so frequently, in fact, that the joke inside the Assembly is that “Codes is where bills go to die.” These committees can hold up bills with no fiscal implications or a lack of sanction or penalty for months, preventing consideration by committees with legitimate jurisdiction.

• Extend the time period for unlimited bill introduction from early March to the first Tuesday in May, allowing Assembly members more time to draft and submit legislation important to their constituents.

Insufficient time to draft legislation may not be the problem – in 2008, the legislature introduced more than 18,000 bills, most of which never made it to a committee vote. Given that 45% of major legislation passed the Assembly in the final 3 days of the 2007 session, up from 25.5% in 2001, it is not clear that this reform is an improvement with respect to allowing members ample opportunity to consider each piece of major legislation.

• Ease the Motion to Discharge process by extending the period during which this process may be utilized.

Given that not a single motion to discharge successfully passed in 2006, 2007, or 2008, it is clear that this reform, while a step in the right direction, is insufficient. Motions to discharge should be allowed within 20 days of the date of referral, or within two committee meetings.

The Brennan Center’s report is wrong to dismiss and not include in its analysis bills that have been vetoed as well as the Assembly’s passage of major legislation that is not subsequently taken up by the Senate - bills that often set the stage for eventual enactment of critical legislation to protect New Yorkers.

While we have no reason to believe that an analysis of bills that pass in a single house and fail to become law would differ from our current analysis of major bills enacted into law, questions about the process for passing bills in one chamber are beside the point. As our ally Susan Lerner of Common Cause/NY said yesterday, "We elect our legislators to come up with laws, not bills."

The Brennan Center analyzes major bills enacted into law because this legislation affects the lives of New Yorkers. The Brennan Center’s argument is that a poor legislative process results in poor laws, which is harmful to New York and New Yorkers.

In June 2007, the Assembly passed legislation to ensure marriage equality in New York state - a vote that received support on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the last legislative session, the Assembly also passed legislation on the very issue for which the Brennan Center is a registered lobbyist - Campaign Finance Reform. Until now, the Senate has not acted on this legislation, but it is our hope and belief that these bills will find support in the new Senate and eventually be enacted into law. That is the legislative process and it is mystifying that the Brennan Center would diminish it.

The fact that bills addressing important issues pass one chamber or the other does not necessarily speak to the process behind the development of this legislation. The same-sex marriage bill is an example of substantive and robust floor debate. However, this is a rare exception – hardly the rule. While many believe that congestion pricing and brownfields cleanup development incentives are important, the bills addressing both of these issues reflected a failed legislative process that continues to impact environmental conservation efforts in New York.

Similarly, the Brennan Center fully supports comprehensive campaign finance reform, but no robust bill that results in a cost should lack a substantive fiscal note. Passing legislation that is not rigorously debated, open to public comment, and analyzed for fiscal impact can actually hinder the successful implementation of laws addressing important issues that affect the lives of New Yorkers.

Elks Lodge Parking Lot Spared the Budget Axe

By now we've all heard about the $427 million in budget cuts the legislature passed last week, but you may have missed this article in the New York Daily News about the word on the street that member items won't take much of a hit.

While the approved cuts include a $50 million reduction in member items, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was quoted as telling his members that they wouldn't have to break any promises of cash for their constituents. We thought it might be an appropriate moment, then, to review a few highlights from the 2008-09 member items, culled from NY PIRG's member item database:

• $750,000 in the Assembly for "activities including fashion industry modernization" in the garment district of Manhattan
• $7,500 in the Assembly to improve the parking lot of the Catskills Elks Lodge
• $50,000 in the Senate for a larger deck and boathouse for a YMCA summer camp in Warren County
• $100,000 in the Senate for the Long Island Contractors Association's public outreach efforts

The list goes on (and on; there are about 5000 member items in each house for the 2008-09 fiscal year). And as we've blogged before, member items are wildly skewed toward the majority in both houses. If member items do take a cut under the new budget plan, we'll be anxious to see who wins out in the budgetary battle between the contractors and the little league.

Budget Reform? What Budget Reform?

Yesterday's Post Standard sums up what a lot of us are feeling about this year's budget process: "It's back to three men in a room."

Start Early, Get It Right

Capital Confidential reported on Friday that the state Budget Director has lit a fire under agencies, more than a month early, to begin work on the 2008-09 budget.

CapCon notes that the letter to agency heads emphasized a desire to close the projected gap without raising taxes, but we hope that the administration is also considering how to work with legislative leaders to have a much more transparent budget process next year. Governor Spitzer was lambasted by the press and reformers in March for presiding over a budget deal that, while nominally on-time, was overwhelmingly negotiated in secret.

By starting early, maybe this time Albany can achieve what is so often out of its grasp: good policy, in a timely manner, created with ample public input.

Buffalo News on Continued Need for Transparency

The Buffalo News ran a great editorial this morning, reiterating the need for budget reform and legislative rules changes to make the governing process more transparent and accountable. They write:

New Yorkers can elect reform-minded chief executives from now until Niagara Falls dries up, but unless the Legislature also commits to changing its secretive and autocratic ways, New York government will never become any better than it is today.

In Case You Weren’t Sufficiently Disappointed With the Budget Process...

It seems that the public will have to wait a little longer to find out how their tax dollars have been allocated for member items, despite the promises of greater transparency made by lawmakers last year.

This budget did mark the first time that these grants have been “lined out” in the budget--previous budgets have simply earmarked lump sums of millions of dollars that were then doled out like candy by the governor and legislative leaders.

But the Sun and the Daily News report that the member items are split up among the overseeing agencies, not compiled in a neat list, and are scattered among the thousands of pages of the budget. More importantly, the names of the requesting members are not included with the items.

It also appears that lawmakers are not in a hurry to fill in the budget information gaps. According to the Sun, Majority Leader Bruno has only promised to release the master member item list prior to the money being spent, while Assembly leaders are apparently still putting their list together.

We were frankly dismayed by Assembly Majority Leader Canestrari’s reaction to questions about transparency. The Sun writes:

But a top lieutenant to Silver, Assembly Majority Leader Ron Canestrari (D-Cohoes), argued that the lack of information about the purpose of the funding and the name of the grant sponsor was not significant.

The purpose of the grant is often "self-evident," he said. "If it says it's for a Little League, it's going to be used for Little League. If anyone has a question, they can call us and we will give them the information."

We think he's missing the point. New York taxpayers deserve to know which members are spending their money, where it's going, and, most importantly, what worthy (or unworthy) purpose the money will serve. If the project is worth funding, why would any grant sponsor feel differently?

Sausage-Making May Be an Unsavory Spectator Sport, but Voters Deserve a Chance to See It

The AP reports that Governor Spitzer and legislative leaders, “after six hours of closed-door meetings,” have emerged with a deal that they hope will result in the third on-time budget in a row.

So what’s wrong with an on-time budget?

Governor Spitzer is right that we should expect our leaders to produce a budget by the April 1st deadline, but we don’t agree that transparency of the budget process should be sacrificed to timeliness. Our leaders should also show that they are committed to opening the process to public scrutiny. After all, while important, the novelty of on-time budgets has worn off to some degree--before reform fever hit Albany in full force this year, Governor Pataki and legislative leaders had managed to usher two budgets in a row to the finish line on time.

Unfortunately, this budget cycle seems to have been more about securing the outcome by the deadline, no matter how rushed, secretive, and possibly unrepresentative of the people’s will, than it was about employing an open, accountable process.

We were encouraged, though, to see that a few rank-and-file members have tried, however unsuccessfully, to assert themselves as representatives of their constituents and not rubber stamps for party leadership. The Journal News notes that Assembly members Sandy Galef and Greg Ball have been making noise during the budget process. Galef tried to push one of the budget conference committees, normally “window dressing,” to take real action. Ball has repeatedly denounced the lack of member and public participation in the budget process, dubbing himself “Albany’s loudest advocate for reform.”

We applaud Assembly members Galef, Ball, and other rank-and-file lawmakers for attempting meaningful participation in the process. To everyone else, we say, “New Yorkers have strong stomachs. Show us the sausage.”