(Workers tunneling in the 7 Train extension. Photo: MTA)
Stephen Cohen has a nice summary of one of Pataki's worst legacies:
One of the victims of the economic downturn in New York is state support for mass transit. Unfortunately, this is not simply a result of the recent decline in state tax revenues, but rather a long-term trend that was exacerbated by over-borrowing for mass transit during the Pataki era.
(snip)
Unfortunately, under Governor Pataki, the mass transit capital subsidy was sharply reduced, forcing the MTA to use more and more of their budget to pay debt service on transit bonds. Even worse, during the current $6.8 billion state budget crisis, Governor Patterson has further reduced the state's subsidy for the MTA, contributing to the transit agency's $400 million budget gap.
Pataki was a bad example an anti-infrastruture Republican, and it's hard to stomach that now with Democrats in control of all the levers of state government, they're carrying out the same neglect. The last MTA bailout was the ultimate short-term politically pathetic bandaid solution. Either the State has to mandate a minimum amount of expenditure for the MTA in the State Constitution, we need to toll the East River bridges, or implement congestion pricing. Unless the MTA has enough fixed revenue streams to make up for the decline of state and city funding over the past decade, the system will fall into disrepair and its capital plans will be chronically under-funded. Add that the additional infrastructure spending will boost employment, something really should be done.
Last week, former Governor George Pataki endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the 23rd congressional district race. It was an interesting endorsement for a few reasons. Pataki, who is far from the right-wing on a number of issues and is known as a pro-choice Republican, chose to endorse the conservative candidate instead of the party candidate Dede Scozzafava. Scozzafava is actually very similar to Pataki in many respects, which is why Hoffman welcoming the endorsement was curious.
But it was also interesting because of Pataki's motives. Was this a way to make good with the right-wing before a run for U.S. Senate against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? Or was this an attempt to cuddle up to the right-wing in hopes of a much bigger run?
If you want to know who is well organized when it comes to 2012, it's sometimes useful to look at who stays in close touch with powerbrokers in the early nominating states.
So who has Manchester's newly elected Republican mayor heard from so far?
"I don't know who is running for president but I don't mind telling you who has called," Manchester Mayor-elect Ted Gatsas told ABC News at 5:15 pm ET on Wednesday. "I have gotten a couple of calls during the course of the day. Mitt Romney called and Tim Pawlenty called and Gov. Pataki called."
Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts who ran for president in 2008, and Pawlenty, the current governor of Minnesota who is not running for re-election in 2010, are widely viewed as two of the most active potential candidates at this early stage of the process.
Former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) is being urged by major Republican donors and the party apparatus in Washington to run against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in 2010. While he has not made a final decision on a Senate run, Pataki has told at least one major GOP donor in private that he is not interested in becoming a senator at the age of 64 and would rather run for president in 2012.
I can't see Pataki being the nominee in 2012. The rightward shift of the Republican Party and their shunning of moderate candidates, barring any unforeseen changes, would mean Pataki is out. Pataki will try and do the same thing Sen. John McCain did: Make himself seem more conservative and probably name a more conservative runningmate. That will be good steps in the eyes of the right-wing, but they aren't going to like a pro-choice Republican running on their line. That's a big no-no for them.
But as it pertains to 2010, having Pataki tell someone in private that due to age, he isn't interested in becoming a senator would seem to indicate he is less interested in the Senate seat and would rather target the presidency. Not that I was worried about Pataki, but that would affect the GOP plans to give Gillibrand a serious challenger in 2010. Pataki is the best they have and if he doesn't want it, the bench gets smaller from there.
Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has run a far-right campaign. That is not "breaking news." The goal of his campaign is to run to the right of Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, who is more of a traditional conservative or moderate (instead of a neo-conservative), based on her record.
One of the targets of Hoffman's campaign has been Scozzafava's alleged liberalism. Apparently, being pro-choice and pro-marriage equality qualifies you as a liberal even if the rest of your record isn't necessarily progressive.
Like Scozzafava, Pataki is pro-choice. When Pataki was being mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, the issue of abortion and his standing as a pro-choice Republican was seen as a weakness in the GOP primary. While he isn't supportive of marriage equality, Pataki is supportive of equal rights and believes that individuals in the gay community should be protected. He came out in opposition to a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality and during his time as governor, signed legislation that would provide protections to members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities.
Pataki also proved that he is no friend of the tobacco industry. He proposed raising taxes on cigarettes to help cover costs associated with health care in New York.
In perhaps the best example of just where Pataki stands among the far-right, Human Events came out with their Top Ten RINOs rankings in December 2005. Number six on the top ten list? Governor George Pataki.
Here's what Human Events had to say about him:
Helped unions raise pay and unionize Indian casinos. Has said, "I believe in a limited government, low taxes, a tough approach to crime. ... But I also believe in an activist government. I'm not one of those laissez-faire types."
Pataki was joined on that list by Mitt Romney, who was then governor of Massachusetts. He did have good company: Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was number one and New York Congressman Sherwood Boehlert was also on the list. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) was on the list too, along with Maine's duo of moderate senators: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Who does the Pataki endorsement help more? Apparently, Pataki. Endorsing a right-winger might get him in the door with other members of the Palin Party. But a quick look at his past shows that he hasn't been a good friend to the right-wingers in the past and they haven't exactly been welcoming to him either.
In Hoffman's case, this endorsement raises a good question: If Scozzafava is bad because she is a "liberal" Republican, why is Pataki's endorsement a good thing? Better yet, was it even solicited? Will it be seen on the list of other endorsements, which include Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and other members of the Palin Party?
I can't imagine they would tout this endorsement. Pataki has a lot of similarities to Dede Scozzafava. So Hoffman being endorsed by Pataki is like Hoffman being endorsed by well, Dede Scozzafava. And since she is an evil liberal Republican, that's not a good thing (at least for him).
I can't say I saw this one coming. It seems that George Pataki has decided to embrace the wingnuts and make common cause with the likes of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, Pat Buchanan, Michelle Malkin and Rick Perry by endorsing Con candidate and teabagger darling Doug Hoffman.
As someone personally engaged in the way of life in the Adirondacks and Northern New York, I'm deeply concerned about the course of our nation and the outcome of the election in the 23rd Congressional District.
Simply put, we cannot afford to give another vote to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid we cannot afford another vote for higher taxes, we cannot afford another vote for government run health care and we absolutely cannot afford another vote to take away from hard working men and women the right to secret ballot.
That is why tonight, I'm proud to endorse Doug Hoffman, a Republican, running on the Conservative line for Congress in the 23rd Congressional District.
So, Pataki is making nice with the teabagging fringe by endorsing their flavor of the month. Here's what I want to know: why? To what end? Why is one of the last moderate Republicans, a man with next to nothing in common with the Malkin wing of the GOP, jumping into this race on their side?
The problem for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand might not be a Democratic primary. The problem might be beating Republicans Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki.
The Marist poll on the U.S. Senate race shows that Gillibrand trails both Republicans, although there are some points to make about the polling numbers against her hypothetical Republican opponents.
Against Giuliani, Gillibrand loses 51 percent to 40 percent. Those numbers aren't too surprising, given Giuliani's name recognition and considering that is pretty much what these polls are all about when they involve someone like Gillibrand who doesn't have the statewide name recognition that Giuliani or Pataki has.
When pitted against Pataki, Gillibrand does better. She still trails 45 percent to 41 percent, but that's not a bad margin against the man who seems to be the more likely of the two opponents. If Giuliani runs for anything, it is looking like he will run for governor. But I think the Republicans are waiting to see what Andrew Cuomo does.
There are some things in these polls that need to be pointed out.
- Gillibrand beats Giuliani in New York City by a larger margin than Pataki. That is a very interesting number. Gillibrand wins 58 percent to 38 percent in New York City over Giuliani and 53 percent to 34 percent over Pataki. I know that it's only one percent point, but since 58 percent of voters are willing to pick her over Giuliani, that's a much bigger achievement than the margin of victory.
- Gillibrand's weakness in the general election matchups is what some might consider her strength: Upstate. She loses upstate New York to Giuliani 59 percent to 33 percent and loses to Pataki 48 percent to 39 percent. Isn't it fascinating that Giuliani loses the city he used to be mayor of by 20 percentage points and yet, wins what you might consider "conservative upstate" by 26 points.
- Democrats supporting the Republican in these polls are also interesting. Of the Democrats polled, 29 percent support Giuliani and 26 percent support Pataki. By comparison, only 13 percent of Republicans back Gillibrand in her matchup with Giuliani and 17 percent support her in a race with Pataki. Could those votes be from Democrats who just don't like Gillibrand or aren't informed about Gillibrand? It is very possible. It's also possible that they are voting for the person they know the most about. In this case, it wouldn't be a shock to have that person (or persons) be Giuliani and Pataki.
- Gillibrand has to build her support among women. Women back Giuliani over Gillibrand 47 percent to 41 percent and back Gillibrand over Pataki 43 percent to 40 percent. You would think that support would be a little higher, especially in a race that would pit her against a man. But those numbers are sitting in the low 40s.
We are about 13 months away from the general election. I'm not too worried about this race. I do worry that she has hit a lull after months of increasing poll numbers. What is clear is that if Pataki is her opponent, she will probably beat him. The numbers don't say it now, but she could beat him today. Giuliani is a different story. Of course, it helps to have a national profile. Some people vote not based on qualifications but who they know when asked in these polls. So when they hear Giuliani as opposed to Gillibrand, it doesn't surprise me that they pick Giuliani.
Gillibrand is still working hard. She has clearly made gains in New York City, where hardly anyone likes Giuliani or Pataki. So if she can build up her base and appeal to those in upstate New York, she will be a tough candidate to beat in 2010.
A new Marist poll out today has new numbers on the New York Senate seat: Gillibrand's approval/disapproval, and how she compares to the "last man standing" on the Republican side, former governor George Pataki. From the poll:
26% of the statewide electorate view Gillibrand as doing an excellent or good job in office, and 9% believe she is performing poorly. 27% are not sure how to rate her.
If those numbers don't add up to you, you're not alone. Though it's not spelled out in the summary of the poll data, an additional 38% of registered voters tag Gillibrand's performance as simply "fair."
In the last Marist poll, for July, Gillibrand's approval rating was 24%, disapproval 13%, and 33% unsure. The high levels of "unsure" and "fair" ratings in the poll appear to indicate that a large chunk of New Yorkers still don't know their new Senator well enough to make a decision.
Meanwhile, a still very hypothetical showdown between Gillibrand and Pataki next year shows Pataki taking 48% to Gillibrand's 44, a slight swing from the Gillibrand 46, Pataki 44 numbers from July. The bump for Pataki comes as a greater number of independents and Republicans align themselves with Pataki.
As always, poll numbers are subject to variables, the biggest in this case being name recognition. When only a third of New Yorkers are familiar enough with Gillibrand to feel strongly about the job she's doing, performance versus a universally known figure like Pataki will suffer. If you don't think year-plus polls are largely a measure of name recognition rather than election results, ask President Hillary Clinton.
A new Marist poll on Senator Gillibrand's approval numbers suggests that she's gaining ground in statewide recognition, though head to head election polling is still a dead heat.
The poll groups respondents into those who have a generally positive opinion of the Senator's job performance, those who have a generally negative opinion, and those who have no opinion or won't say. The latter number declined by 10%, while both the positive and negative views went up.
May
Now
Good or excellent
19%
24%
Below average
10%
13%
Don't know
43%
33%
With 33% of the public still unwilling to commit to an opinion, it's still early, but at the current rate within a few months the Senator may make significant gains in statewide name recognition.
Marist also polled the Senate primaries: a statistical tie between Gillibrand and Maloney, and Pataki beating Peter King by about 15 points.
Polling was done on the general election assuming Gillibrand as the Democratic nominee, bearing out the idea that a moderate and substantially less insane Republican like Pataki would be a stronger general election opponent than King.
A word about election polling a year to a year and a half out: nobody cares but us. Not that that influences the science, but it does influence the public attitude. Ultimately, polls conducted right now are going to be just a measure of name recognition, and thus fairly meaningless once the campaign heats up and people are paying attention.
If polls 18 months out were accurate, Hillary Clinton would have been challenging Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race.
There has been a lot of talk, and some action, regarding attempts to unseat Senator Gillibrand. Several people, on both sides of the political aisle, have been mentioned as possible contenders, and a couple of them have gone so far as to form exploratory committees.
They all have one serious problem -- Kirsten Gillibrand is an extremely bright, politically savvy person who can raise an enormous amount of money. She comes from a politically active family, and has shown the rare ability to rise above her early indoctrination (her father was a Republican lobbyist, and her first political job was as an intern for Al D'Amato).
Since becoming a Senator, her views on guns and gays have "evolved," to use the popular buzz word. She has spoken publicly in support of universal healthcare coverage, including a public option. These positions will win her downstate votes. They may cost her something upstate, but not much.
The main reason for assuming continued strength upstate is that none of her potential challengers comes from anywhere farther north than Peekskill, and all but one of them hail from NYC or Long Island. Senator Gillibrand is positioning herself brilliantly, both on issues and geographically.
In a primary, she will win upstate handily, and between her evolution on issues and the support of Senator Schumer she will gain plenty of downstate votes to win. In a general election she will do even better, earning a lot of upstate Republican votes as well as virtually every Democratic vote in the state (can you see a Democrat voting for George Pataki or Peter King?).
Even Rep. Israel would have been at a serious disadvantage. For every upstate vote he gets, he loses two or three from NYC. If he tries to focus on NYC/Long Island, he loses by such an enormous margin upstate that there is no way he makes up for it.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been in office for a little more than three months, and it's no surprise that the former Representative from NY-20 is not that well-known statewide, yet.
That's one obvious conclusion to draw from the latest Marist College poll, which absurdly shows that Gillibrand would lose against former Gov. George Pataki.
Statewide, Pataki is better-known, and much more disliked, even among Republicans.
Gillibrand is less-known, but generally well-liked, especially by those who've seen her.
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo may well have hit the mother lode in his investigation of endemic corruption in the state pension funds.
The AG yesterday brought felony charges against a veteran political kingmaker, accusing him of a "pay-to-play" scheme that essentially bought an Assembly seat for felonious ex-Comptroller Alan Hevesi's son, Andrew.
According to Cuomo, Hevesi's office arranged for Raymond Harding -- onetime chair of the now-defunct Liberal Party -- to collect $800,000 in illegal fees as part of a sham pension-fund transaction in return for political fixes favoring both Hevesi and his son.
The scheme -- in which Democratic Assemblyman Michael Cohen got a six-figure private-sector job with Harding's help, and gave up his seat in 2005 to make room for the younger Hevesi -- also involved two senior aides to then-Gov. George Pataki, a Republican.
The Post's Fredric U. Dicker and Brendan Scott report the indictment's unnamed figures include Hevesi, his then-chief of staff, Jack Chartier, and Adam Barsky, a deputy chief of staff to Pataki.
In other words, the state's constitutionally designated fiscal watchdog -- the comptroller -- was in cahoots with the office of the same official -- the governor -- he was supposed to be watching.
This story just keeps getting worse.
Note: I'm on the road today. Light to no posting from me. Others should feel free to post away.
If you are looking for a story that perfectly encapsulates much of what is very, very wrong with the way our state government works (or doesn't, as the case may be) this is it. Its got everything. Patronage jobs, no work jobs, crazy high salaries for the well connected, punished whistleblowers, fraud, investigations and folks named Sweeney. Read it and weep.
Inspector General Joseph Fisch has ordered an independent investigation of the State Insurance Fund in the wake of a slew of allegations of mismanagement, abuse and waste at the agency, which is being described by a whistle-blower as a landing spot for political patronage appointees.
Fisch said Tuesday he called for the probe of "the Hinton case" to respond to a sworn statement he received from Edward Obertubbesing, an insurance fund lawyer who once managed Randall Hinton, the fund's director of investigation. Hinton was featured in a Times Union story last month in which Obertubbesing confirmed that Hinton has been given almost nothing to do for most of the past decade.
Hinton said he listens to music and watches traffic outside his window while being paid almost $94,000 a year. Hinton says he's being retaliated against by Republicans controlling the fund.
"We are conducting a full investigation of the allegations relating to the State Insurance Fund," Fisch said in an interview. He said he is also monitoring a Human Rights Division complaint Hinton filed last month alleging he is being discriminated against for having sued the state during the administration of Gov. George Pataki. He is an American Indian. As part of a settlement of his suit years ago, Hinton was guaranteed a job as director of investigations at the fund. He alleges he got the post, but no responsibilities that comport with the job, and Obertubbesing said Hinton was blackballed and intentionally deprived of meaningful work by the top brass of the fund, who are serving in long-term appointments made by Pataki.
...
Allegations by Obertubbesing, which were also sent to the Insurance Fund's chairman, the Attorney General's Office, the Office of the State Comptroller and the Civil Service commissioner, include the fund's practice of hiring people at the behest of Republican leaders such as Pataki or former Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, giving them work that does not match up with Civil Service titles and relatively high salaries. The situation, Obertubbesing said, harmed morale among civil servants who had to pass tests for their posts and in many cases had to train the higher-paid appointees. Such long-serving employees, he said, were denied opportunities for advancement and better pay while the fund's management violated labor agreements and state regulations.
A look at the fund's payroll shows several people formerly working for Pataki in the executive branch received posts around the time of his departure from office at the end of 2006. Others got high-wage jobs well before Pataki's last term. For instance, Elizabeth Sweeney, the first wife of Pataki's first labor commissioner, former Rep. John Sweeney, was hired in 1998 as a secretary. She retains that title and is paid the same pay as Hinton, $93,803. She and the former congressman did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment.
That's some prime Albany dysfunction they got there.
The New York Times reports that former New York Governor George Pataki spent over $1 million in PAC contributions on Broadway tickets, paying staff members throughout 2007 and for expensive gatherings at the Yale Club.
Mr. Pataki also used money from the PACs to treat seven former governors and their spouses to dinner and a Broadway show in November, according to a spokesman.
In addition, the records show that after Mr. Pataki decided not to proceed with a presidential bid, his PACs paid nearly $165,000 for travel and meeting expenses. Despite the legal requirement that such expenses be itemized on campaign finance reports, his campaign did not disclose where the money was spent. And in the final nine months of 2007, more than $350,000 from the PACs was paid to former Pataki administration staff members, longtime political advisers and two people who joined Mr. Pataki's consulting firm last year.
Mr. Pataki used PAC money to maintain two offices during 2007 - one in Peekskill, near his home, and another in Manhattan that he rented for a time from a company owned by Cathy Blaney, a longtime adviser and fund-raiser, who also received $60,500 in consulting fees in the final nine months of 2007.
Bill Mahoney, an analyst at the New York Public Interest Research Group, questioned whether there was a legitimate campaign purpose for Mr. Pataki's spending.
"The former governor is spending more than many active candidates for office, although it's been clear for quite some time he doesn't have any political plans for the immediate future," Mr. Mahoney said. "It looks like these committees primarily reward loyalists who have stood by him for years."
But why isn't this a huge problem for Pataki?
PACs organized under state laws in Virginia have long been attractive to politicians because there are no limits on contributions and, while it is illegal to use PAC money for personal use, the state has a light regulatory touch in terms of spending.
That's right. These PACs in question were all created in Virginia, meaning Pataki might receive a slap on the wrist for this. I wouldn't be surprised if he received no punishment for this though.
Thanks to Virginia's laws, you could justify any expense as a campaign expense. If you take some friends to Broadway, you could say that it was a campaign meet-and-greet or something of that nature. In Virginia, these laws are very vague.
Is the head of Darren Dopp enough for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno? Apparently not. After it was announced that in the wake of Troopergate Dopp is leaving his position as communications director for Gov. Eliot Spitzer to take a position with a lobbying firm, Bruno said, "The Senate is going to get to the truth ... of alleged abuse of power by the highest office in this state."
While Bruno was fomenting on, did anyone else find irony in the disclosure that Gov. George E. Pataki was also tracking Bruno's travels since 2004? What was different then is that the record of his proclivity for using transport on our tax dollars to attend fundraisers remained classified. Spitzer's team instead appears to have eagerly drawn media attention to it.
...
While we're at it, where is Bruno's outrage over the recording of his travels by the Pataki administration? Why would only Spitzer's alleged tracking matter? So much for a thorough investigation.
In the spirit of open government that this administration was aiming for before it was derailed by a helicopter, shouldn't the records of official transport of the governor, Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver all be disclosed?
Former Governor and current sexiest man alive George Pataki was drafted in the 11th round by the Bush administration yesterday. He's expected to be a third string back up to UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the upcoming season. Barring serious injury to beloved veteran "Zee-Kay", the 62 year old from Peekskill isn't expected to start anytime soon, nor is he seen as the team's Ambassador of the future, though he may get some minutes during trash time and plenty of time with the practice squad.
Former Gov. George Pataki, who nosed around running for President and angled for a cabinet post that never came, finally got a job with the Bush administration yesterday.
The White House named Pataki and a couple of other retired pols with time on their hands to ceremonial posts as representatives to the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, which convenes later this month. Pataki's main task will be to sit behind the sign saying "United States" and listen to speeches when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad can't be bothered.
The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal and is als an issue of great importance to New York State.
Citizens across the political spectrum are preoccupied by numerous high stakes issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption, corporatist greed, genocide, global warming and healthcare to name a few. There is also the ongoing rule of an administration subverting the Constitution and undermining our democracy. As a result, some topics of importance have dropped off our radar screens. One subject meriting renewed scrutiny is the prison industrial complex.
The prison industrial complex are entities or organizations that have a stake in construction of correctional facilities, such as prison guard unions, construction companies and vendors specializing in surveillance technology. Just as sectors in the military industrial complex are more concerned with profit than national security, players inside the prison industrial complex are more concerned about making money than actually rehabilitating criminals or reducing crime rates.
Note: This is largely a repost from yesterday. It got lost in the special election shuffle and with all the talk about potential party switchers in the wake of Joe Bruno's party crushing defeat on Long Island, I think this is worth bringing up again.
Former state Senator Seymour P. Lachman has written a book about his experiences in New York state government called Three Men in a Room: The Inside Story of Power and Betrayal in an American Statehouse that we will be discussing with him next Monday for the first edition of Book Club. We spoke with Senator Lachman a couple of weeks ago and will be posting clips of our interview all week.
In this clip Senator Lachman describes a meeting in Joe Bruno's office and a phone call from George Pataki. The governor offers him loads of member item dollars and "the best district in the city. You'll never be challenged."
I think it can be useful to hear from someone who has actually been approached by the other side as we contemplate the possibility that something similar may be happening right now.
I'm off to Penn Station for a hot date with the LIRR, but I thought I'd leave you with something interesting to look at. Former state Senator Seymour P. Lachman has written a book about his experiences in New York state government called Three Men in a Room: The Inside Story of Power and Betrayal in an American Statehouse that we will be discussing with him next Monday for the first edition of Book Club. We spoke with Senator Lachman a couple of weeks ago and will be posting clips of our interview all week.
In this clip Senator Lachman describes a meeting in Joe Bruno's office and a phone call from George Pataki. The governor offers him loads of member item dollars and "the best district in the city. you'll never be challenged."
I think it can be useful to hear from someone who has actually been approached by the other side as we contemplate the possibility that something similar may be happening right now.
Now, I'm off to Nassau County. Keep an eye on this space for updates, alerts and results all day long...
The outcome of this race, which officials say could cost more than $4
million, making it the most expensive of its kind in New York history, could
determine the future of both Bruno and the shrinking Republican Senate
majority -- the last bastion of GOP power in the state.
But it is also a test of Spitzer's newfound political clout.
...
This is very simply a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the reform agenda I
laid out in the State of the State on Jan. 3," Spitzer said last week. "If
you support that agenda, you must vote for Craig Johnson."
Beyond endorsing Johnson, Spitzer is appearing on campaign mailers and will
be in a TV ad with Johnson made by Jimmy Siegel, the creative force behind
Spitzer's own TV spots during the governor's race. Spitzer will headline a
Jan. 18 fundraiser for Johnson, too.
The two most feared corruption-busters at the scandal-scarred Capitol huddled yesterday at a private lunch meeting that's sure to send shivers throughout state government, The Post has learned.
Albany County District Attorney David Soares, a Democrat, and state Lobbying Commission executive director David Grandeau, a Republican, met at an Albany-area restaurant to see how their offices can work more closely together to crack down on corruption.
Junk gerrymandering. Legislative district lines should be drawn, as they are in many other states, by nonpartisan panels. Now the process is controlled by political leaders, who conjure up bizarrely shaped districts - which often divide communities - to create "safe" districts packed with their party's voters. Their goal is consolidating their power and controlling individual lawmakers. Spitzer should seek to increase electoral competition and voter choice.
Publicly finance state races. Spitzer has voluntarily limited how much and from whom he will accept campaign funds. Although his standards are far more restrictive than the state's, they still are obscene. Any individuals or organizations that can contribute $10,000, Spitzer's self-imposed limit, want something for their money. And the appearance of "pay to play" is corrosive. Members of Congress can only collect $2,100 per person per contest, and that's still too high to restore public confidence. Taxpayers fund many causes. What could be a better one than limiting the influence of money on campaigns by publicly financing them, assuring that candidates aren't beholden to political cash cows?
Go on a reduced pork diet. Legislative grants, known in Albany as member items, must be scaled back and the process for awarding them to local groups must be carefully scrutinized. Although the grants often serve useful purposes, they are awarded based on political influence. Majority party lawmakers get far more to dole out than minority, even though they are elected often by voters of both parties and in similar sized districts. Legislative leaders decide which lawmakers to reward. In turn, the legislators pick the groups they want to help - and often, be helped by - in their re-election bids. Spitzer should set a tone by refusing his share of this political slush fund.
