Close, But No Cigar

My State Senator, David Valesky (D-53rd district) introduced some legislation earlier this week, geared towards cleaning up some of the ethical mess we're in with our elected officials.  Valesky noted in his press release that

The recent scandals in Albany provide us with an opportunity to examine the way business is done, and to rebuild the public’s trust in their government. Building a firewall between political work and public service makes good sense—we can and should avoid this kind of conflict of interest.

I think he's taking a step in the right direction, but the bills don't go far enough. Here's one example, S.5009.  This bill "prohibits certain lobbyists from engaging in political consulting for state public officials or candidates for office, and prohibits political consultants or anyone they're affiliated with from lobbying state officers; requires election financial disclosure statements to include a listing of all political consulting services provided to a campaign" according to its description.  

However, I think it can be improved, with courage. In all of the sections below, I have marked with a strikethrough the parts that I think should come out of the bill.  The capital letters are the changes suggested by Valesky.

Here's a for-instance, in a section regarding gifts to public officials, their spouses, or their unemancipated children.  

S1-m. Prohibition of gifts AND POLITICAL CONSULTING. A) No individual or entity required to be listed on a statement of registration pursuant to this article shall offer or give a gift to any public official as defined within this article. unless under the circumstances it is not reasonable to infer that the gift was intended to influence such public official. No individual or entity required to be listed on a statement of registration pursuant to this article shall offer or give a gift to the spouse or unemancipated child of any public official as defined within this article. under circumstances where it is reasonable to infer that the gift was intended to influence such public official.

No spouse or unemancipated child of an individual required to be listed on a statement of registration pursuant to this article shall offer or give a gift to a public official. under circumstances where it is reasonable to infer that the gift was intended to influence such public official. This section shall not apply to gifts to officers, members or directors of boards, commissions, councils, public authorities or public benefit corporations who receive no compensation or are compensated on a per diem basis, unless the person listed on the statement of registration appears or has matters pending before the board, commission or council on which the recipient sits.

As far as I am concerned, there is no reason for a politician to accept a gift of any kind from a lobbyist or political consultant, for any reason. Period. And when the laws are written as convoluted as the sections above, they are ripe for abuse.  And don't you love the part that says you can offer a gift to a person who's not paid or only gets a measly per diem? Because certainly they're not ripe for unethical picking, right?  Come on!

Or look at this section, which apparently would only prevent crossover of lobbying and political consulting at the state level, but continue to allow it at the municipal level. If this kind of crossover is bad at the state level, why would they assume it would be OK at any other level?

 

(B) NO PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT IS ENGAGED IN LOBBYING OR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES SHALL ENGAGE IN POLITICAL CONSULTING FOR ANY STATE PUBLIC OFFICIAL, CANDIDATE OR  PROSPECTIVE  CANDIDATE  FOR  AN  ELECTED STATE OFFICE. PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT IS ENGAGED SOLELY IN THE LOBBYING OF OR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO MUNICIPAL AGENCIES, LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND MUNICIPAL  PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND DOES NOT ENGAGE IN THE LOBBYING OF OR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO STATE AGENCIES AND STATE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, MAY ENGAGE IN SUCH POLITICAL CONSULTING FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

Here's another section where there's some fudging allowed under the legislation, which again seems unnecessary. I don't know what's in subdivision (B) but there should be no affiliation between a political consultant and the candidate or prospective candidate: 

(C)NO PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT IS ENGAGED IN POLITICAL CONSULTING FOR ANY STATE PUBLIC OFFICIAL, CANDIDATE OR PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATE FOR AN ELECTED STATE OFFICE SHALL BE EMPLOYED BY, BE AFFILIATED WITH OR BE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN LOBBYING OR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY SUBDIVISION (B) OF THIS SECTION.

And last, there are a couple places in the proposed legislation referencing a class A misdemeanor, which I think should be a felony.  Why? Because if you allow a politician to cheat a little, they'll be tempted to cheat a lot. Period. 

1. The treasurer of every political committee which, or any officer, member or  agent of any such committee who, in connection with any election, receives or expends any money or other valuable thing or incurs any liability to pay money or its equivalent shall file statements sworn, or subscribed and bearing a form notice that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A felony misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law, at the times prescribed by this article setting forth all the receipts, contributions to and the expenditures by and liabilities of the committee, and of its officers, members and agents in its behalf.

If you want my trust, make it harder for bad politicians to violate that trust. Prove to me that you are serious about reforming the law, and get rid of these little word games that are so prevalent in the laws of New York.

And think about it -- if all the sudden a political consultant can no longer be a lobbyist, and vice versa, think of all the growth opportunities these changes will create for new businesses....or employment opportunities for former legislators... the ones that are not being arrested, anyway. 

Two other bills also introduced by Valesky this week will have lesser effect on Albany ethics.  S.2156 will have the Attorney General issue a 'certificate of ethics course completion' to fundraisers, which may help them understand the laws but won't provide any additional penalty if they break them. 

And S.4622 makes it a misdemeanor (again, not a felony) if a person knowing fails to file their required campaign reports within 30 days of the due date - three separate times.  I have to ask, if these folks can't be trusted or relied upon to file their paperwork telling us who their campaign contributors are - on time, every time - why are we trusting them with the business of New York? 

Thanks, Senator Valesky, for trying. But think of your constituents, not yourself or you fellow legislators, and make these law tougher.