Governor Paterson In Full Gear Against Corruption

Paterson vetoes Legislature’s ethics bill, goo-goos unhappy
The Albany Times Union by Rick Karlin - February 2, 2010

Gov. Paterson has vetoed the Legislature’s ethics bill, saying it doesn’t go far enough: “While there are positive aspects of this legislation, it does not go far enough in addressing the corrosive effects of outside influence and internal decay that have caused the people of New York to lose faith and trust in their government,” the governor said in his veto message. First up with a response was the coalition of civics groups that have pushed for the measure, even though some admitted it was imperfect.

Here’s the statement from Citizens Union, League of Women Voters and NYPIRG: Our organizations are deeply disappointed that the governor has vetoed important ethics reform legislation. We wish that the governor has not chosen to be an obstacle to reform, but since he has taken that action we urge the legislature to move swiftly and enact the ethics reform legislation over the objections of the governor.

And from Senate Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson: “For 40 years, special-interests in Albany have prevented reform in state government. Lack of disclosure of business relationships with our lawmakers, the near non-existence of campaign finance enforcement, and millions of special-interest dollars have led us to the brink of fiscal disaster. “The ethics and campaign finance reform legislation passed with nearly unanimous, bipartisan support by both houses of the Legislature changes that. Our bill creates greater disclosure requirements for public officials, strengthens enforcement capabilities to ensure the law is upheld, and increases transparency to tear down Albany’s veil of secrecy. “To average New Yorkers struggling to keep their jobs, feed their families, and pay their bills, ethics reform might not seem that real or important. But the impact of special interest money can be felt at kitchen tables across the state. Corruption costs money. Inaction is unacceptable, and change delayed is change denied.

And here’s a rundown from the civics groups on what the bill would have accomplished:

Critical changes to executive branch ethics

Unlike previous executive branch ethics agencies, the legislation proposes that no one elected official chooses a majority of the appointments to the commission. The legislation grants to the commission the crucial power to randomly review ethics filings to ensure honesty and accuracy.

Critical changes to lobbying oversight

All state and municipal lobbyists and their clients must report business relationships with state public officials. Expands the definition of lobbying to include lobbying for resolutions. Critical changes to legislative branch ethics. The most important change is that the legislation creates an office of legislative ethics investigation. This new entity would have a board that contains no lawmakers and no lobbyists, among other restrictions. In addition, the new office has the powers necessary to fully investigate complaints.

Critical changes to campaign finance enforcement

As proposed in the legislation, the State Board of Elections (SBOE) enforcement counsel and special counsel would have four-year terms with removal only for cause. The enforcement counsel would have power to initiate investigations. The legislation requires a majority vote of the in order to stop an investigation from going forward. Determination of violation and issuance of penalties would still rest with the Board.

Critical changes to disclosure requirements

Currently, public officials are required to disclose the sources of outside income and the value of that income within ranges established in law. However, those dollar-figure ranges are redacted from public view. Under the legislation those dollar-figure ranges would become public and a new range is added from $250,000 to $1,000,000. Those required to report under the lobbying law would now have to report business relationships they may have with public officials. Such relationships are not currently disclosed. Candidates would be required, for the first time, to file disclosure with the State Board of Elections in a uniform format that would be made available to the public on-line. Expenditures by individuals or groups that are independent of the candidate, and thus were not subject to campaign finance disclosure, would be required to file disclosure that would, for the most part, mirror the disclosure of candidates. Thus, the public will know the names of those who contribute $100 or more to these groups.