There's an opportunity buried - and I admit it's rather deeply buried at present - in the recent back-and-forth over Malcolm Smith's clearly satirical remarks to lobbyists. That opportunity is a discussion of campaign finance reform. Ironically, that's not a discussion that Dean Skelos and his caucus want to have.

Start out from the premise that our system of campaign finance is a joke. It is. When corporations (and limitless subsidiaries) can contribute to candidates, that should raise red flags in and of itself. When your relatives can give you hundreds of thousands of dollars - witness Mark Green's 2006 campaign - that's a sign that something isn't quite working. When the top donations limit is near the six-figure mark - you can give $94,500 a year to political parties, and an aggregate of $150,000 - you can deduce many things from it, the most glaringly obvious being that such a system gives those who can write checks of that magnitude perhaps larger degrees of influence than they should possess in a healthy democracy.

There are differing approaches to the subject. After his election, for example, former governor Spitzer voluntarily capped donations to his campaign at $10,000. In January, the Brennan Center released a report on the state of discussion. Our own Dan Jacoby, to his great credit, has been banging the drum on Clean Money Clean Elections since, apparently, the dawn of time.

Now, as salient issues go, campaign finance reform isn't top of mind for voters crushed by property taxes, worried about foreclosures, about healthcare costs, their jobs, how to send their kids to college, and any number of other areas where the middle class is confronted with insecurity. But if republicans really want to have a discussion about Smith's attempt at humor, the real issue is that they do not want the present system of paying for elections to change, while the Democrats do.

You can't make this shit up: the Supreme Court just struck down the millionaires amendment as being too restrictive to millionaires trying to wage a campaign for public office.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.

The law allows candidates to receive larger contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The court says by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.

The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.

Davis says the law unfairly rewards his opponents by allowing them to exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis has chosen to dip into his personal funds.

In other news, you now have a constitutional right to own a handgun. Quick, guess what the majority in those decisions looked like.

A couple of dozen groups (including my own group, Democracy for NYC) are cosponsoring this year's "Reform NY Day" on Tuesday, April 29. Buses will be leaving NYC from 6th Ave. & Spring Street, and from Grand Central Terminal, early that morning for Albany, where we'll be meeting with and lobbying various legislators.

We have a solid lineup of topics, and what may prove to be the best training and activity plan of any of these annual events. To sign up for the free trip, go to the Common Cause signup page and click on the "Register Now" link.

See you on the bus,
Dan

This week, a multi-issue agreement was reached in Albany. The agreement covers congestion pricing, campaign finance reform, long-overdue salary increases, and possibly some legislation.

The bad news is that nothing (or almost nothing) was actually accomplished.

The congestion pricing debate will shift from the usual three men in a room – plus one (Mayor Bloomberg) to a 17-member commission. This commission will “study” several alternatives, then report early next year, after which the legislature may or may not act.

Whenever political leaders don’t want to take the heat for an initiative, they generally create a commission; this gives them cover, allowing them to claim that they’re just following the recommendations of the experts, while they hope nobody notices who appointed the members of the commission. (Note: the difference between a “committee” and a “commission” is still a mystery, except that a “committee” is usually created to bury an issue, while a “commission” is supposed to render an “independent judgment” that just happens to coincide with what its creators wanted.)  read more »

The New York City Council is about to pass, by an overwhelming margin, a “campaign finance reform” bill. On the day it passes, several elected officials will undoubtedly hold a press conference in order to pat themselves on the back. They’ll claim the did these great things, closing loopholes, leveling the playing field, and reducing the influence of big money on elections.

Unfortunately, they will have done nothing of the sort.

While the bill makes a pretense of keeping people who have big contracts with the city government from making large campaign contributions, their friends, relatives – and their subcontractors – are not limited. Big contractors, big developers, and other big money interests will still be able to bundle large donations. They will continue to have the same undue influence they always had. Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent.  read more »