NYCivic

Should a Candidate Solicit

Beneficiaries of His Power?

Henry J. Stern

January 27, 2004

The news story and chart, appearing in today's New York Sun, report that Council Speaker Gifford Miller has received 80 contributions, totalling $48,005, from leaders of cultural and community organizations that receive City Council funding. That should come as no surprise. Indeed, the sum is likely to increase substantially as the Mayoral campaign heats up over the next two years.

These gifts are examples of the timeless proverb, "One hand washes the other," which we codify as Rule 21-O. It was originally explained to me by the late Mary Perot Nichols, a lifelong reformer who was city editor of the early Village Voice, and later headed station WNYC in the Koch Administration.

The quid pro quo that characterizes the Speaker's fundraising also appears in his allocation of Council chairmanships. An editorial in today's Daily News discusses the issue. Forty-two of the 51 Councilmembers chair committees or subcommittees. Among those excluded is the member with the most accomplishments in government, former New York State Attorney General Oliver Koppell, a Harvard College and Law School alumnus, cum laude, who practiced law at Cravath, Swaine and Moore, and was elected to the New York State Assembly just two days before the Speaker's first birthday. (This is not a joke, Koppell was elected on November 3, 1970 and Miller was born on November 5, 1969.) The Riverdale Democrat became a backbencher because he had the temerity to oppose Bronx strongman Roberto Ramirez, who collaborated with Queens' kingpin Tom Manton to install Miller (Princeton '93) as speaker in January 2002.

When Miller announced his support for front-runner Howard Dean for President, on December 8, 2003, six weeks before the Iowa debacle, he brought along twenty compliant Councilmembers, some of whom are now searching for the ropes so they can scurry off the Vermonter's sinking ship, which has taken on some water since the unfortunate "I Have a Scream" concession speech on January 20. Of course, like the South, he may rise again.

Too much has been made of Dean's emotional remarks, but it was the tears of Maine Senator Edmund M. Muskie in 1972 after a New Hampshire newspaper attacked him that caused the meltdown of his Presidential candidacy. Muskie was the Joe Lieberman of his day, he had been Hubert Humphrey's running mate in 1968. The senator ended up in May 1980 as Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State after Cyrus Vance resigned because he was not informed of the mission to rescue the Iraq hostages.

In 1972, the Democrats went on to nominate Senator George McGovern (now supporting Wesley Clark), who chose as his running mate Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri. Eagleton withdrew after news of his electroshock treatments for depression became public. He was replaced by Sargent Shriver, who had headed the Peace Corps under his brother in law, President Kennedy. Shriver, a name partner in a major law firm, recently resurfaced as father-in-law of California's new Governor, whose name you all should know. In 1972, McGovern carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Miller, who is somewhat less interesting than these historic figures, apparently demanded financial support for Dean from the Councilmembers who served as backdrops for his foray into Presidential politics. Those who delayed sending in their checks are financially fortunate, but they may have incurred the Speaker's displeasure.

All of this, although it is engrossing to people interested in public affairs, those of you who grew up after the events described above as well as those whose view of these happenings is nostalgic, does not go to the merits on the issue of whether the Speaker's conduct is unlawful, immoral, or just good old politics. He does have a greater need for financial assistance than Mayor Bloomberg, but that might not justify his exacting substantial contributions from beneficiaries of public largesse. This is really a more difficult ethical issue than it first appears, and no one should rush to judgment until, at least, tomorrow, when I hope to write further on it. Please go back to your work or play.