Since 1988, New York City has had a system of public financing of municipal elections. Originally a 1:1 match, the city's share was increased in 1998 to 4:1, and now Council Speaker Gifford Miller wants to make it 8:1. In 2001, the existing system of public financing gave over $42,000,000 in matching funds to candidates for local office.
 
To help provide the private match that triggers a far larger city contribution, Speaker Miller solicits funds from employees and officers of non-profit cultural and community organizations which receive funding from the City of New York. The Mayor prepares the budget, and the Council tinkers with it, adding funds for individual members' projects and increasing support for major institutions. This is a time-honored ritual. Whatever the Mayor gave, the Council would add to, in order to demonstrate its interest in culture and in people of that world. Therefore, every year, the Mayor puts less in the budget than he otherwise might.
 
What Miller has done is:

1) allocated public funds to institutions, generally meritorious ones,

2) sought and received private contributions from people associated with those institutions, and

3) used the money collected this way to qualify for additional taxpayer funding from the Campaign Finance Board.

So his campaign is not only heavily subsidized, but part of the private match is collected from people who benefit from his allocation of public funds in his capacity as Speaker.
 
Two questions arise: Is this legal? Is it fair? Yes, it is legal. Fairness is a more complex issue.  The first line of defense by a public official is that "everybody does it." There is some validity in that defense. The spectacle of lobbyists from industries and unions lining up to pay obeisance and make their gifts to legislators is not pretty. It is part of the incumbent protection program which makes Albany a failure.

The State Legislature is in the thrall of special interests, and has been for some years. The captivity is totally bi-partisan; Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats share seats on the same gravy train. City Councilmembers are far less favored by special interests because they exercise so little authority, and because many of their decisions are, in fact, made by the Speaker. When he is over-ruled, which is always in private, he maintains the appearance of authority by yielding gracefully to radicals who are much less responsible than he tries to appear to his donors.

In the last two years, Speaker Miller has improved the Council staff. He has been modest with regard to his own personal stipend, although he has not waived it as Councilmembers Tony Avella and Eve Moskowitz say they have. He is earnest, industrious, and devoted to his desire to be Mayor, which he believes will serve the interests of the people New York.

He has had some success in taming the Council, but the invitation to dictator and murderer Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to be honored in the Council chamber sends a painful message of principle losing to expediency. Would he have honored Mussolini or Idi Amin?

To his credit, Speaker Miller does not moonlight for a personal injury law firm, as his Assembly counterpart does. He is not yet a lawyer, having abandoned Fordham Law School for the nonce to pursue his political career. An old chestnut, attributed to Former Governor Al Smith, is that the value of a law degree is that a lawyer can take a bribe and call it a fee, whereas a layman would find it hard to explain substantial bank deposits.

We have not discussed other potentially mercenary political transactions well described in today's Sun editorial. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof (Matthew 6:34).
 
To those who say, why pick on Giff, one can answer: why does he put the touch on cultural employees, some of whom are far from rich. And what is the point of a young, attractive face with an intense work ethic, when the politics practiced in endorsing candidates, soliciting funds, bestowing lulus, and shaping legislation are as old as William Marcy Tweed?