ALBANY GLACIER INCHES FORWARD;
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION APPROVED

By Henry J. Stern
June 22, 2005

Just when we thought there was little hope for reform in Albany this year, the three men in a room put their heads together and came up with two steps forward, one regular step and one baby step.  Giant steps are yet to come.
 
A new law is said to have been agreed upon which would affect people who lobby  state agencies on behalf of businesses seeking leases or contracts.  They would be required to file reports as to who hired them and how much they are being paid.  A second bill headed for approval would prevent state employees from immunizing themselves from ethical charges by timely resignation or retirement.
 
This represents some progress.  Although many other reform measures have been killed, including restrictions on 'gifts' to legislators, lobbyists will have to disclose the fees they receive for attempting to influence state agencies.  As you might imagine, the bill does nothing to regulate political contributions by companies seeking state business from the Governor's appointees, or underwriting contracts or other goodies from the State Comptroller.  Substantial gifts to candidates have resulted in relationships that provide mutual benefit to the donor and donee, but not necessarily to the public.
 
Michael Cooper's story of the trilateral accord begins on A1 of today's Times and jumps to B5.  Al Baker, whose extensive and illuminating Times article ran on June 16, and Cooper, whose June 20 piece described the closing window of opportunity for reform, deserve credit, along with their editors, for focusing public attention on the languid legislature.  We linked to both the Cooper and Baker stories as they appeared.  You can read today's account of progress by linking to Cooper.  The headline:  "ACCORD IN ALBANY ON ETHICS RULES; Deal to Disclose Lobbying and Punish Misconduct."  The story is particularly worth reading, when you have the time.  Print it out if you can.
 
The Daily News covers the subject today on p34 with an editorial, 'A RAY OF SUNLIGHT IN ALBANY', which is an accurate measure of the progress that has been made.  The News editorial acutely observes: "But Albany needs more than regulatory reform.  Behavior reform is crucial.  It's up to Pataki, Bruno and Silver to shun the influence peddlers."  The News is right on the need for reform, although the likelihood of significant attitude adjustment on the part of the Big Three is about as remote as Pluto.  But you knew that.
 
In Newsday, Errol A. Cockfield, Jr., Albany bureau chief, writes on pA20, "NEW RULES FOR LOBBYISTS; State Legislature, Pataki reach an agreement on lobbying restrictions related to all state contracts." Cockfield concludes with a note of realism: "But with the legislative session scheduled to end tomorrow, lawmakers said they had been unable to reach consensus on banning lobbyists' gifts or changing rules to prohibit companies from circumventing current campaign finance limits."  There is a simple way to reach agreement on banning lobbyists' gifts to legislators.  Just ban them.
 
The Sun's Mark Johnson writes on p4, 'STATE LAWMAKERS VOTE TO EXTEND LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS'.  Johnson quotes Senator Bruno: "It is very tough, and the objective is openness and reporting any activity that takes place.  If there are violations, it increases penalties substantially."  Johnson also quotes Speaker Silver, who said, "The bill will make billions of taxpayer dollars spent on government contracts subject to more accountability, greater scrutiny and will, in the long run, go a great way to restoring the public's confidence in our state government."
 
That is a wise comment by the Speaker, acknowledging his awareness of a certain - je ne sais quoi - lack of confidence among the public with regard to our state government.  The relevant Park Rule is No. 10: "I wonder why."  

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, also quoted by Johnson, is less sanguine. "There are still myriad ways the system can be subverted," he said, "but most come after the [request for bids] has been issued, and this is an important first step."
 
The two bills we have discussed are apparently on the road to passage, although one can never be certain of the result until they are adopted by the Senate and the Assembly, seasonably  forwarded to the Governor, and signed by him.  A possible consensus among the troika is that these bills will satisfy the reformers and the newspapers, at least for a year.  It will also inform the legislators as to precisely how much the friendly  lobbyists are being paid to influence them, and it will help the solons to assure themselves that the substantial sums that contractors pay to lobbyists are properly expended, rather than being hoarded, or distributed as return on investment to the lobbying firm's shareholders.

Finally, if circumstances compel one to adopt reform, it is better that the reforms primarily affects the business of other people, whether lobbyists or resigning state employees.


THERE ARE LOBBYISTS AT CITY HALL AS WELL.
SOME ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED TO ELECT
THE COUNCILMEMBERS THEY ARE LOBBYING.

Lest we forget that the city has its own lobbying problem, Mike McIntyre brings us up to date with a Times article on B1 and B5 today; "LOBBYIST HAS A DUAL ROLE AT CITY HALL: Working for Nonprofits and Council Members."
 
McIntyre highlights the activities of the Parkside Group, a powerful firm that helps Councilmembers get elected, and then comes to them to ask for city money for other clients.  There is a question as to whether this is an inherent conflict of interest, and whether being a paid campaign functionary gives someone greater influence later when he is wearing his schnorrer's hat on behalf of a nonprofit organization seeking city subsidies or contracts.  The answer to the question is clear as the light of day:  It frequently helps and it certainly never hurts. That is because of a basic principle of human nature expressed by Park Rule 21-O.  "One hand washes the other."
 
There is always the possibility of the more blatant form of influence peddling: doing the campaign work at a lower rate, and making it up later in fees from the nonprofits they represent.  But even if there is no financial quid pro quo, and you are just helping each other out because you are old buddies, that is not what one would call good government.  Is it?
 
The lobbyist quoted in McIntyre's story, Evan Stavisky, was born into politics.  His father, Leonard, was a state assemblyman from Queens, and then a state senator.  When his father passed away, his mother, Toby, was selected to succeed him in the state senate, where she serves today as assistant minority whip, one of those positions that come with the lulus that we described yesterday.  She is an alumna of the Bronx High School of Science, and she sent Evan there thirty years later for a free, first-rate secondary education.

None of that is illegal or immoral, although it may be a bit fattening.  Young people have a right to go into politics, whether as candidates, staffers or lobbyists.  (I wish mine were more interested in city government.)  And inheriting influence is no worse than inheriting money, brains or anything else.  Evan still has to prove himself to his clients by getting favorable outcomes, i.e. money or votes, for his clients.  But if success comes in part because he helped elect the people he is now lobbying, would you call that the result of a level playing field?  Even lobbyists deserve to be protected from unfair competition.
 
Link to Mike McIntyre's article for useful and interesting information about a subject - city lobbying - that has been neglected because of a general preoccupation with state lobbyists, some of whom are far richer and more powerful than their city cousins.  Other firms lobby both City Hall and Albany, not to mention Washington, D.C.  That's where the real money is.


LOBBYIST'S WEB SITE MADE HIS INFLUENCE
TOO EXPLICIT FOR GOVERNOR'S COMFORT.
CLAIMS DEFENDED, BUT MUST BE DELETED.

Newsday today notes another slight uptick for the beleaguered forces of integrity.  In an Associated Press dispatch available on Newsday's website, reports that in a rare criticism of a former insider in response to a reporter's question, Governor Pataki said yesterday that it was wrong for his former chief patronage dispenser to advertise that fact in selling his services as a lobbyist.
 
Thomas Doherty, formerly chief patronage dispenser for the governor, now is a partner in Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying firm.  The firm's website boasted:
 
"As appointments secretary to the governor, Mr. Doherty advised the governor in making all appointments to state departments and agencies, commissions, committees, task forces and boards.  He has located, interviewed an evaluated all candidates for positions appointed by the governor."
 
The Daily News, in an editorial today, cited a Sunday article on p38 by Greg B. Smith, headed "QUITTING AND CASHING IN: Ex-Aides Help Bag the Big Contracts."   The News commented on Doherty's claim (quoted in the paragraph before this one) : "The implication, in case you missed it, is that Doherty is in a position to seek favors from officials he placed in jobs."   That seems to us to be a reasonable inference that one could draw from reading the two sentences describing Doherty's prior position in state government.  
 
The material was supposed to be removed from the Mercury Public Affairs website, according to managing partner Kieran Mahoney, a senior adviser to all three of Governor Pataki's campaigns. As of this writing (June 22 at 4:15 p.m.) it was still on the firm's website.  Link to it here.

This incident should indicate to cynics that there is a limit to the blatant exhibition of political influence which should not be crossed, at least in public. After all, the Governor said Tuesday: "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."  On the other hand, you know how long it takes to remove a line from a website.