....September 14, 11:46 PM
 
 
   
Does Money Influence Government?

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

“Money is the root of all evil.”

The origin of the familiar quotation above can be found in the New Testament: Timothy 6:10. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

“The want of money is the root of all evil” from Samuel Butler’s Erewhon (1872) or Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) “The lack of money is the root of all evil,” have been frequently referred to as the source of the well-known aphorism.

Although not a true believer in the common statement, money is clearly the root of most evil in politics.

We could go on with endless citations of corruption, conflict of interest and buying of influence – legal and illegal – where the best interests of the people were disregarded for the almighty buck. The problem is probably the biggest challenge facing every legislative body today.

Indictments, convictions, resignations, scandals, and blatant bad laws have been the result of a system where big money is used to buy big influence.

On the legal side, honorable men and women have fallen prey to the high cost of running for and keeping office that the fundraising quest has often blurred the higher principles which brought one to public service.

Sadly, this writer has no quick solution. No one seems to have a fix that will legislatively pass the bodies whose members are the beneficiaries of the big buck giveaways.

High paying jobs after public service, employment for friends and family members, contracts for contributors, campaign contributions, trips, dinners, presents and private business referrals continue to plague every level of government.

Campaign contributions are the easiest and usually the most effective monies to be reported and regulated.

New York State leads the list in allowing its public officials to accept huge contributions from corporations, PACs, lobbyists and parties doing business with the state. While the Federal Government has somewhat effectively monitored members’ behavior, they have allowed political party bank accounts to receive and dole out funds which continue to poison the system. New York City, with its progressive campaign finance program instituted within the past decade, is a national leader in dealing with the problem.

On a positive note, New York’s system encourages and enables public scrutiny. In its own analysis, the NYC Campaign Finance Board (CFB) acknowledges that its system of public finance has done little to level the playing field to enable current office holders to receive fair challenges nor does it keep those doing business with the City from influencing the system.

In its recently released report, “Public Dollars for the Public Good: A Report on the 2005 Elections, the CFB details an analysis of contribution and spending patterns, public funds payments to candidates. The Board also continued its investigation into the issue of “pay-to play” releasing the first-ever data analysis of campaign contributions from those who “do business” with the City.

The researcher’s quantitative analysis of campaign donations showed convincing evidence that doing business contributors—as defined by the available data on contractors, lobbyists, and lobbyist clients—play a substantial role in financing campaigns for public office in New York City. This should come as a surprise to no one. And let me remind you that this is in one of the best systems in the nation.

The report’s recommendations are worthy of consideration and we are certain that the City Council will consider them and enact some. But we must remember that the members are enacting regulations that would impede their own access to money.

Their recommendations include: addressing contributions from those “Doing Business” with the City; monitoring contractors and lobbyists; banning all organizational contributors; lowering contribution and spending limits; preventing sure winners from using public matching funds and eliminating exempt expenditures

A vigilant public and press is the best weapon to ensure proper action. However, remember this is the same City Council whose members and Speaker are presently sitting behind closed doors discussing the easiest way for them to overturn the Term Limit Law passed by a referendum of the people of the City.

Also remember that with all the foibles we find with the members and ethics of the City Council, they are a model body when compared to what we have in Albany – a legislature which has forgotten that its responsibility is not to themselves and their re-election but to the people of New York.

Big business, unions, and lobbyists continue to crowd the halls of the Legislature and shower its members with gifts and contributions with the encouragement of Legislative leaders and the acceptance of members.

Perhaps, if elected Governor, Eliot Spitzer will bring the same level of scrutiny to the Legislature as he did to Wall Street. It is doubtful that without his leadership and insistence that the body which has been promising reform and supplying cosmetic changes will take and meaningful action to correct the problem.

Sadly, the evil money has done in Albany, is put the desires of the moneyed special interests ahead of the needs of the people of New York.

--------------------------------------------

Michael Schenkler can be reached at:

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

 
 
The Politics Of Selection Of Supreme Court Judges

Henry Stern
By HENRY STERN

The recent unanimous decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is a blow to the power of political bosses. The case, about how Supreme Court justices are selected, is important. But it also creates a serious problem for the state legislature, which has the opportunity to come up with a new way to select judicial nominees that will pass Constitutional scrutiny.

In New York State, the Supreme Court is not supreme. It is the highest of trial courts, but its judges decision are subject to two levels of appellate review. Primary elections are used to select party nominees to the civil court, while judges of the criminal court and the family court are appointed by the mayor of the City of New York, who uses a judicial screening panel to recommend candidates.

Supreme Court justices, however, have been selected by an odd mechanism called a judicial convention. This institution began in 1846, was superseded by primary elections in 1911, was restored in 1921, and has been the mechanism of choice ever since. The conventions are assemblies of faithful followers of political leaders. Although theoretically elected by the public, they are elected en masse and hardly anyone knows who they are. If there is no primary contest, which is usually the case, no election is needed. These insiders get together at a meeting, usually in a hotel room, where they ratify the choices previously made by party leaders.

This system was ruled unconstitutional in January 2006 by Federal Judge John Gleason, and on August 29, his ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit. The decision will stand unless reversed by the United States Supreme Court, which is considered unlikely.

The New York State Legislature must now find a constitutional way to select judges, replacing the judicial convention. An obvious alternative is direct primary elections, but this method, too, has problems. First is the issue of massive spending by candidates.

Since candidates for the bench are usually relatively unknown to the public before they run, the money they spend will bear heavily on their chances of election. Second is the fact that most voters have no idea who the candidates are or what they have done, and many votes are cast on the basis of ethnicity and gender, since all the voters know are the names which are printed on the ballot. Judicial primaries thus face the twin challenges of excessive influence and public ignorance.

One possible way to pick judges would be for an impartial screening panel to prepare a list of well qualified candidates (not limited by number) and for the new judges to be chosen either by direct election, proportional representation or a lottery. This would reinforce the concept that justice is blind. It also recalls the words of William F. Buckley, Jr., candidate for mayor of New York City in 1965 (he received 341,226 votes), who wrote that he would rather be governed by the first two hundred names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. Although Buckley was a member of the class of 1950 at Yale, his remark would apply equally to the New Haven phone book vis a vis his alma mater.

The architect of the judicial effort is Jeremy Creelan, an alumnus of the Brennan Institute for Justice. He said: “Under the current system, judges are beholden to party leaders and many well-qualified lawyers are never even considered for judgeships because they have no ties to party leaders. Allowing all well-qualified candidates to compete for their party’s nomination will help restore confidence in our courts.”

To the surprise of many politicians, a rotten system has been knocked out by a wholesome judicial intervention. Building a better system of judicial selection will be more difficult to accomplish, particularly if the task devolves on our self-serving boss-ridden legislature. But attention must be paid; progress has been made.

Starquest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.