A slightly different Take on the Kruger / Boyland Mess

Another year, another couple of New York State pols going down on federal corruption charges.  It's an increasing disgrace and annually brings calls for "tossing all the bums out" and more ethics reform.  I'd like to explore both parts of that annual cry and ask the further question: would any of the proposed reforms do any good? It was obvious to me during my time working in the Assembly that certain legislators played the game for their own self interest or perhaps for a very narrow, influential slice of their constituency.  In my own mind I had placed Senator Karl Kruger among these and it always struck me as strange that his community would return him to office with huge margins, put up weak (if any) opponents and stir up little hullabaloo.  I know where I live there are tons of people who would claw their eyes out to get an Assembly or Senate seat and I can't see why Kruger's turf would be any different.  If we assume that many in Kruger's own community knew that he was self-interested and unprincipled -- if not corrupt -- why was he re-elected so easily?  Some would have us believe that all of the special interest campaign cash is the answer, but so many elected officials get reelected without needing to spend anything that I'm left wondering.  Supposing for a moment that campaign cash isn't the answer (some say that drying up the money would actually be a further advantage to incumbents); that would leave only the inherent advantages of incumbency as the outstanding variable. If true, what can be done about it?    I read the Brennan Center's recommendations and, on the subject of generating more competitive elections, I felt their suggestions were weak.  To break this down further, lets look at the substantive advantages of incumbency: name recognition inherently generated by public appearances and press coverage, the two or three taxpayer-funded annual mailings allowed all state legislators, relationships founded on member item contributions, and the knowledge that more senior elected officials receive more member item funding and staff with which to address community needs.  When you look at the list, one item is not changeable, one (the franking privilege is as old as the republic and the others are rules of the legislature essentially changeable only by the speaker.  Suddenly -- one starts to see the allure of the "term limits" opiate.  But,  term limits are undemocratic and a bad idea for reasons I will explain in a subsequent post.  So we should be pressing to change the rules which gives legislators added powers based on longevity, but does anyone believe this would make the difference in who we elect? I worry that so many of the proposed reforms are simply trying to make up for the fact that voters often don't care about choosing their state legislators and are shockingly ignorant of the process and important issues.  Voters only seem to engage on certain hot-button subjects -- most of which are already off the table in a democratic primary.  Ultimately, I'm saying that unless people are engaged in a different way, we will continue to have a predominance of ... ethically questionable legislators.  How should this engagement done?   I'll get back to you....

On to the movement for reform:  I read carefully the suggestions made by the Brennan Center and the Governor on this subject and mostly liked what I saw: better disclosure of financial information -- good.  Certainly would have helped catch Boyland and Kruguer sooner.  Disclosure is always a good thing, but who is reading the forms and what would be done with the information? Is it left to the press to pursue or what? The second proposal is for a unified ethics commission with the power to oversee the legislature and executive branches of government.  OK, I'm fine with that, but I'd really need to see the mechanics of how it works -- I get nervous when I see an apparatus for destroying legislators created without a clear picture of who controls this new-found power of destruction.  Prosecutorial positions like the Attorney General's Office have an incredible power to wreak havoc on people's lives and I think its appropriate that such positions are elected and that the people working under the A.G. are bound by a well defined ethical code.  We need to know more about this commission and who will populate it before we create something other than what is intended.