Opinion

Fake fix for NY pols

New Yorkers should be outraged by the latest examples of city and state politicians being accused of bribery.

Having been a member of the Legislature for 16 years, I’ve always felt that the great majority of elected officials were honest. Yet the last few years have seen a litany of elected officials committing crimes. Why have so many viewed their offices as an opportunity for enrichment instead of promoting the public interest?

Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money was. Elected officials using their positions for personal enrichment aren’t much different. By spending billions each year and regulating virtually every aspect of economic life, city, state and federal governments offer an enticing opportunity for those bent on lining their pockets. Powerful interests, be they business or labor, will seek to influence how government spends taxpayer money or regulates economic activity.

Yet the ultimate safeguard against thieves and rogues in public office is not necessarily a new set of laws, but an alert and informed citizenry.

The instant reaction of self-styled reformers is to promote public financing of elections. We should see that for what it really is: an effort to promote an ideological agenda having little or nothing to do with current or past scandals. Using taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns — with a $6 match for each dollar raised — is not an answer to corruption.

First, public financing of state elections would be costly — perhaps $100 million or more. Given the perilous state of finances in Albany, this is a nonstarter.

Second, advocates say that public financing will greatly lessen the influence of corporate special interests. Yet the most effective special-interest spenders in our state are public employee unions, which seek to continue unaffordable union work rules, pensions and health benefits.

If reformers were truly serious about curbing special-interest influence, they’d propose greatly limiting the influence of corporate and union spending on politics. They won’t — and here the New York City experience is illustrative: The City Council has actually rigged the public-financing rules to specifically exempt unions from spending limits that apply to everyone else.

Third, there is no evidence that numerous campaign-finance “reforms” enacted since Watergate have lessened the role of money in the system. Indeed, every single effort to circumscribe the influence of money in politics has failed over the past 35 years. Today, more money is spent to influence elections at every level than ever before.

Lastly, candidates have time and again gamed the city’s system by promoting “phantom” opposing candidates in order to open the public-financing taps. A 2011 study by a nonpartisan think tank, The Center for Competitive Politics, found that no fewer than 24 different New York City candidates who took public campaign financing dollars have been investigated in recent years for the misuse of public funds.

Moreover, where is the evidence that public financing has produced a higher quality of candidate? The advocates are quite silent on this point.

This is not to say that some changes shouldn’t be made in Albany. The state Board of Elections needs significant technology upgrades to handle campaign filings. Improving the campaign reporting system would also free up resources to increase monitoring of campaign spending, which often goes for questionable purposes.

And term limits for legislative leaders (the state Senate already has them) and statewide elected officials would open up the system by encouraging able individuals to run for office knowing leadership opportunities would routinely become available.

The Legislature should also greatly reduce the number of committees and lower the number of committees on which each member serves. Committee posts are often used as a means of compensating legislators more; better to abolish the extra committee stipends and just pay the cash as part of legislator salaries. Having fewer committee assignments would help facilitate more legislative oversight — now virtually nonexistent — and allow members to develop genuine expertise in subject matter areas.

Ultimately, honest government depends on citizens holding elected officials accountable for their actions. But, large, expansive governments regulating virtually every aspect of economic activity will always be tempting to the unethical or for special interests seeking competitive advantage.

It’s an old story which we’ve seen many times before in New York state. If you can’t figure it out, just follow the money.

John J. Faso was minority leader of the state Assembly and Republican candidate for governor of New York in 2006.