| Indeed, the idea that Senate Republicans are ahead of the Ethics Commission in terms of making sure that state aircraft is only used for non-political purposes strains even the loose terms of the “laugh test.” As noted by Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group, the senate bill does not clearly define the word “political.” On its face the issue seems simple. Of course, the problem with this premise is that it is being used in connection with an Albany problem. One thing almost everyone agrees upon is the fact that nothing is “simple” when applied to Albany and almost all things coming out of Albany are “political” by nature. Therefore, instead of injecting the word “political” into the rule it would have been better if the Ethics Commission had simply set out a list of categories/events that warranted the use of state aircraft. For instance, “state aircraft can only be used if the event to be attended is ceremonial (i.e., groundbreakings, etc.), or in furtherance of a public hearing or commission meeting.” That’s it – pure and simple.
Now there will be some – or even many - who argue that this rule is too narrow and there are a myriad of events that would fall outside of its scope while still remaining non-political. Fine, there is a lot of brain power in Albany – at least that’s the rumor – let them get together and come up with a list of acceptable events. After all, it is baffling why this is even an issue worthy of debate.
It seems so clear on its face - if you are doing state business on your trip do state business. If you are doing political work (i.e., fundraising and the like) pay for it out of your campaign account – it is not like elected officials have no campaign funds. If that was the case we might not need so much reform of the campaign finance system. Oh, but what if senator X or assemblyman Y wants to go to city Z for a hearing or some state business related event and then do some political work afterwards? Well, fine, charter a plane – or better still, fly commercial – and submit a reimbursement form for the official business portion of the trip. So, why say “Nice Effort Ethics Commission?” After all they seem to be trying to do something right with this new rule. Well, it’s a nice effort because of their timing. That is, the old “Pataki” rule that allowed executive and legislative branch officials to use state aircraft under the guise of “official business” while also conducting political affairs was so wrong on its face that it is not even funny. Indeed, cleaning up this conflict of interest ridden rule should have been at the top of the Ethics Commission’s to-do list back in January.
Imagine how much more work – on substantive issues of policy and reform – could have been accomplished in the last month and a half had this rule been in place six months ago. Instead, we are left with this on-going PR campaign on the blogs and in the mainstream media about who is the bad guy – Joe Bruno or Eliot Spitzer. The answer to that question is clear. Who is the one representing the entrenched interests and modus operandi of the ways of “Albany culture?” |
