The outcome of this race, which officials say could cost more than $4
million, making it the most expensive of its kind in New York history, could
determine the future of both Bruno and the shrinking Republican Senate
majority -- the last bastion of GOP power in the state.

But it is also a test of Spitzer's newfound political clout.

...

This is very simply a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the reform agenda I
laid out in the State of the State on Jan. 3," Spitzer said last week. "If
you support that agenda, you must vote for Craig Johnson."

Beyond endorsing Johnson, Spitzer is appearing on campaign mailers and will
be in a TV ad with Johnson made by Jimmy Siegel, the creative force behind
Spitzer's own TV spots during the governor's race. Spitzer will headline a
Jan. 18 fundraiser for Johnson, too.

Heh. "fully engaged" indeed.

The two most feared corruption-busters at the scandal-scarred Capitol huddled yesterday at a private lunch meeting that's sure to send shivers throughout state government, The Post has learned.

Albany County District Attorney David Soares, a Democrat, and state Lobbying Commission executive director David Grandeau, a Republican, met at an Albany-area restaurant to see how their offices can work more closely together to crack down on corruption.

Oh, to be a fly on that wall....

Junk gerrymandering. Legislative district lines should be drawn, as they are in many other states, by nonpartisan panels. Now the process is controlled by political leaders, who conjure up bizarrely shaped districts - which often divide communities - to create "safe" districts packed with their party's voters. Their goal is consolidating their power and controlling individual lawmakers. Spitzer should seek to increase electoral competition and voter choice.

Publicly finance state races. Spitzer has voluntarily limited how much and from whom he will accept campaign funds. Although his standards are far more restrictive than the state's, they still are obscene. Any individuals or organizations that can contribute $10,000, Spitzer's self-imposed limit, want something for their money. And the appearance of "pay to play" is corrosive. Members of Congress can only collect $2,100 per person per contest, and that's still too high to restore public confidence. Taxpayers fund many causes. What could be a better one than limiting the influence of money on campaigns by publicly financing them, assuring that candidates aren't beholden to political cash cows?

Go on a reduced pork diet. Legislative grants, known in Albany as member items, must be scaled back and the process for awarding them to local groups must be carefully scrutinized. Although the grants often serve useful purposes, they are awarded based on political influence. Majority party lawmakers get far more to dole out than minority, even though they are elected often by voters of both parties and in similar sized districts. Legislative leaders decide which lawmakers to reward. In turn, the legislators pick the groups they want to help - and often, be helped by - in their re-election bids. Spitzer should set a tone by refusing his share of this political slush fund.

Much Pataki-ness on the flip.