Disclosure matters

While you can never be too cynical in Albany, the movement last week by Senate and Assembly leaders on ethics reform, specifically their declared willingness to disclose significant information about legislators' private-sector incomes, is of major importance.

Sure, it may not happen, and even if it did it's not enough. Disclosure is apparently not the top ethics priority of Gov. Paterson (that would be reforming the enforcement structure and resolving his standoff with the Public Integrity Commission); and the (former) state public official with the best ethics record, David Grandeau, has more of a law-enforcement perspective. Goo-goos like Common Cause, while (like Grandeau) favoring disclosure, seem more focused on campaign finance reform (a much less urgent and more problematic subject). The Senate, Assembly and gubernatorial ethics proposals all differ widely, which will make resolution difficult -- which cynics will say is the point. And the Senate and Assembly disclosure proposals are too weak.

Both houses would not require legislators such as lawyers to list their individual private-sector clients, because of supposed privacy concerns. But no client should have the right to make "private" payments to politicians, because the public needs to be able to make a judgment about whether the money could be some kind of payoff meant to influence public policy -- and potential opposition candidates are also entitled to know who paid what.

Nevertheless, last week's movement was the first hairline crack in the carapace of a corrupt system that systematically prevents the public and media from knowing who is directly paying politicians how much money. Opening it up should be the top priority of anyone who wants to make Albany cleaner.

Comments

[Brian]

I beg to differ. I think campaign finance reform is probably more important than disclosure. Though I agree that disclosure may be easier and that it makes sense to do what you can first and then move on to the harder stuff.