Good news: The deal Gov. Spitzer struck with legislative leaders on campaign-finance “reform” doesn’t really reform very much at all. Bad news: The deal’s not completely benign.
Why is it good that little got done?
Because Spitzer’s “reform” was meant to limit voter participation in politics, a right fundamental in a democracy – deriving in large part from the very first of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Had Spitzer managed to strike a deal on any serious rollback of that right, democracy in New York would have suffered materially.
Fortunately, he didn’t.
Not that Spitzer won’t soon be bragging incessantly about the “important reform” he pushed through, and how it will do much to “fix Albany” – assuming lawmakers pass the measures he outlined Thursday.
But judge him by his own goals (however misguided they are); he still fails:
* The bill does nothing to restrict donations from political action committees, which are used by some of the biggest players in Albany – public-sector unions, for example, and trial lawyers.
* Most of the limited liability corporations (LLCs) that Spitzer railed about are barely touched in the bill. Those that are hit – the so-called “sham” LLCs (paper firms formed for the sole purpose of contributing money) are but a small fraction of those that donate to campaigns.
Legitimate LLCs – such as those run by Spitzer’s pals in the real-estate community – get a free pass.
* The bill lowers limits on individual donations to candidates, but political parties can rake in as much as $300,000 from donors.
Restrictions on donations wind up giving added advantages to wealthy, self-funded candidates – even when, as with this bill, the law allows greater donation limits when a self-funded candidate is in the race.
Thus if, say, a billionaire mayor from the city decides to run for governor in a few years, his less well-off would-be opponents will have a harder time raising funds to compete against him.
The legislation also bans contributions from registered lobbyists – a restriction that may well be unconstitutional.
So where’s the “reform” for which Spitzer fought so hard – and, at times, in such an ugly manner?
On the upside, the bill requires greater disclosure, particularly when it comes to “bundling” – that is, donating a stack of checks from various other donors. (Spitzer himself is famous for encouraging the practice among his own campaign supporters.)
But in the main, the little that is accomplished in the bill does New Yorkers no favors.
We’ve argued for some time now that Spitzer has failed to deliver on the big promises he made during his campaign – to eliminate corruption and dysfunction and cynicism in Albany.
His campaign-finance “reform” seems like yet another exercise in cynicism: The governor took the gloves off and held up everything else for . . . what, exactly?
When the best news is that little will change with the passage of a “major reform,” New Yorkers will certainly need to lower their expectations.
If they can get any lower, that is.