Today's news is largely devoted to fresh assaults on the public treasury.

The New York Yankees want an additional $350 million in tax-free bonds to finish Yankee Stadium. $$-HUNGRY YANKEES PLAY GALL Post, 6/12, p1 by Cathy Burke.

The Hunts Point food market wants the city to pay hundreds of millions to expand the market, and threatens to move outside the city if their request is not granted. BRONX PRODUCE CO-OP MAY LEAVE THE CITY Times, 6/12, pB8 by Kirk Semple.

A judge of the State Supreme Court (a trial court) ordered a pay increase for himself and his colleagues despite the fact that the State Constitution specifically provides that the legislature has authority over judicial salaries. A JUSTICE ORDERS A PAY RAISE FOR NEW YORK'S JUDGES Times, 6/12, pB2 by John Eligon. Doesn't this sound like a lawsuit which should be tried outside New York State?

The brownfields program approved in Albany grants subsidies and tax credits to developers of  luxury condos and office towers in Westchester and Manhattan. Everyone supports cleaning up brownfields, but which brownfields will be selected for remediation, and why have certain fields been chosen and not others? (This issue is not discussed in today's papers, but is nonetheless current.)

A bill in Albany threatens charter schools by requiring them to pay higher wages on construction projects, while they receive 30 per cent less per student in public funding. (A NEW ASSAULT ON NY CHARTERS Post, 6/12, p37 by Peter Murphy)

You are invited to submit further examples of legislation or agency rulings which fall under this rubric.  We produced our list after a brief perusal of today's newspapers. We are certain that there are many more examples of actions, proposed and implemented, which increase the wealth of one corporation, or one sector of the economy.  Since the state budget is usually a zero-sum game, riches for one party are likely to come at the expense of the less fortunate, or less well connected, whether competitors or the general public.

Increasingly, the issues which come before legislatures are less about public policy (capital punishment, abortion, gay marriage) and more about which group will receive what subsidies at whose expense.  It can be described as money-grubbing by people and businesses who seek favored treatment by state and city government, or who seek to safeguard their interests from others whose favored treatment may have a negative impact on their balance sheets.  Of course, all the parties believe they are only seeking their just desserts, or protecting themselves from predators. 

Many business or labor interests believe that after contributing for years on a regular basis to legislators' campaigns, they are entitled to favored treatment on matters affecting their interests.  Some legislators take the same view, seeing it as less than honorable to take money from people and then deny them what they want.  They have been purchased, or at least rented, and are anxious to deliver value. Using a reverse prism, they are more comfortable staying bought than voting on an issue on the merits.

Businesses and individuals hire lobbyists, not only to persuade the State Legislature to enrich them, but to defend themselves against bills that would enrich their competitors, or place a new burden upon them.  Lobbyists are hired for both offensive and defensive purposes, and some are quite expensive.  However, they are usually flexible, and will represent either side in a matter brought to them. They cannot do both sides, that is called conflict of interest. In that regard, they resemble lawyers, which some are.

When dealing with matters of this sort, with motives so clearly financial, it can be difficult to find threads of principle in what is a commercial transaction. There can easily be a rationale for both sides of the argument, and it comes down to a power struggle. The situation is encountered in the distribution of pork, or members'  items. where it should remembered that one man's pork is another man's bacon, and people are elected in part on their ability to bring home the bacon.  (BTW, cf. one man's meat is another man's poison, with its antithesis, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Take your choice.)

How much senators, assemblymembers and councilmembers receive in terms of favored treatment depends on the power and influence of the legislator who is seeking funds for a project, which may or not be useful or economical (remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska), although that is often not the prime consideration in whether a project advances. The local legislator's clout depends on whether he is in the majority or minority party, his seniority in the body, and particularly his relationship with the Speaker or the Majority Leader, be they alpha males or alpha females.

In order to burnish that relationship with the head of the house, the local senator or assemblymember must comply with the leader's wishes with regard to voting on specific issues in which the leader may have an interest. This enhances the power of the leader and adds to his reputation as the dominant member of his legislative body. In politics as in life, what is reported and believed often becomes what is true.

We know the cautionary words of Rule 28-C: Don't accept cigarettes in prison. However, when the proferred enticements are not merely smokes, but important projects which will benefit your constituents, it is harder to refuse the kindly trusty who makes the offer you may not be able to refuse. The consideration for this transaction is your vote: payable on demand. It could be worse.

We learned the mantra in our nine years on the City Council, (1974-83), where the watchwords for receiving beneficences, be they chairmanships, lulus, appointments, contracts, member items or the passage of legislation were "seniority, geography and loyalty."  In many portions of both the public and private sectors,  the noblest of these three qualities is loyalty.   This may remind you, in form only, of the passage from Corinthians 13:13: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." 

Judgments on public issues involving millions of dollars should not be made on the basis of political convenience or obligations to contributors. Many fine reformers concern themselves primarily with procedural improvements, which are important. As older and possibly more cynical reformers, we cite Rule 14-F: Follow the money.