A classic expression of frustration and outrage in American popular culture came in the movie, "Network", in 1976.  Peter Finch, playing the part of a television news anchor who is losing his job, explodes while on the air, saying  "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more."  The cry is picked up by people watching the newscast, who open their windows and shout their indignation out into the street.

 

That is the way many New Yorkers feel about politics in our state.  They also believe that not much can be done about it.  There was an expectation of reform with the landslide election of Governor Eliot Spitzer in 2006,  but the unfortunate condition of his beautiful mind clouded his ability to make decisions, and sadly rendered him, at least temporarily, unable to deal with people in a courteous and responsible manner, which is part of a basic skill-set required of those who would lead others in a small-d democratic government.

 

The regression in Albany is made clear by an article and editorial, both in this morning's Times.  The news item is on B1, jumping to B4.  If not for the Times' necessary effort to define itself as a national newspaper, the article would be on A1, where it belongs.  The writers are Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim.  The headline: PATERSON HAS RAISED $3.3 MILLION SINCE MARCH.  Here are a few paragraphs:

 

"Gov. David A. Paterson has raised $3.3 million since taking office, by tapping into a broad array of special-interest groups and casting aside the self-imposed fund-raising limits of his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, according to reports made public on Tuesday.

 

"But a close look at Mr. Paterson's reports also suggested a pronounced return to the kind of fund-raising practices that have long raised the ire of government watchdog groups.

 

"His contributors span the gamut of Albany's special-interest groups,including its most powerful unions and business groups, like the dentists' political action committee {See the editorial today on the dentists' lobby's reward}, real estate interests and a variety of state and local labor unions.  Nearly 50 individuals, business groups and labor unions gave contributions of more than $25,000 each, a sharp contrast to the $10,000 limit Mr. Spitzer voluntarily imposed on himself.

 

"Some of Mr. Paterson's most generous donors have crucial business before the state.  They include District Council 37, the New York public employees unjion, which is seeking expanded pension benefits; a political action committee associated with the New York Racing Associationm with which Mr. Paterson is completing a deal for a lucrataive state horse-racing franchise; and the real estate decveloper Larry Silverstein, a major player in negotiations over rebuilding the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan." (for juicy details, link to the article here.)

 

The editorial we referred to is aptly titled, DENTAL DECAY IN ALBANY.   It follows two fascinating stories by Sam Roberts on June 23 and June 26, which we linked to when they were first published. They depict the late-session introduction of this legislative zinger and its swift passage by the Assembly.  The June 23 story was headlined, IN RIFT AMONG DENTISTS' GROUPS, A TALE OF POLITICAL CLOUT.  The June 26 item was headlined, IN LEGISLATIVE ACT, STATE DENTAL GROUP PREVAILS IN DISPUTE. You can link to Roberts'  articles, which you will find enlightening and almost amusing, if it were not for the outrageous situation he so clearly describes.

 

Because the enactment of this bill into law is such a classic example of why our state government is rotten at the core, if not to the core, we reprint the Times' editorial below, and urge you to read all of it, even if it makes you slightly ill:

Dental Decay in Albany

"Tucked inside the first batch of bills that Gov. David Paterson signed last week was a law involving state dentists that Joel Miller, a Republican assemblyman from Poughkeepsie, called 'nothing more than proof that corruption is alive and well in the State Legislataure.'

 

"Dr. Miller, the only dentist in the Legislature, voted against the bill.  And although it would seem to be a small matter - giving the state dental society control over New York City's dental society - it is an almost perfect example of what's wrong with the state government.

 

"Here’s the drill: Roy Lasky, one of Albany’s most powerful lobbyists, controls the New York State Dental Association with a salary that can run to $300,000 a year, plus benefits. When some New York City dentists began to question how their dues were being spent, Mr. Lasky called on his friends in the Legislature for help. Lawmakers dutifully passed a bill that allows the state organization run by Mr. Lasky to take control of the city’s group, including those who questioned his authority. The state group might also be able to take over the greater New York dental conference that generates millions of dollars in concession fees each year.

"Mr. Lasky and his supporters have made this out as a minor dispute that still requires a state law. Fortunately, Sam Roberts of The Times began following this bill through the Legislature and uncovered the details of how Albany passes what is known as “a contract bill.” Translation: whoever gives campaign money gets legislation passed, usually with great ease.

"Since January, the Empire Dental Political Action Committee, the political arm of Mr. Lasky’s association, has given almost $350,000 to New York’s political establishment, and Mr. Lasky’s bill slid quickly through both legislative houses.

"What is perhaps more surprising, Governor Paterson signed Mr. Lasky’s bill on July 7. On July 8, Mr. Lasky’s dental association donated $25,000 to the Paterson for Governor campaign fund.

"The governor’s people insist there was no quid pro quo and that those opposing this particular bill have also contributed to the governor. Either the new state integrity commission or the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, should investigate why this small new law came with such a large and questionable price tag."

It was much easier to pass the bill than to pull a tooth.

What is particularly outrageous about the dental bill is that both professional societies were chartered by the state during the 19th century. If they are having a dispute, the proper place to resolve it is the courts or by open competition for membership. For the purchased public officials to give one group dominance and subjugate the other is the modern equivalent of a bill of attainder.

We have not seen any evidence that either group has failed to performed its duties, or that legislative intervention is necessary to resolve a conflict between two privately-run, non-governmental organizations.

It is ironic that the Assembly sponsor of this bill was Deborah Glick of Greenwich Village, first elected in 1990 as a reformer with the support of the Village Independent Democrats. Ms. Glick has climbed the loyalist ladder during her 18 year tenure in Albany. She now chairs the committee on Higher Education and is a member of the powerful Rules committee. She is now regarded as a reliable ally of the Speaker, although she was disappointed by his failure to keep a marine transfer station out of her district.

In your opinion, should Governor Paterson return the $25,000 check he received from the state dental society on July 8, the day after he signed the bill they pushed through the legislature? That is a question for him to decide, perhaps with the assistance of his ethical advisors. Paterson's amassing a $3.3 million war chest in just two months and ignoring the Spitzer limit of $10,000 per individual or group demonstrates the importance of the governorship and its ability to affect the special interests, positively or negatively. Paterson's handling of the dental society's prompt expression of their appreciation will give an insight into the qualitative aspects of his fund raising. Does he have any ethical standard for accepting or declining contributions, and if so where does it lie?

There are about 210 state legislators, all with staffs including scribes. . Won't one of them write an article defending Albany, or explaining why we are mistaken? We would love to publish it (unedited) and send it to our readers. There are said to be two sides to every story, let's hear yours. We will even publish it anonymously if that is what you prefer. Do the reformers in Albany have anything to say? Call or e-mail us.

Today's stories capture the confidence shown by those who live and work by the rule of pay to play. Spitzer is gone, and they are emboldened.

Those of us with different values must understand their current position of weakness, and devise new strategies to overcome, or at least lessen, the power and influence of men whose priority is self-interest.