Sign up now to subscribe!
A Governor from the City? Help from Unlikely Quarters The Bloomberg Factor “Outer Borough” Presidents Bristle at Stringer’s Reforms Agendas For AG Contest for State Committee Dems to Decide Contest for State Committee Getting Its Foot in the Political Door Grassroots in the Concrete City
Living Wage Advocates Think Big Box Civil Court Action
Pundit Poll: Hail to the Chief Executive Officer?
The Money Trail: AG Candidates Firm Up Law Support In the Chair: Peter Vallone, Jr. In the Trenches: Josh Bocian Review: Ripe for an Analysis Brooke Masters sketches out the likely Democratic nominee French Fare with Carolyn Maloney Photo Page Defining the Line Between Staffers and Campaign Workers Letters to the Editor The View from Albany: The Winds of Change in Spitzer’s and Silver’s Sails by Alan Chartock Government Must Take a Role in Community Planning by City Council Member Dan Garodnick
The calls stream in from the offices of the congressmen and congresswomen, government press secretaries bringing news about upcoming candidacy and campaign announcements. Government payroll staffers interview potential campaign workers, and often serve in different capacities, depending on the day—or the hour, or the minute. Official email lists become magically melded to those of reelection efforts.
Two things are certain in campaign season: (1) with the full help of their staffs, incumbents will abuse the benefits of their incumbency and (2) they will be reelected at a rate averaging more than 90 percent nationwide.
These two things are not unrelated.
Incumbency can be a good thing: many of the people who have been in the state legislature and Congress for decades have gained extensive expertise in certain areas, with committee chairs becoming leading authorities.
But as people quickly grow attached to their positions, mistaken or deliberate abuses of incumbency imperil the fragile line which separates an open, answerable government from a self-sustaining and self-serving power elite.
Even the few months of incumbency between a special election and reelection can mean the difference between a contentious race and a cakewalk--throw on a “RE-” in front of “ELECT” on a campaign sign or mailer and voters naturally react differently. Call a press conference or issue a release from a government office, and it will naturally get more attention.
Plus about a million other legal advantages.
Last year saw then-Speaker Gifford Miller’s (D-Manhattan) mayoral prospects sunk in no small part because of the apparent government-campaign collusion on speaker’s update mailings. With more than $1 million involved, Miller was a large and visible target, and one upon whom criticism was deservedly heaped.
It is harder to spot the improprieties which involve staffers working on campaign speeches, making calls and appearing at events. Especially in races where the conclusion seems foregone, where the incumbents do not bother to hire separate campaign staff, people stumble into smaller, harder to spot improprieties every day, all over the city and state.
We would like to see stricter regulations on the city and state level put in place for those who blur the lines, and encourage leaders to start bringing such bills to the floor. We would like to see official guidelines composed and distributed to the staffs of all New York’s elected officials, with standard training sessions for new hires to ensure they understand the complex distinction between proper and improper, legal and illegal—and learn to err on the cautious side of the hazy.
A blind eye or a careless hand to the misuse of staff and resources is truly dangerous to the democratic process. It depresses the number of people who run and get involved with the political process, feeding an increasingly disappointing and complacent inner circle.
Competitive elections make elected officials sharper and better and appropriate conduct on the part of incumbents’ staffers, along with a proper redistricting, is key to achieving that goal.