Channel 13 is reporting that the First Unitarian Church of Rochester has decided not to sign marriage licenses for straight couples in protest against New York’s ban on gay marriage. My first reaction to this is that it’s throwing the baby out with the bath water: if you stand on the side of love, how can you refuse to honor it where you can? But their explanation makes a whole lot of sense, at least to me:

More Work to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – 13WHAM.com

Unitarian Co-Minister Scott Taylor compares it to the discrimination seen during the Civil Rights era.

“As ministers we were basically agreeing to serve the white-only counter for the state,” he said.

So, as hard as it is to think that this great church cannot do it’s work – what I think is the most important work a church can do, fostering love – the truth is that the law in this state makes that work impossible to do completely either way.  And as the article points out, there’s very little chance that the law will change any time soon.  The Republican Senate will not pass any law legalizing gay marriage, and while its not explicitly said in the article, I have my doubts as to whether the Democrats in Albany would be willing to risk the political exposure if ever they got the majority in the Senate.  Perhaps I’m just cynical, but based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think so.

Related posts

• No related posts.

The good news/bad news of CMCE is this: Citizen Action has been working diligently on this issue for twelve years or more.  That means that most Albany politicians, regardless of their opinions of political necessity, are familiar with the concept, if not necessarily the most recent iteration of the bill.  It also means that the issue begins to take on a sort of “hopeless dreamer” cast among those in power.  The Assembly has actually passed bills for CMCE in the past, but those efforts have been shunted in the Senate, as seems to be inevitable.

Because, as it has been explained to me, the Conservative Party in this state is dead-set against CMCE, or really almost any form of electoral reform.  It is, it seems, a sacrosanct issue for them.  Since any Republican running for office in New York typically has and needs the Conservative Party line – and since the majority in the Senate is Republican – any CMCE bill cannot pass in the Senate.  It simply won’t happen.

In fact, the closest we could get in Albany to election reform was an agreement to pass a matching funds system, which is in fact a terrible idea.   Not that it mattered, because the fractious relationship between the Senate and the Governor basically killed that agreement.  Chances are, support for the bill was probably pretty soft in the Republican Party in the first place.

And all of this is to say that, while there is a lot of Democratic support for CMCE and while there are 44 Assemblymen and women signed onto a letter advocating public financing to their colleagues, that’s about as far as it’s ever going to get while the landscape remains the same in Albany.  The conversation has stopped.  Those representatives who chair committees and wield real power cannot publicly support any bill that doesn’t have a chance at passing, because to encourage a fight you can’t win in Albany is a great way to lose the credibility with which you fight the winnable battles.

So, the only way to end the stalemate in the fight for fair elections in New York State is on battling it out in the long-odds fight to overturn the Senate’s majority.  There are but two seats standing in the way of a Democratic majority in that house, but where those two seats comes from remains to be seen.  Certainly, The Albany Project would know more about this upcoming election than I do, since I’ve been paying less attention than I should be.

For the rest of us, I think one obligation is to renew the conversation outside Albany.  Those of us who blog and care about this issue can do a lot more to push CMCE into the lexicon of New Yorkers than I think we’ve been doing.  In fact, “new york election reform” is a very soft target for keyword loading, which is a way we as bloggers can dominate the conversation online by reaching the top of the Google search results for certain key phrases.  I discussed this concept on TAP a long time ago, and perhaps I’ll start a page on this site as well.

If Ron Paul fans can get their boy to outperform Rudy Giuliani in the Republican primaries, I’m sure we can do this.

Related posts

• No related posts.

State budget ills put planned school aid hike at risk || Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

Spitzer and the Legislature earlier this year agreed to raise aid to local school districts by $1.1 billion this year, and $7.6 billion between last year and 2010.The second installment is due in the new fiscal year that begins April 1. But at a budget conference Tuesday, Francis and budget experts from the Senate, Assembly and state comptroller’s office agreed that state finances in the immediate future are shaky because of the recent Wall Street nosedive, the mortgage-lending crisis and the skyrocketing price of oil.

“When Wall Street gets a cold, New York state gets pneumonia,” said Francis, who pointed out that the state depends on the financial-services industry for about 20 percent of its tax revenue.

Have you signed the petition to end this debacle, yet? Can your kids afford you not to?

Related posts

• RJB.net Declares “Confidence Rises,” Ignores Wider Trends

I’ve taken the opportunity to snag the snazzy graphic from Rochester Turning and Sayhar’s outstanding articles on the subject. It’s now featured prominently at the right of this blog. After all, if this website, one of whose features is an entire section dedicated to technology politics, cannot get behind this bill, who could?

This new bill goes light years beyond any other legislation in promoting the upstate economy by treating the Internet the way it should be viewed: as a key component of the state’s infrastructure, no less important that rail lines or highways. Providing adequate broadband coverage across the entire state means providing a source of revenue, communication, education and free speech, in equal and fair measure, across all segments of our state.

The bill also includes strong Net Neutrality language. The Net Neutrality issues is a complex one that tends to throw people off quite a bit. Go read Sayhar’s articles on the subject, they’re very good primers and include videos by the Save the Internet folks. The trick with NN in New York State is reach: companies who don’t reside in NYS don’t have to follow our rules of Net Neutrality. But the real reason for including such language is to force the issue on the national level, where it can do some real good. If we can get something like this passed in our dysfunctional parliamentary system, surely it can happen on the national level.

And so consider this the first of many appeals to please contact Governor Spitzer and tell him that spreading the prosperity of the Internet across our state is important to you. Tell him to support the Brodsky Telecom Bill today: 518-747-8390.

You’ll be hearing a lot more about Net Neutrality and the benefits of spreading the ‘Net around the state from this blog soon!

Related posts

• RJB.net Declares “Confidence Rises,” Ignores Wider Trends

But seriously, were you really so foolish as to have believed that *everything* was literally changing the moment Eliot Spitzer was sworn in?  Did anyone fall for that as a literal promise, or did most people take that to mean that the debate was going to change and that real changes might for once in New York’s history be possible?  If you knew *everything* was going to change the minute you elected a leader, wouldn’t that be dictatorship, and why would you have voted for that?

Don’t be silly.  Great to jab the current executive of the state, but let’s not lose our sensibilities.  And as Mrs. Rosenberg points out herself, there have been changes, albeit not of the earth-scorching variety:

Policy Wonk: Legislative Lessons for a New Governor

At least this year the leaders parted ways over genuinely important issues and each was forced to publicly state his position. In the past, Bruno has been able to sidestep the campaign-finance issue. This year, because of the high profile Spitzer put on the issue, Bruno had to confront it. Yes, he tried to brush it aside by saying voters don’t care how campaigns are financed, but he also had to employ the “campaign giving is free speech” argument to defend the high limits and loopholes in the law.

And oh, what a memorable collection of Bruno quotes it has been, eh?

While I’ve been critical of the governor’s style from time to time, the fact remains that, especially where Clean Money, Clean Elections is concerned, the dialogue in Albany has changed dramatically.  Inasmuch as talking about election and campaign finance reform won’t be all it takes, it is important to recognize that once an idea is planted in the minds of the body politic, some definitive answer to the question is inevitable.

What that answer will be remains open for debate.  The Citizen Action people are pushing hard to make sure that CMCE is the adopted standard in favour of Sheldon Silver’s ill-omened “partial financing” option.  Of course, Albany leaders can try to sit on this one as long as they can, like usual; silence is also an answer.

But Eliot Spitzer has done a great job changing the discussion in Albany, the rest is up to the activists to bring that message to the people and the people to Albany.

Technorati Tags: CMCE, Campaign Finance Reform, Clean Money, Albany, Eliot Spitzer, Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts

• No related posts.

There’s been a lot of talk about Richard Brodsky challenging Silver for the Assembly Speaker’s position.  But if that buzz was ever real, the quote below puts that all to rest quite nicely:

Assemblyman says buzz on bid to be speaker isn’t true || Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“He’s clearly agitating for change,” one longtime colleague said of Brodsky. “But he knows there are consequences” to taking on Silver, who rebuffed a challenge to his leadership by then-Majority Leader Michael Bragman in 2000. Bragman, of Syracuse, was stripped of his power and didn’t run for re-election the next year.

The activities of Brodsky, 61, apparently haven’t flustered Silver, 63, who has been speaker for 13 years — the second-longest tenure of any speaker in history.

When asked if he was concerned that Brodsky might be trying to build support for a potential bid to become speaker, Silver said, “No.”

Whoa. Talk about your unapologetic display of power! Who does this remind you of? Well, if you’re a sci-fi geek like myself, maybe you recognize these guys?

Technorati Tags: Shelly Silver, Richard Brodsky, Albany, Legislature, Speaker of the Assembly

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts

• No related posts.

the albany project :: Legislature debating landmark reform bill?

It’s over. To quote Liz Krueger: “Bruno killed it”. The Assembly, it appears, had been willing to go along; but the reactionary neanderthals in the Senate, well, they like things just the way they are. Want reform? Overthrow the republican Senate majority in 2008.

Well, that does it for this round, anyway. What’s Spitz’s next move? One never knows, so stay tuned!

Technorati Tags: Reform, CMCE, Clean Money, Clean Elections

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts

• No related posts.

However, you have to give them credit: you would think that, their positions assured after years and even decades of collecting campaign donors, Albany politicians wouldn’t be that good at making up creative excuses for their continued employment.  Ah, but there you would be dead wrong:

Campaign finance stirs opposition — Page 2 — Times Union – Albany NY

Canestrari, chairman of the Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee the past decade, is one of several lawmakers briefed in recent days on the talks and opposed to across-the-board reduction of donation levels.

“I’m a firm believer of the two party system in our state and nation; it’s shown to be a model for the world,” Canestrari said.

What, dude, what?

Who said anything about eliminating the two party system?  Spitzer suggests limiting campaign contributions to those of the Federal level, nothing more.  That includes banning union and corporate donorship, as well. 

In the interest of fairness to his position, let me point out that perhaps there was more to this quote of Assemblyman Canestrari than they included in the article.  That’s entirely possible.

But either way, the arguments are going to get even more creative soon, if indeed Spitzer is able to get some kind of package together to get through at least the Assembly.  It should be noted that, while this is not a Clean Money bill, CMCE-style bills have gone through the Assembly many times before without incident.  Most activists I’ve talked to say this is because passing such a bill through the Assembly, knowing it won’t make it through the Senate, is an easy thing and largely symbolic.

So if resistance to reform is growing in the Assembly, is it logical to assume that there must be some real concern that something might get done, this time?  Perhaps two out of the three men in the room have decided to run in opposite directions, thereby shutting out debate before it begins.  Or it may be that other groups with vested interest in the status quo are causing the rumblings in the Assembly; certainly, the union folks don’t seem to be happy:

Campaign finance stirs opposition — Page 2 — Times Union – Albany NY

“He’s making it more difficult for individuals from poorer districts to raise funds, by banning contributions from unions,” said Assemblyman Gary Pretlow, D-Mount Vernon.

Well, OK. If you’re going to claim this hurts unions, we can debate that. But if all people are restricted from raising funds above a certain level, how does this hamstring only certain politicians?  Candidates running in poorer districts will be facing candidates running in poorer districts, that should even out.

The trouble I’m having with all this is: if Spitzer expends too much energy on these minor reforms, will he find it impossible to continue down the road to CMCE?

Technorati Tags: Clean Money, Clean Elections, CMCE, Campaign, Reform, Eliot Spitzer

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Today’s serving is an unusual one.  Today, he’s tackling lobbyists and why they should support legislative reform.  That sounds nuts on the face of it, but when you read the article, you will find there are more surprising and persuasive arguments than you might have thought.  I did:

the albany project :: Lobbyists – Selfish Reasons to Support Reform

• No more double standard. Today’s New York Times pointed out that lobbyists seem to be the only ones punished for violations – legislators get off with barely a slap on the wrist. I don’t think anyone – probably especially the lobbyists – thinks ethics enforcement should work that way.
• More competition means better threats. Right now it looks like New York State lobbyists can only pursue legislators’ hearts with carrots – lots and lots of carrots. The leadership has pretty much the only sticks. In a reformed legislature, lobbyists could help take it to the voters when they don’t like a legislator’s views.

This is really quite brilliant.  Not being in Albany, it’s hard for me to say whether or not this is really a valid set of arguments for your average lobbyist.  On the outside looking in, however, the argument seems to be made fairly well that this reform is about letting in some competition.  That’s great news for the young bucks and the newbies, but not so much for the entrenched elite, which is exactly the same position we find ourselves in where legislators are concerned.

I’m going to fold this one because it’s getting long. . . . .

It actually restates an interesting question in a provocative way about the “American Dream” and it’s attendant ambition: do people really want to tear down the walls they’re so desperately trying to climb over?  After all, if there’s no wall, there’s nothing to work for.

It’s kind of a “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” kind of thing.  There are many people voting against their economic interests, allowing politicians to give all the goodies away to the rich, because they actually think that there’s hope that they may be rich some day.  I wonder how many young lobbyists would support legislative reform knowing that they would endanger the very job they hope to attain.

He also makes a valid argument for lobbyists being a bit stuck in a trap: they have nothing to offer an entrenched elite other than more and more goodies.  They have no way of backing out of their relationships because there’s very little hope of anyone leaving the legislature.

On another level, in the comments, robinia makes the following interesting point:

Selfish Reasons: Pro or amateur?

Otherwise, one important point to remember is that the Citizen and nonprofit lobbyists are far more numerous than the pros on any given day at the legislature. Despite dysfunction, voters continue to expect the legislature and administration to function as a real government, that they can petition and participate in.

We typically make the point when arguing for Clean Money, Clean Elections that there are so many lobbyists in Albany. 18 for every politician there, as I recall. This comment points out that most of them don’t seem to be the evil, horn-sporting imps we’ve all come to expect.  So, who is doing the real damage?  Is there any way to score these types of things?  I’m sure most of those non-profit lobbyists spend a lot of their time trying to schedule around the big corporation’s lobby visits, but is there a way to play pin-the-lobbyist-on-the-bill?  And how much strain do citizen lobbyists put on the system, anyway?  Is there some plan to curb this effect, and how would you avoid Constitutional issues in that case?

I’m hoping someone over there at TAP or elsewhere can enlighten me about these questions. . .

In any event, the rationales presented in this article serve more purpose than just convincing lobbyists to support reform, anyway.  Far more important (in my estimation, anyway) is the brainstorming of ideas for reform.  A while ago, I took to what I called “shadow boxing” on the Clean Money, Clean Elections issue: I watched the editorial sections of California news websites for arguments against their version of CMCE and wrote blogs to develop counter-arguments.  This seems to be a more proactive but similar intellectual exercise.

Every little bit helps, because before too long, this issue will need to be brought fully and forcefully into the public arena and out of the blogger/activist/insider milieu.  When that day comes, we need lots of counter-arguments for all the objections to reform we know are coming.

Technorati Tags: Albany, New York, Legislative Reform

powered by performancing firefox

Related posts

• No related posts.

Hard though it may be to conceive at the moment, it is mathamatically possible for a democratically-held election in the State of New York to yield a winner other than the incumbent. Besides, people die from time to time. In those rare cases, what will they do with all that information gleaned over the decades of incumbency? Just get rid of it and start over with a new legislator? That is folly. What if you want to refer back to former legislators for historical perspective? This information is lost.

Moreover, there is room for a great deal of information about districts which would have no place on a page about a legislator, such as the voting, demographic and economic trends.

I have voiced this concern on the Wiki, but thus far, have not heard any response back yet. I am hoping someone over there is watching the NY LeftyBlogs feed and will respond back either there or here shortly.

But in the meanwhile, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. More information in one easily navigated place is a good thing for all of us concerned with New York politics. I’ve even created a new web badge for TAP-opedia, which you’re welcome to use if you collect those sorts of things:

Go a head and right-click it, select either “save as” and then upload it somewhere convenient, or if you have FireFox, select “copy image location” and use it where ever. I’ve also suggested that each legislator’s page conform to a specific format, for which I’ve created a template that you can view here.

Just a suggestion, but one way or another, I think that everyone interested in New York politics aught to get involved where ever possible in this project.

Related posts

• No related posts.