It was our hope that in Tuesday’s primaries, the state senators in trouble—Thomas Libous, Malcolm Smith and John Sampson—would have their fates decided in the court of public opinion by voters. But in only one instance—Smith was defeated decisively by Leroy Comrie in District 14 in Queens—did voters save the court from cleaning the slate.
Sampson, in District 19 in Brooklyn, almost doubled the number of votes of his nearest competitor, and Libous was the GOP victor in District 52 in Binghamton.
As we have witnessed in several other races—Tony Avella over John Liu; Adriano Espaillat over Robert Jackson; Jeff Klein over Oliver Koppell; and even Gov. Andrew Cuomo over Zephyr Teachout, who did surprisingly well, garnering a third of the vote—unseating an incumbent is not an easy task, no matter where they stand on the scale of ethics.
This is not to suggest that any of the above-mentioned are unethical, it’s just once you get into office, there are a number of things in your favor, such as name recognition, fundraising ability and lack of exposure for the opponent, to say nothing of the voters, particularly during a primary, when they are more inclined to vote by habit than by the available information on the candidates, which is often minuscule.
Despite the recent results, this does not obviate our concern about the “culture of corruption” that exists among our state legislators. Though Libous and Sampson have won over the voters, there is still a possible defeat in court, and they then would join the more than 25 state legislators who have been booted from office since 1999 because of criminal or ethical issues, according to Citizens Union.
So how does all of this affect the voters, and should we care? We could just throw up our hands and say “ho-hum,” the voters deserve what they get. If they want politicians with questionable ethics, then so be it. On the other hand, we are concerned about the rampant corruption and agree with Citizens Union that something must be done to halt what they call “a culture of corruption,” which is becoming more widespread each year.
Under three broad categories—passing comprehensive campaign finance reform in New York; toughening enforcement and expanding oversight; and opening up our elections—Citizens Union has proposed ways to at least impede corruption, if not end it, as well as providing the electorate with more information about the candidates for office.
On the first point, some aspects of corruption can certainly be curtailed if loopholes that allow extremely large donations to party committees were closed. At the moment, the sky’s the limit when it comes to campaign contributions. Secondly, unless stronger punitive measures are administered to those convicted of political corruption, it’s hard to see what can be done to stop them from this temptation, and giving the attorney general the power to go after wrongdoers with thorough probes may help to stem this epidemic.
And finally, our potential candidates should be given easier access to the ballot. Our communities are gifted with a number of outstanding public servants, yet they feel thwarted when seeking office. To this extent, seekers of office often feel as baffled by the election process as voters.
Above all, what we need is a more informed electorate—voters who know what the issues are, who the candidates are and who is best qualified to deliver on promises made. Participatory democracy is only alive in as much as citizens are aware of their obligations to exercise that authority, that the process is fair and the system free of irregularities that discriminate and deny one’s rights.