There's an opportunity buried - and I admit it's rather deeply buried at present - in the recent back-and-forth over Malcolm Smith's clearly satirical remarks to lobbyists. That opportunity is a discussion of campaign finance reform. Ironically, that's not a discussion that Dean Skelos and his caucus want to have.

Start out from the premise that our system of campaign finance is a joke. It is. When corporations (and limitless subsidiaries) can contribute to candidates, that should raise red flags in and of itself. When your relatives can give you hundreds of thousands of dollars - witness Mark Green's 2006 campaign - that's a sign that something isn't quite working. When the top donations limit is near the six-figure mark - you can give $94,500 a year to political parties, and an aggregate of $150,000 - you can deduce many things from it, the most glaringly obvious being that such a system gives those who can write checks of that magnitude perhaps larger degrees of influence than they should possess in a healthy democracy.

There are differing approaches to the subject. After his election, for example, former governor Spitzer voluntarily capped donations to his campaign at $10,000. In January, the Brennan Center released a report on the state of discussion. Our own Dan Jacoby, to his great credit, has been banging the drum on Clean Money Clean Elections since, apparently, the dawn of time.

Now, as salient issues go, campaign finance reform isn't top of mind for voters crushed by property taxes, worried about foreclosures, about healthcare costs, their jobs, how to send their kids to college, and any number of other areas where the middle class is confronted with insecurity. But if republicans really want to have a discussion about Smith's attempt at humor, the real issue is that they do not want the present system of paying for elections to change, while the Democrats do.

You can't make this shit up: the Supreme Court just struck down the millionaires amendment as being too restrictive to millionaires trying to wage a campaign for public office.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.

The law allows candidates to receive larger contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The court says by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.

The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.

Davis says the law unfairly rewards his opponents by allowing them to exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis has chosen to dip into his personal funds.

In other news, you now have a constitutional right to own a handgun. Quick, guess what the majority in those decisions looked like.

A couple of dozen groups (including my own group, Democracy for NYC) are cosponsoring this year's "Reform NY Day" on Tuesday, April 29. Buses will be leaving NYC from 6th Ave. & Spring Street, and from Grand Central Terminal, early that morning for Albany, where we'll be meeting with and lobbying various legislators.

We have a solid lineup of topics, and what may prove to be the best training and activity plan of any of these annual events. To sign up for the free trip, go to the Common Cause signup page and click on the "Register Now" link.

See you on the bus,
Dan

This week, a multi-issue agreement was reached in Albany. The agreement covers congestion pricing, campaign finance reform, long-overdue salary increases, and possibly some legislation.

The bad news is that nothing (or almost nothing) was actually accomplished.

The congestion pricing debate will shift from the usual three men in a room – plus one (Mayor Bloomberg) to a 17-member commission. This commission will “study” several alternatives, then report early next year, after which the legislature may or may not act.

Whenever political leaders don’t want to take the heat for an initiative, they generally create a commission; this gives them cover, allowing them to claim that they’re just following the recommendations of the experts, while they hope nobody notices who appointed the members of the commission. (Note: the difference between a “committee” and a “commission” is still a mystery, except that a “committee” is usually created to bury an issue, while a “commission” is supposed to render an “independent judgment” that just happens to coincide with what its creators wanted.)

The New York City Council is about to pass, by an overwhelming margin, a “campaign finance reform” bill. On the day it passes, several elected officials will undoubtedly hold a press conference in order to pat themselves on the back. They’ll claim the did these great things, closing loopholes, leveling the playing field, and reducing the influence of big money on elections.

Unfortunately, they will have done nothing of the sort.

While the bill makes a pretense of keeping people who have big contracts with the city government from making large campaign contributions, their friends, relatives – and their subcontractors – are not limited. Big contractors, big developers, and other big money interests will still be able to bundle large donations. They will continue to have the same undue influence they always had. Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent.

The Times has a good editorial outlining a number of outstanding priorities as the state legislative session enters its final few days. At the top of the list: campaign finance reform. As the Times observes:

The bill now being considered is less than the good citizens of this state deserve, but it is far better than what we have now. Unfortunately, Senate Leader Joseph Bruno and his Republican majority are stalling. The Senate Republicans apparently don’t want to give up the easy money, especially from limited liability corporations that are now the favored loophole for well-heeled contributors.

Joe Bruno, who resents public service because it doesn't make him enough money, came right out and said last week that he thinks campaign finance reform is just a worthless idea in general. In a quote that set new and interesting benchmarks for chuztpah, the boss of New York's Senate Republican machine insisted that "Money does not buy elections," dismissing reform as "hocus-pocus." But Bruno's moral nullity really shines through in how he uses complaints about donation bundling as an excuse to reject any kind of reform, particularly of the LLCs through which real estate interests funnel millions of dollars a year into the pockets of Senate Republicans.

For those not yet up to date on the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" (CMCE) full public funding concept, there is a forum on Thursday, June 14, at 7:30, at the Brooklyn Borough Hall Court House, 209 Joralemon St.

Meanwhile, the City Council's so-called "campaign finance reform" bill is all but certain to sail through and give several people the opportunity to pat themselves on the back. But it is nothing like real reform.

This bill will still allow people doing business with the city to give, or raise, lots of money for the candidates of their choice -- and qualify for matching funds at an ever-higher rate.

It will create a new bureaucracy, requiring more work by the Campaign Finance Board and more headaches for candidates.

It does nothing to stop the near-certainty that most candidates for citywide office in 2009 will opt out of the system, because they'll be able to raise more money on their own than they'd be allowed to spend if they accepted matching funds.

We need to spread the word that matching fund systems are a complete failure. They don't limit spending, and they don't level the playing field between those who can raise lots of money and those who can't.

With all the campaign finance reform scuttles clouding the New York political landscape, I'd like to direct you to some of the tools I have been using to better understand the dynamics of politics and money in New York state.

Follow the Money is one of several campaign finance reform initiatives that have created tools that breakdowns electoral contribution data several different ways.