Posted on 12/06/2004 4:56:40 AM PST by OESY
Standing outside the Capitol in Albany one summer afternoon in 1998, Eliot Spitzer released a statement that said if he became attorney general, he would use the considerable power, influence and bully pulpit of the office to "take on all the problems that have led to governmental stagnation and corruption in New York."
During his nearly six years in office, Mr. Spitzer has indeed claimed the mantle of reform. But he has done it by focusing on the financial and insurance industries - not state government.
Mr. Spitzer has built a nationwide reputation as an aggressive pursuer of corporate malfeasance. But his record is far more limited when it comes to the very issues he once said were necessary to "restore the voice of the people to state government," according to many people who work in Albany, including those who say they are big supporters of Mr. Spitzer.
Now Mr. Spitzer is preparing to run for governor in 2006 and is gearing up for a contest that is almost certain to center on which candidate has the most credible plan for overhauling the way Albany does business.
Last week, Mr. Spitzer jumped into the fix-Albany discussion on two fronts. He issued a report that he wrote along with the state inspector general, Jill Konviser-Levine, outlining charges of incompetence and unethical behavior at a state authority, and gave written testimony at a public hearing in which he said that "it is essential reforms not be timid or partial - they must be bold and comprehensive, covering lobbying, ethics, budgeting, public authorities, debt practices, elections and campaign finances."
But if there has been one knock against Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat who at the moment is the darling of his party, it has been that he has been slow to move with the same kind of vigor against what ails state government that he has mustered against corporate wrongdoers.
Early on, Mr. Spitzer set the bar high on matters in Albany. As a candidate, he issued a 12-page statement on what he would do to correct New York's "twisted democracy."
Since then scandals afflicting the state government have mounted one after another, and rarely did Mr. Spitzer come into the picture: three lawmakers were convicted criminally in connection with corruption, a state commissioner was also convicted of corruption; and while the attorney general is not a criminal prosecutor, three of the cases centered on officials helping steer government contracts.
Mr. Spitzer has given speeches about the need to fix the system. He created a public integrity unit within his office, and pursued low-level corruption cases around the state, in police departments, local governments and in a few instances, state authorities. And many in the capital agree that if anyone is at fault, blame for Albany's problems should be directed toward the leadership there, including Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican who has been in office for nearly 10 years, and the legislative leaders, who have consistently failed to pass substantive changes to the way the state operates.
But some government observers say that Mr. Spitzer might have been able to help spur change, instead of being largely absent from the fights he had promised to wage against some of the capital's endemic problems, from imposing greater restrictions on lobbyists to changing the state's campaign finance system.
"The mess that is Albany has gotten so bad, state government is universally criticized at every level; it is hard to miss it," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group, who has called for many years for overhauling state government practices. "So whatever his motivation is, the fact he weighed in in a significant way this week, it may have changed the political calculus."
Mr. Spitzer disagrees with the notion that he has not followed through on his fix-government platform. He said in an interview on Friday that he has done as much, even more, than what his office is permitted to do by the state's Constitution and statute.
He has said that the power of the attorney general's office lies in its ability to make legal cases, not just issue reports, and that he thinks the core of the state government's problems can be solved only with the powers of the governor. Mr. Spitzer has made it clear he intends to run for governor in 2006 and is expected to make it official before the end of this year.
"I genuinely believe that I have pushed the jurisdictional limits as aggressively in the context of reform and government integrity as we have in the context of either Wall Street, the environment, labor, et cetera," Mr. Spitzer said.
"That which is actually within the jurisdiction of the A.G.'s office, I think we have done," Mr. Spitzer said of what he promised as a candidate. "That which is not in the jurisdiction of the A.G.'s office but remains to be done is something that a governor absolutely must do and should do. That will ultimately be the measure of success for any governor."
Mr. Spitzer's argument that he went as far as he could, given the limitations of the office, may be true but may not give the complete picture, according to interviews with government affairs experts and former attorneys general.
By the State Constitution and law, the attorney general has limited jurisdiction and is supposed to serve as the lawyer to the governor and state agencies. But as independently elected officials, attorneys general in New York, and around the country, have consistently redefined the role and nature of the job, searching the law for justification to expand jurisdiction, the experts said.
One former New York attorney general, Robert Abrams, said he was the first to file lawsuits to force corporate polluters to clean up toxic waste sites.
"The attorney general's office is capable of tremendous elasticity," Mr. Abrams said in an interview. "The occupier of the office exercising leadership and his own degree of activism has the flexibility to move in certain directions."
Scott Harshbarger, a former Massachusetts attorney general, said that he thinks it is the duty of all attorneys general to pursue government ethics and corruption cases. But he said, "If you don't do it you get criticized, and if you do too much of it, people accuse you of being a self-righteous avenger."
Shortly after Mr. Spitzer came into office, he asked for the state's Temporary Commission on Lobbying to give him a referral so that he could conduct a criminal investigation into lobbying activity by Philip Morris, after the company's chief Albany lobbyist admitted to drastically underreporting her spending. But the commission refused to give the case to Mr. Spitzer and instead handed it off to the local district attorney.
Mr. Spitzer remains bitter about that slight to this day, and blamed the executive director of the lobbying commission, David M. Grandeau, for undermining Mr. Spitzer's efforts to police lobbying.
One factor that appears to have undermined Mr. Spitzer's having a more active role in Albany matters is bad blood between him and Mr. Grandeau.
A few years after Mr. Spitzer complained about not getting the Philip Morris case, Mr. Grandeau wrote a letter to the attorney general asking him to look into another case, this one involving Mr. Spitzer's old friend Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney. Mr. Morgenthau, according to the letter, received free tickets to a New York Yankees' World Series game that were worth more than $75, which Mr. Grandeau called a possible violation of the state lobbying act.
"There is a case where you had systemic abuse," Mr. Spitzer said of the Philip Morris case. "He unilaterally refused to do anything and then he pulls out this silliness and says Bob Morgenthau was given a ticket to the Yankee games. He doesn't understand anything."
Mr. Grandeau said that it was the commission's decision, not his, to refer the case to local officials and not Mr. Spitzer.
"If he is saying I am stopping him from getting involved, he is giving me way too much credit," Mr. Grandeau said. "I am not stopping him. I want him involved. I think it is beneficial for the attorney general to get involved."
Got proof?
Mr. Spitzer is a liberal, ergo, government is not the probelm, business is........
The real problem with Spitzer is that he has continually massacred businesses in a state that doesn't have enough jobs.
The NY Times doesn't even consider the main job of an Attorney General, which is to combat CRIME. Giuliani did a great job in New York City. Spitzer has done little or nothing in the state.
"Mr. Spitzer has built a nationwide reputation as an aggressive pursuer of..."
...publicity.
From the article: the attorney general is not a criminal prosecutor
He isn't. But his Criminal Prosecutions Bureau does :)
Spitzer decides what the priorities are. His priority is to make a name for himself as a white knight fighting against business corruption. He has gone way overboard on this and actually damaged the business climate of New York State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.