the albany project

New York Re-elects incumbents to its state legislature at a rate of 98%. More legislators drop dead or are sent to prison than are ever voted out by those they supposedly serve. Yet, so few are satisfied with the state of the state, so to speak. Everyone loves to bitch about Albany, but the players never seem to change. Why is that?

Both parties in both chambers have spent generations building a massive and layered firewall against accountability to the voters. It's a massive affront to the democratic process and it serves no one but the legislators themselves.

From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

Incumbents cakewalk back to Albany

Legislators easily outspend and outpoll challengers

While much of the national political landscape is changing, there is one constant: The power and the people in the state Legislature will remain almost entirely the same.

And so goes the power of incumbency in a state Legislature that has a 98 percent re-election rate. The same trend held true this year, despite a national climate that produced a shift of power in Congress from Republicans to Democrats.

....

But none of the legislative races in the Rochester area was close. The tightest was in the 130th Assembly District, a regional seat that runs across Monroe, Livingston and Ontario counties. Assemblyman Joseph Errigo, R-Conesus, Livingston County, won with 56 percent of the vote to 44 percent for Democrat Daniel West.

"Clearly, the sea wall that has been constructed to protect incumbents works very well in even the most dangerous political tsunami," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Watchdog groups have claimed that the incumbency protections of the state Legislature discourage competitive elections, hurt the democratic process and turn technically part-time positions into lifelong careers.

To change the system, groups have urged tougher campaign finance laws and an independent redistricting process, so election district lines aren't drawn with the intention of keeping one party in power. Democratic Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer has called for similar reforms.

In a report Wednesday, NYPIRG said that only 35 incumbents have lost in general elections since 1982. The largest number of incumbents defeated at once was six, in 1984. Two years ago, four incumbents lost.

The report also showed that incumbents raise far more money than their opponents, allowing them to fill the airwaves and mailboxes with campaign messages. As of two weeks before the election, the average Assembly incumbent raised about 10 times as much as an opponent — $127,858 to $21,356.

In some Rochester races, the disparity was even greater. State Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, and groups on his behalf will have spent more than $1 million on his re-election; Democratic opponent Willa Powell had spent less than $5,000.

He easily won re-election with 66 percent of the vote.

But Robach defended incumbency advantages, saying his greatest benefit is being able to discuss his strong record of accomplishments. And Robach doesn't enjoy an enrollment edge in his district: Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 30,000 voters.

"In my district, people are voting for me for my performance, my delivery of resources and my personal connection with them," said Robach, a former Democratic assemblyman who switched parties in 2002 to run for the Senate.

Sen. James Alesi, R-Perinton, said the power of incumbency needs to be earned. If an incumbent doesn't work hard, he said, the public will notice and vote out an official, regardless of the system that benefits incumbents.

"You have an advantage as a incumbent, but you have a tremendous amount of responsibility to live up to the incumbency requirements," he said.

Nice one, Sen Alesi. How goes all that earning of "the power of incumbency"?

As far as the article goes, shouldn't there be at least some mention of the use of public funds to run for re-election? Sure, incumbents are able to raise much larger sums of cash because, let's face it, donors like to bet on a winner and that money allows them to "fill the airwaves and mailboxes with campaign messages". But they also fill those mailboxes with massive amounts of mail that is paid for at taxpayer expense. Those mailers most often are not describing an initiative of the incumbent's or a problem to be solved. They don't ask for the involvement of the voter and they don't offer any new information about a specific program. They are de facto campaign pieces and are designed as such.

Furthermore, shouldn't there be some discussion of the allocation of "member item" dollars? The fact that incumbents are able to spend two months or so every two years parading across their districts doling out tens of millions public dollars that were allocated by the leadership in a thoroughly non-transparent and overtly political manner for the express purpose of securing their re-election certainly deserves some discussion, right? Right?

Hell, Bruno has already promised to spend even more public money in the next cycle to protect the last bastion of GOP power in New York State.

It seems any description of the power of incumbency in Albany would include mention of these issues.

Posted by downtown on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 2:41 PM | Permalink