The usual risky business

To a casual observer, the ongoing politics of Albany and City Hall may seem like business as usual—and unfortunately, they may be just that. The past few weeks have seen a staggering number of reports of public corruption, but equally as astonishing has been the lack of a serious public response.

Most notably, former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard Kerik was sentenced to prison for taking kickbacks from organized crime. Bronx City Councilman Larry Seabrook was similarly charged with laundering $2.5 million dollars from City taxpayers. Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks has been charged in the media with making illegal payouts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is investigating an unreported $750,000 check that Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote to a political operative during his campaign. State prosecutors continue to investigate tens of thousands of dollars in payouts by State Senator Malcolm A. Smith to a Hurricane Katrina relief organization with ties to the senator’s staff. The State’s Inspector General has begun an investigation into the potentially politically motivated selection of a firm to construct a racetrack in Queens. The list goes on and on.

The waves of daily reports have engendered little public reaction, among both campus groups and New Yorkers in general. It seems that corruption among public servants, especially at state and local levels, has become the norm. To complain about the improper spending of millions of taxpayer dollars is an act of naïveté, reflecting a lack of knowledge of New York’s history and unwritten political rules. Reports of dozens of crooked public servants, rather than rallying public outcry, have desensitized us and relegated the status quo of our government to filth.

Perhaps, voter apathy stems from a perception that it is futile to attempt to control public corruption. In City elections, almost all serious candidates run as Democrats, meaning that offices are decided in primary elections, in which only a tiny fraction of the City’s population participates. The extension of City term limits last year further reduced electoral turnover, a problem exacerbated by the huge advantages in fund-raising, prestige, and political favor of incumbents on all levels of government. In short, the system suffers from politicians’ unaccountability to voters—New Yorkers do not feel empowered to deal with these problems, a fact that our representatives exploit to their own advantages.

The people have little recourse against dishonest politicians, so nearly all action and investigation has come from criminal prosecutors. But district attorney’s offices are limited to following already-ratified laws, meaning that they are unable to curb the broader, systemic problems which have allowed unchecked corruption. Each individual arrested for kickbacks or money laundering has little effect on the bigger picture.

A change toward harsher ethics laws and stricter public finance regulation can come only from voters. Ethics enforcement is notoriously unpopular among legislators, who risk alienating political allies and party leaders that benefit from lax oversight. Political will to address public corruption will come only from significant public outcry, which makes voter apathy on this issue exceptionally disturbing.

Dishonest governance is a problem that transcends party lines, so it would seem easy to unite a coalition against it. On the contrary, the issue has been sidelined by voters and organizations of both parties. Paradoxically, the problems that are least contentious seem to receive the least attention. Especially on a university campus, the most fundamental obstacles to good government are deemed uninteresting and unproductive. The fallacy of many political organizations is in the assumption that unifying issues lack substance, that those that do not create or exacerbate traditional divisions are considered fruitless for discourse.

The problems of public corruption offer a straightforward, yet rare, opportunity for campus groups and watchdog organizations of opposing parties to collaborate. Student and nonprofit groups are essential to empowering voters, by beginning to examine solutions and presenting alternatives to the status quo. A bipartisan campaign of lobbying and spreading awareness, for example, can be a first step in putting pressure on local governments for systemic reform toward lawful politics. Shying away from issues that may seem too “easy” or “uncomplicated” for debate, or that seem timeless and ordinary, comes at the peril of all citizens.

Daniel Amzallag is a Columbia College junior majoring in political science and English. Outside the Gates runs alternate Tuesdays.