There is an old political adage: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” It means that political power flows from large warchests to candidates and to lobbying efforts that influence government decisions.

But where does the money come from? Powerful organized interest groups and the wealthy.

We saw it this year when lawmakers were wrestling with New York’s $268 billion-plus state budget. The successful campaign to weaken the state’s heretofore landmark Climate Law was to a large extent the result of a multi-million-dollar advocacy campaign launched by the oil and gas industry and large investor-owned utilities.

Another example was the successful effort to make it harder for victims of car crashes to get compensated. In that case, it was widely reported that ride sharing giant Uber was spending millions of dollars on an advocacy campaign to limit compensation for injured car passengers and drivers. Why? Because they are on the hook when their drivers are involved in an accident.

All in all, according to the most recent data, lobbying campaigns spent nearly $400 million to influence government decisions.

On the other side of the influence peddling coin is the campaign financing system. New York’s weak campaign contributions limits, poor disclosure rules, and huge contributions to the political parties have resulted in a system that relies on a small number of very large donors – entities that usually have business before the government.

New York has long been on notice of the failure of its state’s campaign finance law. Over thirty-five years ago, the final reports of the Commission on Government Integrity were issued. The Commission commented “In many instances these campaigns are disproportionately financed by groups, corporations or individuals whose businesses are directly regulated by government officials…[T]hese practices, among others, erode the public’s confidence in elected officials by giving at least the impressions that campaign contributors make contributions to candidates in order to obtain favorable treatment.”

Starting about ten years ago, New York took significant steps toward improving the system. It shrunk a loophole that allowed some businesses to give larger contributions than others. It established a voluntary campaign financing system that allowed a public “match” for small contributions, in order to help limit the influence of big donors. And it lowered campaign contribution limits for candidates running for office (although they are still high). But big donations to the political parties were left intact.

Campaign contributions to the political committees (for example the State Democratic and Republican Committees) are “capped” at $138,600, a ludicrously high level. Political committees are then allowed to transfer contributions of any amount to the candidates of their choice, effectively circumventing candidates’ contribution limits.

For those who want to give more, donations of any size are allowed to these political committees – as long as they are not used to advance a candidate.

Who makes contributions of these amounts? Those with access to big money, the same entities and individuals who are capable of spending big efforts on lobbying.

The result? Not enough has changed in Albany; it’s still a big money town. As the 1980s Commission noted, “torrents of money, unrestrained by real limits, pour from corporations, PACs and unions…The Commission found that this creates an unhealthy climate of indebtedness, with some candidates owing their success to party leaders who are in turn dangerously dependent on large contributions from special interests and those doing business with the government.”

What was true then, is still true today. As candidates run for state office, ask them how they intend to address this “unhealthy climate of indebtedness.”

Everywhere you look, there is a growing concern over the threats posed by A.I. data centers.  We have relied on data centers for years, but the burgeoning construction of new, more massive ones has hit a nerve in an increasingly cost-conscious America.  

Until recently, when we asked where our stored electronic information went, we were told “the cloud.”  Of course, there is no information “cloud”; our data is stored in computers.  Stored in computers that are housed all over the country – indeed sometimes the world.

The number of computers to store our data, process online transactions, and handle our internet information requests and computations, is mind-boggling.  With the rise of the use of A.I., so-called “artificial intelligence,” the projected demand for computer space and capabilities is mushrooming and accelerating.

With that demand comes the need for more and more access to computers, computers that are stored in massive buildings, and now being built all around the nation at an increasing speed.  Those computer buildings are known as “data centers” and their thirst for energy and often water (for cooling) is virtually insatiable.

The construction and use of these data centers is driving a rise in utility rates all across the nation and New York is not immune.  Beyond those costs these massive data centers can be “energy hogs.”  According to New York regulators, the electricity demand of proposed data center projects totals more than 11,000 MW, equivalent to around 1.5 times the demand of all New York State households combined.

During the past legislative session, lawmakers took a step toward slowing down the data center construction “race” to allow time to formulate policies to ensure the public is protected.  The legislation, the Responsible Data Center Development Act, places a one-year moratorium on data center development while reasonable safeguards are created.  

The “ball” will soon be in Governor Hochul’s “court.”  It is the governor who will decide if this legislative “pause” button gets pushed.  

From the public’s perspective, it makes perfect sense to take a breath before embarking headlong into a data centers construction boom.  If the bill is enacted, New York policy makers will have one year to put adequate safeguarding in place. Those safeguards should these five proposals:

Insulate the public from getting stuck with the bill if the data center flops or falls short.  New Yorkers should not be left “holding the bag” if data center projects go belly up or greatly underperform.

Make data centers’ permits and contracts available to the public without secrecy.  One national review of data centers found that required permitting for data centers were shielded from public disclosures.  New York has such exemptions in its open public records law that can be used to keep these contracts secret.  They must not be.

There must be regular, ongoing monitoring and public reporting of water use, as well as noise impacts.

Ensure that not one residential utility ratepayer dollar should be – directly or indirectly — used to subsidize data centers.  Data centers are expected to need a fantastic amount of electricity; they must not be driving up utility rates for New Yorkers.

Not one electron from the existing grid should be used to power data centers.  Another way to jack up utility rates to subsidize data centers is by diverting current electricity in the grid to power data centers.  Then ratepayers are on the hook to come up with new energy capacity.

Of course, none of these protections can take place without the governor’s approval of the Responsible Data Center Development Act.  New Yorkers have heard a lot about the need to tackle skyrocketing utility rates.  This legislation does something about it.  

Friday evening the state Assembly wrapped up its 2026 legislative session, a day after the state Senate.  In many ways the legislative session was a typical one:  The budget was late (the latest since 2010); lawmakers held campaign fundraising events in the Capital District; and hundreds of bills were approved at the end of session in a flurry of activity in both houses.

What was different was that the 58-days-late budget, which was due April 1st, was so late that it impacted the Legislature’s ability to deliberate over non-budget-related legislation.  If the budget had been on time, according to the Legislature’s calendar, lawmakers would have had two months to tackle non-budget issues.  This year, the Legislature had one week.

As a result, the final tally shows that they fell short on the number of bills passed.

Last year, for the full 2025 session, the two houses agreed on 856 bills.  This year, fewer bills passed.  The Senate and Assembly agreed on 759 bills.  The drop off represented the lowest total approved by both houses – outside the Covid-shortened session of 2020 – since the Democrats took control of the Legislature in 2019.

Of course, the Legislature could have stayed beyond the scheduled end of the session, but that would have cut into campaign time.  With many legislators facing primaries at the end of the month, few wanted to hang around and miss time on the campaign trail.

So, the budget fight not only ended way late, but it also reduced the amount of time lawmakers had to figure out how to handle other problems.  Some of those unanswered problems are large and others small.  

For example, legislation designed to plug a loophole in the state’s lobbying disclosure law failed to pass.  Current law requires the reporting of lobbying to influence laws, executive actions, agency decisions, and efforts to influence local governments, but not for efforts to influence the governor’s appointments to agencies or the courts.  Legislation to require disclosure of that lobbying was approved in the Senate, but the Assembly version never came up for a vote.

The bill had been approved by the Senate and was sponsored in the Assembly by the relevant committee chairperson.  Normally, widespread support for a non-controversial measure sponsored by a senior member of the house is a “go.”  But the Assembly blocked a floor vote on the legislation.  Why?  No one is saying.

Of course, there were other more controversial bills that were casualties of Assembly inaction.  One was legislation to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in New York.  

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the state is facing a growing trash disposal crisis.  The DEC has recommended that the state adopt a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, reduce packaging wastes.  

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act legislation would have done just that.  Despite having a majority of the Assembly signing on as sponsors of the legislation, the bill never came up for a vote.  Why? The Speaker said that, despite backing by a majority of the Assembly as sponsors, the bill did not have the votes.

The governor’s use of her budget powers to dominate the session to get what she wants also squeezes out solutions to problems that could have been addressed.  New Yorkers will never know whether if state lawmakers had more time they would have addressed the issues mentioned, or other important unaddressed legislation.  When common-sense legislation stalls year-after-year, the explanation that “the clock ran out” gets stale.

Both strategies – the governor’s decision to hold budget negotiations “hostage” until lawmakers agree to her non-budget policy proposals, as well as the Assembly’s tactic of limiting legislative approvals – mean that legislative action gets reduced.  As servants of the public, both the governor and the Assembly should at least explain their strategies to voters and taxpayers who deserve answers.

Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial start of summer. Bar-B-Qs, picnics, vacationing, Americans will want to be outdoors. And at events large and small, in parks or backyards, Americans bring with them the foods and beverages that are easiest to transport. When it comes to beverages, coolers full of soft drinks, beer and wine are often the drinks of choice. For most, that means single use beverage containers consumed, in plastics or glass bottles, or aluminum cans. And, of course, this collection of containers requires disposal.

But where?

When it comes to single use beverage containers, some are returned to the manufacturer (for example Pepsi) to be recycled or otherwise disposed of. And many others end up dumped in landfills or incinerators at your expense.

When one examines which beverage containers are returned or which are dumped, there is really no rhyme or reason. For example, the next time you’re looking at soft drink beverages, “Mountain Dew” is likely recycled, while “Brisk Iced Tea” is not. Both are in identical plastic bottles and both are made by PepsiCo, but their disposal is handled differently.

But why? The answer is that it’s a quirk of New York law.

New York’s “Bottle Bill” is the law that requires consumers to place a nickel deposit for the purchase of a covered beverage container. That law covers carbonated beverages and water containers but does not cover anything else. So, soda and beer are in, while iced teas and sports drinks are out. Which means that the beverage companies that produce beer, soda and water are responsible for disposal of returned used containers, while taxpayers are on the hook for the disposal of everything else.

Identical containers being treated differently. It might be humorous, but it contributes to New York’s solid waste crisis. Right now, the number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. To make matters worse, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade. So you pay for more landfilling and burning.

The state’s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.” If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen?

Two and a half years ago the DEC issued its “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan” to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC argued that the state should reduce or recycle its solid wastes at the rate of 85 percent and do so by embracing a “circular economy” approach, one that relies on ensuring that the producer of the waste is responsible for its fate – not the taxpayers. The plan urged action to, among other things, expand the state’s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes.

So far, however, nothing has been done. The expected budget agreement is unlikely to tackle this problem and so the garbage will keep piling up – and used beverage containers will either get recycled or dumped in a landfill.

Some of us may remember the old advertising campaign to “take the Pepsi challenge,” a taste-taking competition. This summer New Yorkers should take the “Bottle Bill” challenge: Take a look at your picnic drinks and see if you can identify which are recycled through the Bottle Bill and which are dumped at taxpayers’ expense. What you’ll see are the exact same containers being treated differently.

Ask your state elected officials why.

Now well over a month late, it appears that Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are on a path to finish off the budget, which was due on April 1st.  Since the final budget agreement will be the latest since 2010, the tardiness will squeeze the time available to tackle non-budget topics.  

State lawmakers typically finish the official legislative session in the first half of June.  This year, they are scheduled to head for the exits on June 4th.  Normally, they do a lot of work after the budget is completed.  After last year’s late state budget, 537 bills were approved, or nearly two-thirds of the total number of bills that passed both houses in 2025 (856 bills).  

So far this year, 152 bills have passed the State Senate and Assembly.  To keep on pace with last year’s bill passage productivity, the Legislature has its work cut out.  And this year, lawmakers will have less time to act than last year.

With so little time to do so much work, it will be hard for the Legislature to tackle the big controversial issues – the issues that most impact New Yorkers.  However, there is one big issue that they are most surely going to take on – redistricting.

You heard that right, the once-in-a-decade, right after the census, redrawing of political boundaries.  The Democrat majorities in both houses will accelerate the timetable for the redrawing of Congressional lines.  It is widely expected that both houses will advance first passage of a state Constitutional amendment allowing a mid-decade change.  They will then move second passagehave during the 2027 legislative session and could  it ready for voter consideration in a November 2027 referendum.

Why the urgency?  New York is a “blue state,” meaning controlled by Democrats.  Democrats across the country are scrambling to redraw Congressional boundaries in reaction to President Trump and Republicans in “red states” rush to redraw Congressional lines in those states.  This mid-decade effort was triggered by President Trump’s maneuvers to enhance the political prospects for Republicans to hold the majority in the House of Representatives.  

Those efforts will help boost the electoral prospects of a Republican razor-thin majority, a majority surely in trouble given the widespread public unpopularity of the President and the historical trend that the party in power loses House seats in the mid-term election.

Thus, in New York, the Democrats’ legislative majorities are trying to do what they can to bolster Democrat ballot box success, but given the state’s Constitution, their moves can only impact the 2028 election.  A state Constitutional amendment has been advanced to allow for a mid-decade redistricting process to be triggered if another state makes such a move.  Which has happened.

There is a case to be made to change New York’s redistricting process.  The current system is a mess and some reformers opposed the creation of the current system when then-Governor Cuomo advocated for it in 2014.  The key problem is that the current system relies on the two major political parties to agree on the new boundaries, which is – and has been – a recipe for gridlock.  

If changes are to be made, they should fix redistricting in this state by removing the political parties from mapmaking and set boundaries that focus on the best interests of the public, not partisan schemes.  If that move also allows New York’s process to begin mid-decade, so be it.  At least New York would have a fair system.

New York will hear a lot of cries of foul by the state’s Republican lawmakers, both Congressional and legislative.  Remember, however, that none did anything meaningful to stop the actions of President Trump in the first place.  The New York Republican Congressional delegation had a lot of leverage given their razor-thin majority but did not use it to stop the President.

A nationwide solution is needed.  The Congress should immediately take up legislation to stop gerrymandering.  Let’s have elections in districts that are about communities and who they want to represent them, not rigged elections in which the dominant political party picks the winner by having decided who will be voting in each district.