(Re-)Considering the Disgraced: Spitzer vs. Bruno

To put it as kindly as I can, at this point it's clear that both former New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer and former New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno have more negatives than positives. Each man appears to be corrupt in his own way. Each man appears to suffer from what I've termed "The Entitlement Syndrome."

Measuring the two against each other, though, is less difficult than one might think. I can't quite decide what's sadder, the mere fact that Bruno clearly comes off better, or the fact that of the two Bruno's the only one who's been convicted and sentenced for his illegal conduct.

Eliot Spitzer served as Governor from the beginning of 2007 through March of 2008. His brief reign was marked with acrimony and scandal, and he was finally forced to resign in disgrace. Joe Bruno, by contrast, had a distinguished, long career as a Senator before taking the Majority Leader spot. He took that spot in 1995 and served until he resigned, under a cloud but on his own terms, late in 2008.

After Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign in disgrace, the press repeatedly handed Bruno opportunities to gloat. Wisely, however, Bruno, at least publicly, remained at once gentlemanly and cautious. Bruno expressed concern for the Governor and his family, during this difficult time. Bruno carried on the machinery of government, passing the Senate's draft of the State Budget quickly on the heels of the scandal breaking.

By contrast, Spitzer, already long out of office by the time Joe Bruno was convicted and sentenced, responded to Bruno's troubles with ridiculous gloating. Spitzer, you see, knew Bruno was on the take all along. Spitzer, with his keen investigator's instinct, could tell right away. Not addressed by Spitzer is that he was also engaging in illegal conduct himself at the time, and thus was familiar with some of the warning signs.

Bruno's crimes were the type you had to build not just a factual case for, but a legal case for. Prosecutors had to show that not certain conduct occurred, but that the conduct fit the definition of some crime or other. They did it well enough that I began watching the trial as a Bruno supporter and soured on him day by day. By contrast, however, Spitzer's conduct was clearly illegal. There was no legal argument to be made, one could only dispute the fact pattern. And Spitzer didn't dispute the fact pattern, at least not publicly that I saw. We'll never know the details of why Spitzer was not prosecuted, and it's best that I not voice my strong suspicious, but it should be clear, however, that there was no doubt whatsoever that what Spitzer had done was actually illegal.

Bruno's legislative achievements over many years as Senate Majority Leader were numerous. Spitzer's legislative achievements during his brief, terrifying reign consisted largely of Workers' Compensation reform, ethics reform, and one on-time budget. I'm informed through conversations with knowledgeable folks down at the State Capitol building, and by going over old documents, that Workers' Compensation reform had been in the works for years and years before Spitzer's reign, and that the final bill had considerably more input from the State Legislature than from Spitzer and his people. The Spitzer-era ethics reform has been something of a disaster, with the head of the Public Integrity Commission already having to defend the Commission's existence, and the Commission issuing such bizarre, thoughtless, senseless edicts as what I've termed the “Mocha Protocol.” Spitzer also had a record of quasi-legislative Executive Orders to consider, but these didn't amount to much either.

Bruno was a self-made man, who rose from the streets of Glens Falls to the corridors of power. I have little doubt that Spitzer wouldn't have gotten anyplace without his father. The best evidence of this is the fiscal shenanigans Spitzer and his father used during Spitzer's first run at Attorney General. Regrettably we must go to ever-not-quite-reliable Roger Stone as the primary source of this, as he's been the only one really highlighting it to any degree. And, then of course, there's the fact that after resigning as Governor, Spitzer ran right back to Daddy as his primary source of income.

And we won't even begin to get into Spitzer's role on Wall Street as Attorney General, where his juvenile “sheriff” act, I have argued, forced unethical and perhaps illegal conduct even further underground, where it was harder to ferret out, while simultaneously driving good, needed Wall Street analysis jobs to India.

I come here not to praise Bruno, but to help bury Spitzer, whose bizarre, snide “I knew it all along” act is pathetic and disgraceful.

And, therefore, in its own way, quite fitting.