Throughout the fall campaigns, New York's campaign finance system loomed large. Voters complained about the influence of big money while candidates assailed their opponents for spending too much, taking money from inappropriate sources, and making decisions that appeared to be influenced by donations.

In the $40 million-plus governor's race, George Pataki continued to hear how federal authorities are investigating his fundraising operation to see if donations were made to influence decisions by the state parole board or if transportation officials favored the Silverite Corp. in a New York City tunnel contract after Silverite's contributions were made.

State Comptroller H. Carl McCall met with criticism about his decision to raise money from individuals in investment firms where McCall invested state pension funds. In the attorney general's race, incumbent Dennis Vacco and challenger Eliot Spitzer assailed each other on the issue, with Spitzer criticizing Vacco for accepting donations from companies he had investigated. Vacco in turn chided Spitzer for failing to disclose his father's involvement in paying off his debt from his failed 1994 campaign.

As the state Legislature convenes this month, government reformers and certain Democrats will again raise the banner of reform. It's a flag they have waved with scant success for the past decade. "I really think that people are fed up with the system, and want significant change," says Rachel Leon, executive director of Common Cause/New York. "It's just that our leaders in Albany aren't allowing (it) to occur." That's hardly surprising, Leon and others say, since incumbents are the ones who amend the laws, but incumbents continue to benefit from the ones already in place: every state legislative incumbent who ran for re-election this year won.

Still, that won't stop Common Cause, New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), the League of Women Voters of New York and many Assembly Democrats who have been in the forefront of reform efforts in Albany. The proposals on the agenda this year include: prohibiting political fundraising events in Albany during the legislative session; mandating the computerization of campaign records in county Boards of Election around the state; and ending the practice that allows unlimited contributions to the housekeeping committees of political parties.

Holding fund-raisers in Albany, which are dutifully attended by the Capitol's corps of lobbyists, has become a popular way to haul in campaign checks for both Republicans and Democrats at the State House. Last year, Leon says there were a record-setting 201 fund raisers during the 60 days that legislators met to do official business.

A bill whose sponsors include Assembly Democrats Alexander Grannis of Manhattan and Sandra Galef of Westchester would prohibit contributions by lobbyists while the Legislature is in session, with a cap of $250 for the rest of the year

"Let the lobbyists talk to us, but let's keep the money out of it," Galef says. "I don't think we should be doing business with lobbyists while we are technically in session."

The bill is opposed by Senate Republicans and some leaders in the Democrat-controlled Assembly. The problem with the legislation, says Assemblyman Steven Kaufman, is that the Legislature, technically, never is out of session. Though votes could have been taken during the 60 legislative session days last year, the Legislature actually was legally convened every weekday.

In addition, Kaufman, a Bronx Democrat who chairs the Assembly Committee on Elections, sees nothing wrong with hitting up lobbyists for contributions during session.

"If you have to raise contributions, I don't see the problem with raising money in session or out of session," Kaufman says. "You hold a fund-raiser, and you invite everybody who it is legally permissible to invite, and some turn out to be lobbyists."

Two years ago, after several years of debate, the Legislature finally required the state Board of Elections to computerize the, filings of candidates for state Legislature and statewide Office. But lawmakers did not make the law effective until July 1999, long after the 1998 election

Galef of Westchester wants the state to require computerization for county boards of election throughout the state. With tens of millions of dollars given for local and county races, bringing the computer project to the local level will give citizens a handle on how influence is peddled in their community, advocates say.

Some counties, like Westchester, are moving ahead on their own, without the requirement of state legislation. But Galef believes that a uniform system statewide would improve the state's democratic process.

John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, says the Republican-controlled chamber would consider moving forward on computerization in the counties. "It's a question of dollars and making it all uniform," McArdle said.

Since the mid-1990s, state Republicans have tapped corporate coffers-and spared corporations from violating state election law-by having them give to the party's housekeeping account. While corporations are limited to a total of $5,000 a year in donations to all campaigns, they can give unlimited amounts to the housekeeping committees. Between Jan. 1, 1995 and July 15, 1998, the state GOP received $8.7 million in its housekeeping account while the Conservative Party got $3.1 million, the Democratic Party received $2.9 million and the Liberal Party received $ 1.1 million.

Grannis wants to limit. contributions to housekeeping accounts to $1,000, to close the loophole.

But Senate Republicans aren't convinced it is a problem. McArdle says a more pressing problem is contributions made to organizations like NYPIRG and Common Cause, which are not disclosed to the public. Disclosure, McArdle says, is more important than slapping limits on contributors.

Senate Elections Committee Chairman Serphin Maltese maintains the GOP edge in housekeeping contributions balances the Democratic edge in contributions from labor unions. "That's going to remain a problem," Maltese says. "Look at what the teachers union did to [former U.S. Sen. Al] D'Amato. The playing field is still heavily weighted toward the Democrats on PACs and unions, so in order to level the playing field, you shouldn't limit housekeeping money.'

In New York City in the '90s, the political playing field has somewhat leveled with its system of partial public financing of campaigns. Kaufman says Assembly Democrats plan to again push a bill for a voluntary system that would cap spending on races in exchange for matching public funds for contributions by individuals. The bill, whose lead sponsor is Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, would cap contributions at $4000 for statewide races, down form $28,000. Spending would be limited to $7 million for the governor's race, $2.5 million for the attorney general's race, $150,000 for state Senate and $75,000 for the assembly.

"It's a system that has worked well in New York City," Kaufman says.

But Senate Republicans have shown no interest in the plan.

"It doesn't have a prayer," Maltese says. "I think the public resents paying the salaries of elected officials. Paying for campaigns is way too much. Its just not a valid use of taxpayers' money." While the state Senate is expected to oppose any far reaching reforms in Albany, incoming Attorney General Spitzer says he will establish an ethics bureau to help enforce the state's ethics laws as well as campaign finance violations. In the past, the state Board of Elections has had little luck interesting local district attorneys in prosecuting violations of the state election laws, most of which are criminal offenses. The attorney general's office has criminal jurisdiction, and p Spitzer says that's one area he intends to move into.

"It makes sense to centralize it," Spitzer says. Meanwhile, reform is expected to continue on the local level, where New York's most far reaching campaign finance initiatives have succeeded. Suffolk County voters last November passed a binding referendum that will set up a system of public financing for Suffolk County campaigns. It's New York's only public finance system that will be funded by a check-off on property-tax bills.

In New York City, elections officials will be implementing two major changes in the city's public financing system, seen as a national model. The City Council last fall passed a law over Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's veto that gives candidates a 4-to- 1 public match for campaign funds raised from New York City residents by candidates who refuse to accept corporate campaign contributions. Then came the November ballot initiative, in which voters approved a plan to ban corporate contributions for those taking part in the public financing system.

The referendum also instructed the city's Campaign Finance Board to look into fashioning rules to limit contributions from city contractors

The two initiatives have resulted in a clash between Giuliani and the Campaign Finance Board. Giuliani has argued that the November referendum superseded the City Council action, making the 4-to-1 match invalid.

But the board maintains the initiatives were compatible, with both now part of the city's campaign finance law. Board spokesman Ian Michaels says the referendum only ensures, that all those who participate in the voluntary public financing system will receive the 4-to-1 match because corporate contributions are now prohibited.

"Just by joining the program you will be deciding not to take corporate money," Michaels says.

But with Giuliani controlling the city purse strings, the issue may be heading to the courts for resolutions