Assistant District Attorney Mark Sacha sealed his fate when he publicly aired his disagreement with the outcome of an investigation into wrongdoing by the campaign of former county executive candidate Paul Clark. The opinions of a disgruntled assistant district attorney need to be carefully measured by the public, but whatever his motive in coming forward, the public deserves to know the truth.

At the heart of the controversy are allegations of violations of the state Election Law, not by some run-of-the-mill political hack that has gone rogue on a campaign but instead by Steve Pigeon, a seasoned political insider with access to large sums of money. Two people, including the former candidate Clark, previously pleaded guilty to violating the Election Law, but questions remain about the conduct of Pigeon and others involved in Clark’s campaign.

Unfortunately, allegations concerning violations of the Election Law are all too common and the public has grown distrustful of a system where money buys votes, influence and preferential treatment. District attorneys shy away from pursuing investigations against individuals who are politically powerful and who may have helped them get elected. Often a district attorney, like Frank Sedita III, will cite the lack of resources to prosecute a political corruption case.

Former DA Frank Clark recently shared a unique perspective with a Buffalo News reporter when he said that convictions are hard to achieve in Election Law cases because the defense would “come at you with a thousand examples of people doing the same thing.”

Ironically, Clark’s statement underscores the need for action. If so many elected officials or candidates are violating the law, that is not a reason to decline a prosecution. Instead it should be a call to arms for prosecutors.

DAs traditionally have referred to the deterrent affect of a prosecution. If one or two violators were prosecuted and convicted, other violators would think twice about breaking the law. If the county DAs are too gun shy to investigate potential Election Law violations, then some authority needs to fill the void in order to send a strong message to those who violate the Election Law that their conduct is harmful to open, fair elections and it will not be tolerated.

The public deserves vigorous protection of our electoral process, not a shrug of the shoulder from law enforcement. If DAs across the state are not prepared to ensure the integrity of the system, then it is up to Gov. David A. Paterson to intervene by appointing a special prosecutor.

From the public accounts of Sacha’s allegations and the rebuttals offered by DAs Clark and Sedita, it is difficult to ascertain Pigeon’s role in the corrupt Paul Clark campaign. Perhaps if Sacha’s charges were isolated, one might conclude that Pigeon is being unfairly targeted.

Unfortunately, Sacha’s charges are not isolated. While his allegations involved a local election in 2007, Pigeon’s role in so-called independent expenditures on behalf of other campaigns has been criticized by several elected officials, and the State Board of Elections has referred a complaint to the Albany County DA’s office. Under scrutiny are the expenditures made by Tom Golisano’s political action committee, Responsible New York.

Last year, with Pigeon’s help, Golisano spent more than $4 million to influence elections in New York. Ironically, despite the role they played in electing a Democratic majority in the State Senate, Pigeon and Golisano were at the heart of the gridlock in Albany in June as they worked to topple the Senate’s Democratic leaders. After four weeks of stalemate, the coup ended without meaningful reform but Pigeon was appointed counsel to the majority leader, a $150,000-a-year job. It is noteworthy that Pigeon’s new boss, Sen. Pedro Espada, is himself a target of an investigation into his own Election Law violations.

While the public and good government advocates decry the overbearing influence money has in the electoral process, no one with the power to do so seems willing to take a stand to ensure that financing of campaigns is lawful. DAs Clark and Sedita had the power and authority to learn the full extent of the corruption that occurred in a campaign where their own probe disclosed bags full of money were used to subvert state law. They could have set the tone for deterrence and reform by presenting the facts to a grand jury.

Even if the grand jury decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to file additional charges, it has the power to issue a report recommending to the governor and Legislature reforms that would close the gaping loopholes in the Election Law.

Paterson has the power to appoint either a special prosecutor or the attorney general to conduct a thorough review of Pigeon’s role in the Paul Clark campaign and other campaigns where independent expenditures were used, to determine whether the law was violated or a loophole was manipulated. The public’s confidence in government and politics is at a low ebb, and with Paterson facing an election, he would be wise to use this opportunity to send a deterrent message to all those who think they are above the law. Also Paterson would bolster his re-election chances by using this sorry affair as motivation to bring real reform to our campaign finance laws.

Dennis C. Vacco, a Republican, was state attorney general from 1995 through 1999.