Mr. Liu still won’t reveal the identities of fund-raisers who have collected contributions from friends, family or co-workers. Known as “bundlers,” these fund-raisers are supposed to be identified in campaign finance records. But Mr. Liu’s campaign hasn’t provided that information, as required by law. The comptroller had a chance during a public appearance last week to provide the names, or at least to indicate when his campaign will do so. But he did not.

Several weeks ago, when revelations about Mr. Liu’s campaign fund-raising made headlines, the comptroller asked former State Attorney General Robert Abrams to conduct an independent inquiry. It was a bold and welcome move, albeit one made only after Mr. Liu backed down from his insistence that the inquiry could be handled in-house. At the time, this page noted that Mr. Abrams was the right man for the job—he would quit rather than be complicit in a whitewash.

Well, Mr. Abrams has resigned. The comptroller’s attorney asked Mr. Abrams to suspend his investigation after federal prosecutors opened an inquiry of their own. Mr. Abrams saw no conflict between his work and that of federal investigators. The request, he said, compromised his independence. So he quit.

This is serious business, indeed, but Mr. Liu apparently believes that he can continue to delay and obfuscate while still positioning himself as a mayoral candidate in 2013. He refuses to explain why he cannot provide a list of bundlers immediately. He offers no explanation for his campaign’s shoddy record-keeping. He seems indifferent to concerns raised about his ability to oversee his campaign’s finances—this is a man, remember, in charge of monitoring the city’s treasury.

Mr. Liu needs to reassess his plans for 2013. His campaign is under federal investigation. He has stonewalled efforts to obtain basic information about his fund-raisers. He cannot—and should not—be considered a serious candidate for mayor while investigators are raising questions about his fund-raising.

He should announce, now, that he will not be a candidate for mayor in 2013. He should spend his spare time trying to sort out his campaign’s tangled finances rather than making stump speeches throughout the five boroughs. His continued presence in the shadow campaign to succeed Michael Bloomberg would be, frankly, a joke.

Mr. Liu has more important work to do than run a campaign for mayor. It’s time to get it done.

Good move. And good choice. Mr. Abrams, who served as A.G. from 1979 to 1993, has an impeccable reputation and would seem to have no ax to grind.

What remains uncertain, however, is whether Mr. Abrams will have the resources—in terms of a budget and personnel—to conduct a thorough investigation of Mr. Liu’s tangled campaign finances. The comptroller has not yet made it clear how much Mr. Abrams will be paid for his work. Nor has Mr. Liu indicated what sort of staff and other resources will be available to him.

While these uncertainties are somewhat troubling, Mr. Abrams brings a sterling reputation to this investigation. If he is not allowed to conduct a fair, impartial investigation, he will quit. Nothing in his career suggests that Mr. Abrams would be party to a whitewash. While he has been active in local politics as a member of various commissions and as a contributor, he has no known relationship with Mr. Liu.

The former A.G. certainly has his work cut out for him. An investigation by The New York Times several weeks ago indicated that Mr. Liu’s campaign has some serious questions to answer. The Times found similar handwriting on checks purportedly from different individuals, suggesting that one person wrote checks for other people. In addition, bundlers—fund-raisers who collect contributions from multiple sources—were not identified. Even more troubling, the newspaper reported that a businesswoman from Queens who declined to give a donation was asked if she would allow her name to be used on a contribution donated by somebody else.

Mr. Liu’s choice of Mr. Abrams indicates that he realizes the seriousness of the questions about his fund-raising. Perhaps, after nearly two years in office, he finally gets it. Last week, he joined Mayor Bloomberg in announcing a plan to find a common manager for the city’s five pension funds. The proposal could save
$1 billion a year. That’s the kind of innovative policymaking the city needs.

Perhaps the comptroller is getting serious about being a genuine partner in city governance instead of playing the role of a headline-grabber. That would be a welcome development.