Civic Groups Testify at CFB Post-Election Public Hearing

The New York City Campaign Finance Board had it's post-election public hearings this week, without much recognition from the press. Much of the testimony is available on their website.

CREATING INEQUALITIES

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, the CFB Chairman, noted that preliminary results show that about half of all public financing in the general election went to candidates who won in landslide races - winning with more than 60% of the vote. He says that "the current triggers for paying out public funds are simply too low and are having the opposite effect from that intended—i.e., to create a level playing field."

Gene Russianoff, a lawyer at NYPIRG, who helped draft the original City Campaign Finance Act, supports lowering contribution limits to$250, as opposed to the current limit of $2,750 - which the CFB previously recommended. NYPIRG believes this will "yield more competitive elections (along with lower spending ceilings in council races), encourage a broader base of people participating in the political process, and further reduce the influence of bundlers."

NYPIRG also proposes denying significant public financing in a district that has historically voted overwhelmingly in favor of one party or another during a general election. Funding could be denied if all of a candidate's opponents have raised only a small amount of funding, they recommend. But they might allow a candidate financing if he or she can show his candidate has significant name recognition. NYPIRG also alludes to lower expenditure ceilings as a way to limit total expenditures.

Candidates who face an opponent that has not raised 20% of the expenditure limits are required to submit to the CFB a letter arguing why they need public funding. Citizen's Union notes that these requests are rarely - if ever - denied, and sees this as a loophole in the guidelines that needs to be addressed. As a recommendation, they offer requiring the candidate to appear before the CFB, rather than simply submitting a letter. They suggest using criteria such as the candidate's showing in prior elections and their name recognition, the district's voting history, and indices such as polling data. The 20% trigger needs to be raised, as well, and coupled with a reduction to a 2 to one match Citizen's Union says. They stress caution, citing the potential of charges of tampering with elections.

COMPETING AGAINST HIGH-SPENDING SELF-FINANCED OPPONENTS

The ability of government to impose spending limits on self-financed candidates is limited by the Supreme Court, so the CFB must work around this. Bloomberg has spent record amounts on his campaings, outspending every campaign other than presidential races, including senate and gubernatorial races.

The CFB enacted new bonus funding and higher expenditure ceilings for participants competing with candidates who spend above a certain threshold, but NYPIRG calls them inadequate, and proposes an additional flat grant to help participants compete with self-financed competitors. After a candidate reaches their spending limit, he or she would receive a grant of one-fifth of the spending of the competitor, Russianoff offers as an initial suggestion. NYPIRG also calls for allowing a political party higher contribution limits when their candidate faces a high spending opponent is another solution. Common Cause New York supports a flat grant as well. Although CU finds merit in NYPIRG's proposal of a flat grant, they see the one-fifth figure as "a bit high." They also support allowing higher contribution limits under these circumstances, which the League of Women Voters of the City of New York also advocates.

Nicole A. Gordon, Executive Director of the CFB, said that two council candidates received the new 5-1 bonus rate, and 1 council candidate and a mayoral candidate received the 6-1 bonus.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of Vermont’s limits on campaign spending, which could possibly change campaign finance law nationaly, and allow new restrictions on spending.

THE NEED FOR MORE REFORMS

While a couple issues tended to dominate the discussion, there were many other topics raised by the reformers, including:

NYPIRG supports extending the 90-day blackout period for city-funded self-promotional literature (called franks), disallowing exemptions from budget reporting during an election year, and a prohibiting prominent photographs and commentary of officials outside of a particular district. CC/NY supports these measures. CU also supports the extension, and calls for further restrictions within the blackout period.

Gifford Miller, during the democratic primary, is famous for spending over $1 billion of the city's money - about 0.02 percent of the entire city budget - on literature, a day before the blackout period.

CU would like to see greater access to low cost of free airtime for participants on radio and television programing, as well as other mediums, such as newspapers, bus and train ads and online outlets. The CFB should attempt to make agreements with media outlets, and provide media subsidies to candidates, CU says. They also recommend that the current print, online, and video voter guides need to be marketed more effectively, "This info is only as good as valuable as the number of people that it reaches" they say. They further suggest that the guides be expanded to include District Attorney races. The League commends the print voter guide, and agrees it should cover DA races as well.

While city law now ensures that candidates show documentation proving that the donor approves the transfer, CU takes the position that "candidates should only be allowed to transfer funds raised within the relevant election cycle." NYPIRG calls for the prohibition of the transfer of war chests, and would like to see the CFB grow to encompass the DA's races if legally possible.

Schwarz, the CFB Chairman, said that the issue of pay-to-play - the practice of lobbyists or those doing business with the city donating to electoral campaigns and seen as an attempt at private gain - will be addressed in the near future at public hearing devoted solely to the issue. He noted recent laws passed in Connecticut and Pennsylvania that ban the practice.

Schwarz also expressed dismay at the Council's choice to pass legislation allowing "single source contributions" - the ability for local unions to donate separately - after the Board committed publicly to revisit the issue after the 2005 elections in the regular course. Citizen's Union, New York Public Interest Research Group, and Common Cause New York all submitted testimony at the Council's public hearing.