RSS
Home
NYC Campaign Finance Board claims credit for close NYC elections--SI bucks trend
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
NYC official seal
The NYC Campaign Finance Board distributed an analysis late last week crediting itself with making NYC's 2009 elections close despite Mayor Bloomberg's record spending spree.
"With the results of the general election in, one trend stands out: across all offices, the 2009 elections provided a higher level of competition than the previous set of citywide elections," wrote Eric Friedman, NYC Campaign Board Press Secretary.
"The results of the mayoral election suggest that the Campaign Finance Program can indeed help candidates get their message out even against high-spending, non-participating candidates," Friedman added.
Friedman made the the following observations:
--Fernando Ferrer, the Democratic nominee for mayor in 2005, was outspent 9-to-1, and achieved 39 percent of the vote.
--Bill Thompson, his counterpart in 2009, received $3.3 million in public matching funds, and received 46 percent of the vote, despite being outspent by his opponent 12-to-1.
"More Council races were competitive in the general election as well," Friedman added, citing the following:
--In seven Council districts, winners were held to 60 percent of the vote or less, up from only one in 2005.
--In one of those races, a participating candidate defeated a non-participant who had outspent him by a margin of 4-to-1.
This was not true on Staten Island where three of four contested races ended in lopsided victories.
Incumbent James Molinaro won the election for Borough President with 62.74% of the vote, and incumbent Councilmen Oddo and Ignizio won with 74.84% and 66.10% respectively.
The closest Staten Island race was for the North Shore Council seat which Debi Rose won with 57.25% over incumbent Ken Mitchell and challenger Timothy Kuhn.
Rose's win over Mitchell in the Democratic primary was even closer. She won with 54.71% of the vote.
Politically, the North Shore of Staten Island is a lot like NYC; the rest of Staten Island is not.
NYC's Campaign Finance Law is often praised as the best in the nation.
A key component of the law is the innovative way of awarding public funding.
Public funds are awarded on the basis of $6 for every $1 the candidate raises, subject to certain restrictions, with a maximum of $175 awarded for any given contribution regardless of size.
This rewards a strategy of soliciting many small contributions.
Another key component makes public funding contingent on spending limits.
NY mayoral candidates face an expenditure limit of $3,850,000 in a general election, which Mayor Bloomberg was able to avoid since he opted out of the program and received no public funding.
Borough President candidates face a spending limit of $1,386,000.
City Council candidates face an expenditure limit of $161,000.
All Staten Island candidates were part of the program and faced spending limits, although Timothy Kuhn did not raise enough money to actually qualify for public funding.
Incumbent Borough President James Molinaro (C) raised $241,198 in private funding, with 1,081 individual contributors. He received $628,248 in public funds. His opponent, John Luisi (D), raised $96,984 in private funds, with 452 individual contributions, and received $239,934 in public funds.
Incumbent Councilman Vincent Ignizio (R) on the South Shore received $60,162 from 233 contributors and received $88,550 in public funds, while his opponent, Janine Materna (D), received $43,833 in private funding from 457 contributors and received $88,550 in public funds.
James Oddo (R), Mid-Island, received $72,010 from 364 contributors and $88,550 in public funds, while his opponent, James Pocchia (D), received $41,571 in private funds from 319 contributors and received $88,550 in public funds.
In an effort to provide transparency and dispense information, the Campaign Finance Board maintains a website which lists private and public funding received by each candidate in the program, with details available for individual entries.
The site is an indispensible source of campaign finance information--and more--since candidates invariably end up representing their financial donors.
Successful candidates also tend to govern the way they spend, and financial records like this provide insight into the way they go about things, which is far more revealing than soundbites.
The NYC Campaign finance Board has had a strong positive impact on NYC politics.
However, the board does face challenges in the future.
The NY Times addressed a simmering issue in an editorial this past summer:
"New York City’s campaign finance system ranks among the best in the country, but two powerful forces threaten to undermine it this year. One we know a lot about: Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to opt out so that he can spend unlimited amounts of his own money on his re-election campaign. He has already vastly exceeded the limits imposed on candidates who choose public financing.
"We also have serious questions about the activities of a private corporation set up by the Working Families Party to assist candidates the party has endorsed.
"Created a decade ago, and built with union support, the Working Families Party has become an increasingly important force in New York politics. It favors a progressive agenda on issues like affordable housing and better public transportation, and has plenty of money.
"But its real strength is its army of political operatives. The party formed a corporation, called Data and Field Services, as a way to market the party’s expertise — sophisticated lists of voters, for instance — to favored candidates.
"The workings of the company are hard to figure out because, as a private business, its financial arrangements are not automatically transparent. The Campaign Finance Board should take a hard look at this operation.
"Specifically, the board must find out whether Data and Field Services is charging candidates market rates for its services. If the company is charging full price, that would seem to comply with the law. If candidates are not paying market rates, the company and perhaps the party and its donors could be unfairly subsidizing candidates who have agreed to abide by the strict donor limits and spending caps required by the public financing system."
SI Councilwoman Debi Rose is implicated in this controversy. Her representatives are scheduled to appear in Appellate Court later this month to defend her campaign against charges that they unfairly used Data and Field Services in her primary win over Ken Mitchell.
Rose's Treasurer requested Fifth Amendment protection in their first appearance while failing to produce requested financial disclosure statements.
John Signoriello can be contacted by email at siexaminer@yahoo.com
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
.jpg)
