Search
Memo to CFB -- Don't Change the Rules
You may have read (on Azi's blog, for instance) that a bunch of Council members who were running for "higher office" and will now run for a third term could also run afoul of campaign spending limits. As a result, they would be ineligible for public matching funds, which wouldn't be a problem since they've already raised a fortune.
More importantly, any of their opponents would be eligible for extra matching funds, and would also be allowed to spend more than the "limit" currently allows. That would be a problem for would-be third-termers. The CFB's proposed new rules amount to giving these big spenders a "do over," and would only serve to hurt any possible challenger.
The thing is, the CFB's proposed rules violate their own precedents and are illegal.
My initial e-mail to the Campaign Finance Board after the jump:
I will be submitting a full report at the proper time, but in essence the proposed campaign spending rules, which amount to a "do over," are in violation of precedents set by advisory opinions 1993-7 and 1997-6, and also a violation of NYC Administrative Code 3-703(1)(e).
The argument that Council members affected by this rule change did not know, when they spent the money, that running for a third term to the Council was going to be an option is false, since they created that option themselves.
The only people who might require a new ruling would be the four Borough Presidents who are currently serving their second term. In that case, however, any new ruling must still comply with the precedents and law cited above; the proposed rule changes do not.
Ugh.
I'm sickened by the whole situation. Banana Republic isn't just a clothing store anymore.
Will this end up in court? And if so, would there be any chance of heading them off?
And what about the funds raised by various people who were planning to run for higher office, which I understand they are now being allowed to stash away for their presumed 2013 campaigns for those higher offices? Because I can't imagine that the Council would vote themselves another term in 2012, can you? But seriously, would not the same standard apply for their challengers' matching funds at that time of those future races?
Where will this end up?
I'm not sure if the CFB has actually attempted to issue the new rules. If they haven't, then it's good odds this won't end up in court. I intend to notify the Gov't Ops committee counsel Monday morning, as well as several other offices, and nip this in the bud.
Mind you, I personally wouldn't mind publicly decrying the crookedness of a government agency, especially in front of TV cameras. But the folks at the CFB really have, up to this time, done an excellent job in a very difficult situation over the years, and I believe it would be better to work behind the scenes to get things done.
Of course, with places like TDG, nothing is completely behind the scenes (heh heh).