Search
Court strikes down key provision of the NYC campaign finance system
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down part of Connecticut's campaign finance system, and their ruling has a direct effect on the NYC system.
In this case, Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, the court upheld a district court ruling that the "trigger" provision that provides extra public funding to participating candidates who are opposed by high-spending nonparticipants, is unconstitutional.
NYC has a similar trigger, under which (for example) Bill Thompson got extra public funding in his nearly successful bid to unseat Mayor Bloomberg. Since New York falls within the Second Circuit, we are affected by their rulings.
How many candidates, who are able to raise huge amounts of money, will not accept public funding in 2013 because they need not worry about their opponents getting those extra public funds? I can think of two top mayoral candidates whose warchests make that decision obvious.
It is clear that NYC needs to reexamine its campaign finance system. The system didn't work very well anyway (nobody gets elected because of matching funds), and now it will be even worse.
Re: Court strikes down key provision of the NYC campaign ...
Technically, the candidates have to spend the public funding they get or return it. The loophole is that candidates often raise far more than they can spend if they are getting matching funds, and any unspent money is "officially" from their own fundraising, rather than from public funds.
The "Clean Elections" bill that I got introduced into the City Council in 2008 is being revised. It severely limits private fundraising, and requires candidates to return any leftover money, regardless of its official source. I'm revising it to deal with the added problems created by the courts; I expect it to be ready by the end of this year.
You can learn about it -- and help support it -- at www.grassrootsnyc.org.