At a press conference, Mayor Bloomberg announced, regarding the city's economy, that "I’m reasonably optimistic that we’ve turned the corner.” When Azi tried to ask him if his rationale for extending term limits was -- but Bloomberg cut him off, saying it wasn't a serious question. Moments later, Bloomberg called Azi "a disgrace."

Someone's a disgrace, all right; decide for yourself.

It recently occurred to me that if we had a "Clean Elections" system in place in NYC already, the term limits extension would probably have failed.

Under the bill (Intro 803-2008), participating candidates would not be allowed to begin fundraising until December 1. Since the bill was passed on October 23 and signed on November 3, nobody would have started yet. With the [very predictable] uproar following the vote (see "Bloomberg 29"), a lot of people could have raised all the $5 contributions they needed to get public funding -- and a lot of incumbents who voted to extend term limits would have been very nervous. If that had made a difference to even two second-term Council members, plus the two first-termers who switched at the last moment, that's the ball game.

Something to think about as the Clean Elections Act gains traction. Meanwhile, anyone wishing to help lobby their own Council member should let me know.

On the same day that Mayor Bloomberg signed the term limits extension into law (and held that mockery of a "hearing"), the Campaign Finance Board issued an "Advisory Opinion" in which they gave people who had spent a lot of money on higher office a "do over" if they choose to run for their current seat.

It's a clearly and obviously illegal ruling, to anyone who bothers to read NYC's campaign finance law, something the CFB theoretically should have done. For those who haven't read the law, ask yourself if high-spending incumbents should be allowed to pretend they didn't spend the money, just so that they can get your tax money to spend on their campaigns, and so that their opponents' spending was limited while they went crazy. Ask yourself if the campaign finance system, which was supposedly designed to level the playing field, should be [ab]used to tilt that playing field instead.

There will be a press conference to announce the lawsuit, Tuesday, December 2, at 2:30, on the steps of City Hall (where better to announce we're fighting City Hall?).

Come on out and support this fight -- see you at City Hall!

(Note: Cross-posted from my website)

One standard effect among magicians is misdirection. They make you look in one place while they’re busy fooling you somewhere else. The same practice is common among politicians.

As Mayor Bloomberg “holds a hearing” prior to signing his bill extending term limits, everyone’s attention – especially that of the press – will be focused on the Blue Room at City Hall. Meanwhile, something sinister will be happening down at 40 Rector Street; the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) will almost certainly be breaking the law.

Before the City Council voted to extend term limits, many Council members were planning to run for higher office. To that end, they had been spending a lot of money. If they decide instead to run for a third term, they will not be eligible for matching funds, because they will not be able to stay under the spending limits that come with matching funds.

That’s not really a problem. What is the problem? Read on...  read more »

Following is the statement I sent to the Campaign Finance Board regarding proposed rule changes following the extension of term limits:

Introduction

With the passage of a bill extending term limits from two to three full terms, some people who had been subject to term limits and were planning to run for higher office may now choose to run for a third term in their current office. Under the city’s campaign finance system, however, they could have a problem. Since the spending limits that accompany partial public funding are lower for the office they currently hold than for the office they had planned to seek, some people have already exceeded, or are close to exceeding, the lower spending limits.

There are two consequences of exceeding spending limits. First, candidates who exceed spending limits are not eligible for partial public funding. Second, and more importantly, opponents of such candidates are eligible for extra public funding and are granted higher spending limits. In other words, the advantages enjoyed by high-spending candidates are greatly diminished.

In an attempt to restore those advantages, the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) has promulgated rules designed to allow those high-spending candidates to “freeze” the campaign committees they created to run for higher office, and create new committees in order to run for a third term to their current office.

These new rules are in violation of New York City Administrative Code, and must be thrown out.

Specifics  read more »