Marc Landis's comment on Bouldin's survey [1] couldn't be more on target. He and I are in complete agreement -- CMCE (which stands for "Clean Money, Clean Elections") is absolutely the best choice.
And not just in Albany.
New York City is laboring under the false impression that we have what many people, including the current Speaker, have called the best campaign finance system in the country. It is nothing of the kind.
Under the current system, campaigns in NYC have more than doubled in cost since 1989. And that's after adjusting for inflation and removing the fluke that is the last two mayoral races. Also, the disparity between winners (who raise a lot of money) and losers (who don't) is getting larger. Instead of leveling the playing field, matching funds are tilting the field even further.
Using 20/20 hindsight, we can see why any matching fund system actually makes things worse.
Read on...
As more money pours into campaign coffers, limits on spending must rise just a rapidly or people will simply opt out of the system. Public matching funds only serve to make campaigns more expensive; they do nothing to truly limit spending -- or fundraising.
As far as leveling the playing field goes, since you need to raise money in order to get matching funds, those who can raise more money also get more matching funds. It's a completely ridiculous system.
By contrast, under CMCE, candidates do virtually no fundraising. Everyone who can demonstrate sufficient constituent support gets all the money he or she needs -- and everyone who qualifies gets the same amount of money. Furthermore, if someone opts out and either raises money independently or self-finances, the CMCE candidates can get extra money to spend.
CMCE is also de facto lobbying reform. Right now, lobbyists at all levels of government spend as much time fundraising as lobbying. CMCE kicks the fundraising out from under the lobbyists, forcing them to gain access and argue their positions solely on the merits. Money plays no part in it.
The time has come to admit that matching fund systems are failures. Any attempt to tinker with such a system is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Only a CMCE system provides a true solution to the problem.
Governor Spitzer called for such a system in his State of the State address. Lt. Gov. Paterson actually introduced a CMCE bill into the State Senate during the last term. Unfortunately, they will have to convince Shelly Silver and Joe Bruno to move on this issue, and that will prove next to impossible.
Meanwhile, there will be a bill introduced into the City Council shortly -- how soon depends on whether Speaker Quinn is willing to listen to a real alternative to the current failed system. This bill is cribbed from then-Senator Paterson's bill, and when introduced, has a much better chance of passage, since most City Council members are term-limited. Stay tuned for more details.
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10]