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...

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

People are now lining up candidates to oppose the "Bloomberg 29." (Side note: I presume that I don't need to explain that term. I've been told that the monicker came out of a CBID meeting shortly after the vote; if someone knows the original source I'd love to know.)

I'd also love to hear comments on the Bronx and Brooklyn races, as I'm less familiar with the politics involved. My initial views on the Manhattan/Queens folks:

Comrie -- Probably not vulnerable, unless someone can raise a bundle.
Dickens -- Got 28% in an eight-way race in 2005. Coalescing behind one opponent, funded with upper west side money, and she's vulnerable.
Gerson -- Margaret Chin might give him a run, especially since she's already gearing up for next year anyway.
Jackson -- Probably not vulnerable (of course, this leaves Denny Farrell stuck in Albany for another four years).
Katz -- Probably not vulnerable.
Martinez -- Just lost a bid for Assembly against his mentor, and Ydonis Rodriguez has already raised $30K.
Quinn -- If the potential candidates for next year can coalesce around one strong candidate, they probably still can't beat her, but it will be a helluva fight.

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 love coming up with these crazy theories, because every once in a [long] while one of them proves correct (see my blog on the Bloomberg/Lauder deal, entitled "Money Laudering," -- posted the day before the mainstream media got hold of it). So here's my latest:

There has been speculation as to which line Michael Bloomberg will run on in the 2009 mayor's race. What if he tries to run as a Democrat?

29 Council members voted for the mayor's bill, and with a slim possibility of one or two exceptions every one of them will run for Council next year. That's a majority of the Council -- several of whom are now very vulnerable.

Suppose that Bloomberg re-registers as a Democrat (he would have to do so before submitting petitions), and goes into those districts stumping for those 29 (and himself). He just might win the nomination, and be all set eight weeks before election day. Of course, as a backup, he could also petition to get on the ballot as an independent.

Just for fun (because I enjoy doing this kind of thing), let's say that Gerson, Brewer & Yassky end up voting "yes." So do Dickens, Felder, Katz and White.

James Sanders, still smarting from having his committee stripped from him by Chris Quinn, votes "no." Maria del Carmen Arroyo, who had been a "yes" until she slid away from that, also votes "no."

The vote is now 25-25, with Helen Foster to go. Unfortunately, she's stuck in Las Vegas again.

That leaves it up to the Public Advocate, and Betsy Gotbaum is on record opposing this power grab.

It could happen. Bob Barr could also be elected President.

According to NY1, James Oddo has announced he opposes the mayor's power grab, giving the Republicans a clean sweep. Unfortunately, Peter Vallone has gone the wrong (excuse me, the "other") way.

We still need five votes. The 13 officially "undecided" are:
Arroyo
Brewer
Dickens
Felder
Foster
Gerson
Gonzalez
Katz
Lappin
McMahon
Sanders
White
Yassky

It seems to me that there are five or six among this list who could very easily vote against the mayor -- but we need to keep the pressure up. If you haven't called your Council member (find your rep. here), now is the time to act. If you have, call and e-mail your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. Let them know that their right to choose is at stake.

Liz Benjamin reports that the Doe Fund, a nonprofit organization that is prohibited by their 501(c)3 status from engaging in political activities (such as supporting the mayor's power grab), may have been engaging in political ... well, you get the idea.

Putting two and two together, it is now obvious that the 50-60 people who filled the front rows at the term limits hearing on Thursday were Doe Fund people whom Mayor Bloomberg paid to sit there, holding preprinted signs, and claiming (as several did when I asked what group they belonged to) that they were only there as individuals.

This being the case, the leaders of the Doe Fund, especially President George McDonald, should be fired, and Mayor Bloomberg's activities should be investigated for possible criminal and conflict of interest violations.

I can only hope that Daily News reporters who have begun looking into this scandal finish the job, rather than giving up because it's not easy to get the facts.

After sitting in the Council chamber for five hours on Thursday, I had to leave, and missed when my name was called (two and a half hours later). I returned on Friday, and sat for another five hours before, lo and behold! my name was called.

By then, I had discarded my prepared text in favor of a few talking points. One (for now) was particularly important to the general argument, because I believe I'm the only one who has made this point.

Mayor Bloomberg's #1 talking point is "choice." He claims that term limits deprive voters of choice. He's wrong, and nobody else is challenging him on that fact.

First of all, voters made a choice in 1996. We chose two terms over three terms. If the Council switches to three terms, they are overriding the voters' choice.

Second, and closer to Bloomberg's real claim, is that adding a third term will not add to our choices, but subtract from them. More incumbents will run for reelection, and there will be fewer open seats. Everyone in politics knows that an open seat attracts more candidates than an incumbent running for reelection. The more open seats there are, therefore, the more choices the voters will have.