I wish I were making this up.

The mayor's term limits extension bill (Intro 845) has already been amended. The addition, slipped into the bill in the middle of ... well, when someone thought nobody was watching, is being called the "Lauder clause" by the Daily News. Unfortunately, the Daily News got it all wrong.

They claim that this addition will create a referendum in 2010 to roll back term limits to the two-full-term limit we have now. WRONG! All this addition does is to say that IF there is this particular kind referendum, and IF the voters approve it, then AND ONLY THEN will the rollback occur.

So what the heck is that little tidbit doing in there? Read on.

It appears that by striking a deal with Ron Lauder, Mayor Bloomberg may have broken the law.

Common Cause and NYPIRG have filed a joint complaint, charging that giving Lauder a seat on a Charter Revision Commission in exchange for Lauder's support for extending [his] term limits is a violation of the Conflicts of Interest Code.

Details are available on the Common Cause website.

(Yup, this too is on my website.)

Is there a rift between uber-wealthy Michael Bloomberg and Ron Lauder? Reports are all over the place, and rumors are flying. Let's try to make some sense out of it, bearing in mind that I have no access to either of the principals.

First, we have term limits in place, and in their current two-term limit, because Ron Lauder spent millions of dollars to create a referendum and shepherd it through, and then turn back an attempt to extend them. If it weren't for Lauder's money, we probably wouldn't have term limits in place, and Michael Bloomberg might not have run, much less been elected mayor.

In both cases, it was Lauder's money that funded the effort, but the voters decided.

Now that billionaire Bloomberg, who has spent a lot of his own money on several campaigns and political fights aside from his own, doesn't want to leave at the end of his two-term limit. He also, apparently, doesn't want to put the question before the voters, fearing, perhaps, that even by spending millions of dollars he wouldn't be able to win.