Sign up now to subscribe!
The Balancing Act Overcoming History Minefield of Issues And If She Loses... Stark Says Her Case is Clear Words with Weitzman Bill Mulrow Makes His Case Grannis to DEC Commissioner, Skirmish for his Seat Intensifies Grannis Begins Crafting Agenda Comptroller Bid Behind Him, Grannis Still Weighs In In Chancellor’s Proposal, Dollars Follow Students Lavelle on Himself, Staten Island politics Mayor Mike's Ambitious Plans Spitzer Searches on Google Lead to Cuomo Connor: Why I Want to Be Comptroller Spitzer Takes the Helm Grannis Pushing Comptroller Bid Now For the Count: How many kids are sleeping on our streets? Who Will Be the Latino Driving Force? The 20 — or Is It 21? — Powerful Latino Faces, Families and Future Leaders of New York City Duane-Casting Election Forecast 2009 – Commissioning the Comissioner Lactation Legislation on the Move Generals Picked, Battle Plans Made for Last Political Battleground Big Building Plans Raise Big Questions The Money Trail: Untangling the Campaign Finance Disclosures Tax Breaks Succeed in Reeling Movie Business to Big Apple As Bloomberg Crafts Anti-Poverty Specifics, Optimism and Worries Elsewhere: Counting and Discounting the Incarcerated In the Chair: James Gennaro Stewed Chicken and Carrot Juice with Yvette Clarke In the Trenches: Erin Drinkwater Au Revoir, Steve Kramer Editorial: Paying for Later, Playing Now? What Kind of Education Will New York Buy? By Billy Easton Out of State Plates Serve Up High Costs by Ivan Lafayette Cut Property Tax, But Increase Rebate Too by Vincent Gentile The Consequences of Ending Business as Usual by Alan Chartock
Planning is a virtue. But planning should be a cause for concern when it can potentially undermine the spirit of a campaign finance system which has been a powerful, if flawed, enabler of good politics in this city.
There has clearly been a great deal of planning from incumbent politicians in this city.
The latest round of public disclosure filings arrived Jan. 16, and with them, an indication of who many of the major players in the 2009 races are likely to be.
New York already limits the amount of money people can spend. But without limits—either official or self-imposed—on when money can start to be raised, the system will continue to contain a debilitating flaw. Though this is far from the only problem with the city’s public finance system, it should be high on the list of priorities as the system is rethought and tweaked in the years to come. This will become even more relevant as Gov. Eliot Spitzer leads the charge to institute a system for the whole state.
By demonstrating their fundraising prowess for media fodder, these candidates help crystallize frontrunner perceptions for themselves. And just as importantly, by coming ever closer to the spending caps for their races, they position themselves to have the luxury of forcing their less prescient future opponents to play catch-up while they themselves are able to campaign full-time.
Over the last six months when this money was raised, all these people have had to offer donors is the luster of the offices they already hold and the potential to hold more depending on the outcomes of 2009.
Then there is the reality: almost everyone interested in actually winning elections raises money early, so a person who opted against it would be needlessly handicapping him or herself.
So those who have stacked up all these dollars a full 32 months before the first primary votes are cast should be applauded for their smarts, for the serious consideration they are paying to the future of their political careers.
Or should they?
Only one of the two dozen people who filed new donations for non-City Council races in January is not currently in office. These are the political professionals, so it is only natural that these are the people who plan for races so far in advance. The campaign finance system, however, was meant to help level the playing field, to bring new people into the political process—people who had not been involved for ages. Though each had some degree of prior political involvement, neither Michael Bloomberg, Betsy Gotbaum nor Bill Thompson had ever held elected office before being first elected citywide in 2001. But now that this first crop of fresh talent from the post-term limits purge looks toward new offices, the advance fundraisers are helping ensure history does not repeat itself by scaring other contenders out of the field.
Of course, the elections are still far enough away for industrious and entrepreneurial hopefuls to make up for lost time. There is certainly enough time for wealthy first-time candidates to follow Bloomberg’s lead and self-finance their ways into political relevance. That seems a far distance from the intentions of the people who crafted this system.
Perhaps a more important cause for concern is why these people are receiving so many tens of thousands of dollars. Over the last six months when this money was raised, all these people have had to offer donors is the luster of the offices they already hold and the potential to hold more depending on the outcomes of 2009.
Potential and a Metrocard will get you onto the subway. More likely, these donors are backing prospective candidates for what they can get out of them now. What better way to ingratiate oneself to Council committee chairs than pumping their public advocate or comptroller or borough president campaigns full of cash? What better way to sway a borough president on land use decisions than supporting his mayoral dreams?
The way things are, people do not need to wait for elected officials to reach new positions to begin pay for play. They can get instant returns on the money they pay out now.
= Print Only