Editorial: Making the Campaign Finance Laws Have Meaning
February 12th, 2008
One has to praise the tenacity of the City Campaign Finance Board, which on January 17, after six-and-a-half years, walloped City Council Member Miguel Martinez with a $44,780 fine and an order to repay $128,786 in matching funds for violations in his 2001 campaign. Of course, one also has to acknowledge that the six-and-a-half-years the Board took to get this decision out makes it, and therefore a sizeable part of the CFB’s function, pretty much irrelevant.
The investigations into Martinez’s first winning campaign started just months after he took office in 2002. Strangely similar handwriting and receipt templates submitted for documentation got CFB auditors suspicious. The CFB’s accountants and lawyers waged a long battle with the upper-Manhattan Democrat to bring to light what they claim as Martinez’s extensive malfeasance in that first campaign. Along the way, the CFB levied tens of thousands of dollars in new fines against Martinez’s 2003 redistricting-forced campaign, one of them assessed in 2005 and another in 2006.
Along the way, Martinez also won the 2001 race, and re-election in 2003 and 2005. During his time in office since these wins, he has built up name recognition, a legislative record and a history of constituent services that will likely serve him well in the expected continuation of his political career, whether that involves a run for State Legislature, Manhattan borough president or anything else.
Aside from requiring him to pay his fines, will the CFB decision further affect Martinez? Probably not. Martinez’s name and reputation are established in his community and elsewhere, and he has already served more than six years on the Council. With term limits already set to end his time at City Hall next year, he may never have to answer to the voters, and even if he did, he would have his accomplishments over his terms to counterbalance these indiscretions.
Martinez is far from the only candidate to be fined long after the races in question have ended. Though the amount of his fines is notably high, the slow work on the part of the CFB, which led to the fines not being announced until coming on seven years after the violations were supposedly committed, is pretty standard. This case aside, when fines are issued, they are rarely large enough to have any real impact. And they are almost never issued in time to make a difference.
And absent real penalties, what, other than the goodness of their hearts, is to prevent candidates and their campaign treasurers from misbehaving? If a little impropriety in fundraising or campaign spending could make the difference in a close race, and the punishment is sure to come lightly and long after the votes are counted—if it comes at all—why should anyone expect that law breaking will not become more widespread?
The public financing system is a fantastic part of the democratic machinery of New York City, and the CFB staffers must be extremely careful not to act rashly and toss unfounded accusations at candidates. But the CFB needs to be given the resources to act more quickly, and the potential fines increased, if the system is to stand for much of anything at all. And the CFB should consider holding regular voluntary seminars for campaign staffers to reduce the possibility of error.
With the flood of candidates set to run next year, the time to start acting, whether in passing new legislation or in restructuring the CFB, is now. For the public financing system to work as it should, its regulations need teeth, and the ability to bite.
The investigations into Martinez’s first winning campaign started just months after he took office in 2002. Strangely similar handwriting and receipt templates submitted for documentation got CFB auditors suspicious. The CFB’s accountants and lawyers waged a long battle with the upper-Manhattan Democrat to bring to light what they claim as Martinez’s extensive malfeasance in that first campaign. Along the way, the CFB levied tens of thousands of dollars in new fines against Martinez’s 2003 redistricting-forced campaign, one of them assessed in 2005 and another in 2006.
Along the way, Martinez also won the 2001 race, and re-election in 2003 and 2005. During his time in office since these wins, he has built up name recognition, a legislative record and a history of constituent services that will likely serve him well in the expected continuation of his political career, whether that involves a run for State Legislature, Manhattan borough president or anything else.
Aside from requiring him to pay his fines, will the CFB decision further affect Martinez? Probably not. Martinez’s name and reputation are established in his community and elsewhere, and he has already served more than six years on the Council. With term limits already set to end his time at City Hall next year, he may never have to answer to the voters, and even if he did, he would have his accomplishments over his terms to counterbalance these indiscretions.
Martinez is far from the only candidate to be fined long after the races in question have ended. Though the amount of his fines is notably high, the slow work on the part of the CFB, which led to the fines not being announced until coming on seven years after the violations were supposedly committed, is pretty standard. This case aside, when fines are issued, they are rarely large enough to have any real impact. And they are almost never issued in time to make a difference.
And absent real penalties, what, other than the goodness of their hearts, is to prevent candidates and their campaign treasurers from misbehaving? If a little impropriety in fundraising or campaign spending could make the difference in a close race, and the punishment is sure to come lightly and long after the votes are counted—if it comes at all—why should anyone expect that law breaking will not become more widespread?
The public financing system is a fantastic part of the democratic machinery of New York City, and the CFB staffers must be extremely careful not to act rashly and toss unfounded accusations at candidates. But the CFB needs to be given the resources to act more quickly, and the potential fines increased, if the system is to stand for much of anything at all. And the CFB should consider holding regular voluntary seminars for campaign staffers to reduce the possibility of error.
With the flood of candidates set to run next year, the time to start acting, whether in passing new legislation or in restructuring the CFB, is now. For the public financing system to work as it should, its regulations need teeth, and the ability to bite.
