|
Possible Ballot Proposal:
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
Will this Proposal Appear on the
Ballot?
A lawsuit has been filed in New York State Supreme Court to determine whether
this proposal will appear on the ballot. Updated information will be posted
here as it is available.
Remember, it is always a good idea to check the sample
ballot at your polling place.
Decision:
On October 9, 1998, State Supreme Court Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob issued
a decision that keeps the Citizens’ Petition on campaign finance reform off
the ballot. On October 16, an appeals court affirmed Justice Gangel-Jacob’s
decision. The proponents of the Citizens’ Petition are seeking to appeal. Subsequently,
the New York Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal. If there are any further
developments, updated information will be posted here as it becomes available.
INTRODUCTION
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
In July and September, petitions were submitted to
the City Clerk to put a Charter amendment on the ballot. This proposal will
become law only if it is approved by the voters. Depending on the result
of ongoing lawsuits, it is possible that this proposal may be omitted from
the ballot entirely.
In 1988, the New York City Campaign Finance Act was
adopted, providing for a voluntary “Campaign
Finance Program (Program”) covering the offices of Mayor, Public
Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council member. The Act
established the Campaign
Finance Board (“CFB” or “Board”) to administer this
new program. The New York City Charter was amended that same year to include
the CFB in the Charter and to require it to publish the Voter Guide. The
current system requires participating campaigns to abide by contribution
and spending limits and to meet other qualifications set by law in return
for which these campaigns may receive public funds. The public funds are
given to candidates on the basis of a formula that matches the contributions
they receive from individual New York City residents.
Under the new proposal, core aspects of the City’s
existing program would be restated in the Charter. The Charter (in addition
to current local law) would require that there be a public campaign financing
program for candidates for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President,
and City Council member who comply with contribution limits, spending limits,
and the other qualifications set by law. Current law would be changed to
require the City to provide public funds equal to 80 percent of the candidate’s
spending limit to each candidate who collects a set amount of private contributions
and would allow the candidate to receive no more than 20 percent of the spending
limit in private contributions. (There is now no requirement that the amount
in public funds received by a candidate be equal to any particular portion
of that candidate’s spending limit or total campaign funds.)
The proposal would increase the funds needed for public
financing of campaigns. If necessary, these additional funds would be raised
by proportionally reducing the funding for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate,
Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council member.
If you believe the Charter chapter on campaign
finance should be changed as described, you should vote “yes” on
this proposal. If you believe the Charter chapter on campaign finance should
remain as is, you should vote “no” on this proposal.
back to top
OFFICIAL TEXT
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
At press time, the official text of this potential ballot proposal was not
available.
Please refer to page 64 of the hard copy of the
Voter Guide for the full text of the new law that would result from approval
of this question.
back to top
OFFICIAL SUMMARY
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
At press time, the official summary of this ballot proposal was not available.
back to top
PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS
PREPARED BY THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform |
| PRO |
CON |
This proposal will level the playing field
between candidates and reduce special interest influence in the
political process. |
This proposal will not necessarily level
the playing field and will not reduce special interest influence
in the political process. |
| By providing campaigns with a higher mix of public
money than under present law, candidates who do not have access to large
financial resources will have a greater chance of waging a competitive
campaign. By limiting the amount that a campaign can receive in private
money to 20% of the total it can spend, the potential influence that
private interests can exert over the candidate will be reduced. A “yes” vote
will encourage measures to counter any activities that could undermine
this reform. Current law has not done enough to reduce special interest
influence. |
Since large public money payments will potentially
be made, a high threshold for payment will have to be set so that candidates
with minimal support do not automatically receive unreasonably large
amounts of public money. This will make it more difficult for smaller
campaigns to receive any payments. Special interest influence will not
necessarily be reduced because wealthy interests may spend “independently” in
ways that cannot be regulated, and small groups could raise most or all
of the allowable private funds for a candidate. This is a radical departure
from a current model law that has worked well and been continually refined
over 10 years. |
Candidates will spend less time fundraising
and more time communicating with the voters. |
What sounds good in theory will be hard
to do in practice. |
| Providing campaigns with public funds for 80%
of their money means that candidates will have more time to formulate
policy and to communicate with voters. |
If it is too easy to qualify for public funds,
tax dollars will be wasted on many frivolous candidates. On the other
hand, if it is hard to qualify, candidates will spend much more time
fundraising. |
The proposal will increase public participation
in the political process. |
The proposal will decrease public participation
in the political process. |
| When citizens know that public rather than special
interest money is providing the most funding for campaigns, they will
take a greater interest in the political process and in voting. More
citizens will make small contributions knowing that once the campaign
meets the financial threshold, it will receive a large infusion of public
funds. |
Under current law, many ordinary New Yorkers
contribute to campaigns because they know that their contributions will
be matched with public money. Fewer average citizens will be involved
in campaigns if they lack the incentive of a public match for their contributions,
and in any event fewer people will be able to contribute because the
candidates will have a low limit on how many contributions can be accepted. |
Any additional costs of this program will
be a small investment to make for a more democratic and more efficient
form of government. |
The cost of this program will greatly exceed
the cost of the current campaign finance system. |
| By reducing the role of private money in the
political process, special interests will have less influence and government
will be more efficient. Any increased costs will come out of the operating
budgets of the City’s elected officials. |
Because special interest influence will not necessarily
be reduced under this proposal, New Yorkers risk paying a higher price
for a campaign finance system without getting any benefit. The proposal
reduces the budgets of elected officials without regard to the consequences
to other City programs and makes it more difficult for these officeholders
to do their jobs effectively. |
A broad statement of the maximum amount
of private money that can fund a campaign is appropriate for inclusion
in the City Charter. |
Specific percentages of private and public
funding of campaigns are at odds with the approach of the City’s
Campaign Finance Law and should not be included in the City Charter. |
| The proposal leaves the details for implementing
this program to subsequent legislation once it becomes a part of the
Charter. Elected officials would be able to review freely how the Program
is working and amend their initial legislation if they find that there
would be a better way of implementing this Charter provision. They must
only adhere to the 20% cap on private funding of campaigns.
We cannot expect our elected officials, the
very ones who benefit from the status quo, to make such a radical
change that goes against their self interest. This can only be accomplished
through popular referendum. |
Campaign finance reform requires constant re-evaluation
and refinement. As in other jurisdictions, including at the federal level,
well-meaning reforms can result in unintended consequences. Reform is
best accomplished through legislation that can itself be re-evaluated
and refined without going through the much more demanding process of
Charter revision and referendum. The CFB is already mandated by the Charter
to review the operation of the law and periodically make recommendations
for change. Recent legislation passed by the City Council shows that
elected officials can respond by enacting sweeping improvements in campaign
finance reform laws. |
This proposal does not present a greater
potential for fraud. |
This proposal presents a greater potential
for fraud. |
| Although greater amounts of public money will
be distributed to campaigns, the potential for fraud can be reduced through
increased funding to the Campaign Finance Board’s auditing and enforcement
units. |
Greater amounts of public money than under current
law will be distributed at much faster rates and without a continual
showing of entitlement from candidates. This will make fraud more tempting
and more difficult to detect. |
A “yes” vote would send a message
to the City Council to make further changes for the better. |
The proposal leaves it to the City Council
to spell out the details, creating the risk of changes for the
worse. |
| Legislation would flesh out all the details within
a context that requires public funding to take the place of special interest
money. Strong public support for this campaign finance reform proposal
would compel the City Council to give voters what they want by way of
reducing the influence of money on the electoral process and maintaining
a program that encourages broad participation. |
The provision alone of an 80%-20% split does
not say anything about how that will be accomplished. There are ways
to reach the 80%-20% result that could undermine reform, such as adoption
of high contribution limits or low spending limits, that would discourage
candidates from joining the Program or would give incumbents unfair advantages. |
|
back to top
PRO AND CON STATEMENTS RECEIVED
FROM THE PUBLIC
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC — PRO
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
KATE BRENNAN
President, West Queens Independent Democratic Club
By limiting campaign contributions and campaign spending,
the Clean Money, Clean Elections Ballot Initiative will level the playing field
and give rising community leaders with grassroots support a realistic chance
to compete in local elections. Candidates will be able to focus on issues rather
than on raising money to meet outrageous and obscene campaign costs. Elected
officials will then have more freedom to represent voters rather than well-moneyed
special interests. This is an important step in campaign reform much needed
nation-wide.
CLEAN MONEY, CLEAN ELECTIONS
NEW YORK
Richard Schrader, Campaign Director
The Clean Money, Clean Elections initiative limits
campaign spending and campaign contributions in New York City elections. By
taking big money out of New York City elections, candidates will be able to
run for office by raising issues with voters instead of raising huge contributions
from big-money interests who want favors from City Hall.
Under the Clean Money system, candidates who agree
to strict spending and contribution limits, including a 20% cap on private
contributions, receive the balance of the spending limit in a fixed and limited
amount of public funds. To the extent that additional City money is needed
to pay for the system, the funds are received from making equal cuts in the
budgets of the City’s elected officials. It is estimated that the cuts will
be no more than 5% of the elected officials’ budgets.
Clean Money, Clean Elections will give people with
good ideas and community support a fair shot at running for office. The CMCE
initiative will reform the current system so that candidates won’t need great
personal wealth or access to large campaign contributors to run competitive
campaigns.
New York City’s current system allows wealthy campaign
contributors to get big breaks and sweetheart contracts from city government.
We need to limit the size of campaign contributions, so that politicians
will be free to represent voters, not special interests.
Clean Money, Clean Elections is supported by more
than 100 organizations and almost 1000 volunteers who collected more than
90,000 signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Senior citizen groups,
tenant organizations, and religious, labor and business leaders are united
in backing Clean Money, Clean Elections.
On Election Day, vote Yes for Clean Money, Clean Elections.
back to top
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC — CON
Citizens’ Petition on Campaign Finance Reform
C. VIRGINIA FIELDS
Manhattan Borough President
Vote “No” on the Campaign Finance Initiative
This is a good example of why complicated issues should
not be decided by ballot initiatives. It’s a fine-sounding idea, until you
start asking questions like: How much will it cost? Do voters really want
to take money away from needed government services in order to fund the political
campaigns of potentially numerous candidates? Aren’t there better ways to
achieve election finance reform? Unfortunately, ballot initiatives don’t
allow for that kind of informed public debate. That’s why Manhattan voters
should say “no” to this initiative.
back to top
|
Follow us on 
