Follow us on 
|
Please upgrade your Flash Player
|
Possible Ballot Proposal: Will this Proposal Appear on
the Ballot? Remember, it is always a good idea to check the sample ballot at your polling place. Decision: On October 6, 1998, State Supreme Court Justice Douglas E. McKeon issued a decision that would have removed the Charter Revision Commission proposal on campaign finance reform from the ballot and, instead, placed the City Council’s referendum on Yankee Stadium on the ballot. On October 16, an appeals court reversed Justice McKeon’s decision, so that the Charter Revision Commission proposal on campaign finance reform will appear on the ballot and the City Council referendum on Yankee Stadium will not. On October 20, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed the City Council’s appeal. Thus, it now appears that the Charter Revision Commission proposal on campaign finance reform will be on the ballot and the City Council referendum on Yankee Stadium will not. If there are any further developments, updated information will be posted here as it becomes available. INTRODUCTION The New York City Charter sets the ground rules of City government. It describes which individuals and agencies have what powers and what they can do with these powers. The Mayor is authorized to appoint a Charter Revision Commission that can review the City Charter and place proposals for revision of the Charter on the ballot for consideration by the voters. On June 5, 1998, Mayor Giuliani appointed a twelve-member Commission. The Commission held public meetings and hearings in July and August. The Commission considered a number of proposals in different areas of City government, but ultimately decided to focus just on campaign finance reform. By unanimous vote, the Commission proposed changes in the Charter provisions governing the Campaign Finance Program in New York City. These changes will become law only if the Commission proposal is approved by the voters. Depending on the result of ongoing lawsuits, it is possible that the Commission’s 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. The Charter Revision Commission has proposed four Charter changes that, if they appear on the ballot, will all be included as part of one question. If the majority of voters votes “Yes,” all these Charter changes will become law. If the majority of voters votes “No,” none of these Charter changes will become law. Each change is summarized below. The first change prohibits candidates who run for municipal office (Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, or City Council member), and who participate in the Campaign Finance Program, from taking contributions from corporations. The second change has two parts. First, it requires the CFB to issue regulations requiring candidates who participate in the Campaign Finance Program to disclose which of their contributors “do business” with New York City government. The change directs the CFB to define “doing business with the City” and requires it to adopt rules to regulate these contributions further if the CFB deems this necessary. The second part requires the CFB to pass rules that would apply to candidates in the Program to cover “soft money” (in other words, spending by political parties, individuals, and other organizations in support of candidates). The third change deals with the process of budgeting for the CFB and the New York City Voter Guide. Currently, the CFB, like every other City agency, estimates its expenses for its operations, including the production of the Voter Guide, and submits the estimate to the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). OMB may or may not accept the CFB’s estimate when it prepares the executive budget. Under the proposed amendment, the CFB’s estimate of its budget would be required to be included in the Mayor’s executive budget without change. The Mayor could include in the executive budget a comment on the amount included for the CFB. The budget process would proceed after this point in the usual fashion, and the CFB budget could be increased or decreased as the Mayor and the City Council decide on a final adopted budget. Regarding the budget for the Voter Guide specifically, OMB would be required to set aside a reasonable amount of money to publish the Voter Guide if the CFB believes it has insufficient funds to produce the Guide. The fourth change relates to appointments to the CFB. Under current law, Board members are appointed for five-year terms and cannot be removed by the appointing authority. Two members (from different political parties) are appointed by the Mayor and two (also from different political parties) are appointed by the City Council Speaker. The Chair is appointed by the Mayor in consultation with the Speaker. Currently, when a member’s term expires and no replacement has been named, the member may by law remain on the Board indefinitely as a “holdover,” so that he or she continues to serve without having a fixed term. Under the Commission’s proposal, if the Mayor or the Speaker does not replace or re-appoint the holdover Board member within 120 days, he or she would automatically be re-appointed for the remainder of the five-year term. In election years, the holdover Board member would automatically be re-appointed if no replacement is named within 90 days. When a vacancy occurs, such as when a member’s term expires and he or she declines to remain as a holdover member, there is currently no requirement that the Mayor or the Speaker fill the vacancy with a new Board member within any particular time. Under the Commission’s proposal, if the Mayor or the Speaker fails to appoint a new Board member within 180 days, the Board itself would have the power to appoint a new member. In an election year, the 180-day period would be reduced to 90 days. 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. OFFICIAL TEXT At press time, the official language to be placed on the ballot (in the event this proposal does appear on the ballot) is as follows: Shall the changes related to the voluntary campaign finance system, including (1) prohibiting corporate contributions, (2) requiring disclosure and regulation of contributions by those doing business with the City of New York and regulation of indirect campaign expenditures, (3) establishing a special budget process for the Campaign Finance Board, and (4) establishing a procedure for filling vacancies on the Campaign Finance Board, proposed as amendments to Chapter 46 of the City Charter, be adopted? Please refer to page 59 of the hard copy of the Voter Guide for the full text of the new law that would result from approval of this question. OFFICIAL SUMMARY At press time, the official summary of this possible ballot proposal is as follows: The proposed amendments, described below in the order in which they would appear in the Charter, would revise the Charter of the City of New York, in relation to the City’s voluntary campaign finance system run by the Campaign Finance Board (“Board”), to take effect January 1, 1999. The amendments would provide additional restrictions on the types of contributions received by candidates participating in the City’s campaign finance system by barring corporate contributions and allowing the Board to further regulate or prohibit indirect contributions and contributions from those doing business with the City. The amendments would also require disclosure of additional information regarding contributors doing business with the City, give the Board additional powers over its own budget and enhance the mechanisms in place to ensure the Board’s independence. Board members are appointed for terms of five years; two members are appointed by the Mayor, two members are appointed by the Speaker of the Council and the Chairperson is appointed by the Mayor after consultation with the Speaker. The proposal provides that if after the expiration of a period of time, the Mayor or the Speaker does not appoint a new member upon the expiration of a member’s term, the member whose term has expired would automatically be re-appointed for a new term. If after the expiration of a period of time, the Mayor or the Speaker does not appoint a new member to fill a vacancy, the Board would appoint a new member. The proposal provides that the Board require participating candidates to disclose the acceptance of campaign contributions from individuals and entities doing business with the City, and that the Board make such disclosures available to the public. The Board would be authorized to promulgate rules to further regulate the acceptance of such contributions. The Board would also be empowered to promulgate rules to attribute campaign expenditures that indirectly benefit participating candidates as “in-kind” contributions. The Board would be required to publish rules on such matters by December 31, 1999 and adopt final rules thereafter. Such final rules would supersede inconsistent provisions of the Administrative Code then in effect. The proposal provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Board would prohibit participating candidates from accepting campaign contributions from corporations and would promulgate rules relating to such prohibition. Currently, the Board is required to publish and distribute a voters guide in years in which there are contested elections for municipal offices or ballot referenda. The proposal provides that, where the Board determines that funding for the voters guide is insufficient, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must transfer, without an appropriation, a reasonable amount as the Director determines to cover the cost of the voters guide. The proposal would modify the Board’s budget process. The Board’s expense budget estimates would be included, without alteration, in the Mayor’s executive budget, following which, the Board’s budget would be adopted pursuant to Charter provisions governing the operating budget of the City Council, which allows for Mayoral veto and Council override. PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS PREPARED BY
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD
PRO AND CON STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM
THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC — PRO CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION New York City’s voluntary campaign finance system has had a positive impact on the City’s political system, but campaign finance reform can be strengthened. Passage of the proposed charter amendments will solve four serious problems with the current system.
Overall, approval of these Charter amendments will lead to fairer elections, a strengthened campaign finance system and greater public confidence in the electoral process. MICHAEL J. ABEL One of the most crucial issues for any citizen is campaign finance reform. New York City has been a forerunner in the implementation of stricter campaign regulations that enable a fairer, more competitive election process. New York City’s campaign finance program allows individuals to run for office based on ability and character as opposed to wealth. As a candidate who participated in the campaign finance program in my initial election and in my re-election campaigns, I continue to support these restrictions for the benefits they provide to candidates seeking to oppose incumbents, to incumbents such as myself, and most especially to the voters. However, despite the strictness of the regulations, there are weaknesses that compromise the intended goal of providing a fairer, more competitive election process. The 1998 Charter Revision Commission identified these weaknesses and proposed ways to close these loopholes by banning corporate contributions, regulating indirect contributions to candidates, disclosing and regulating contributions by those doing business with the city, and by ensuring the independence of the Campaign Finance Board. These changes will not only benefit those who seek to run for office but also each and every voter. Campaign finance is about fairness and integrity in the election process, which goes to the very heart of the principles on which our great nation is based. People have a right to run for office without financial impediment or prejudice and people deserve the right to have a choice to vote for those who will represent them on the basis of ability and character, not on the size of their campaign coffers. I hope that the voters this Election Day will consider these amendments for what they are--a tool that ensures the principles of fairness and integrity in the election process. When fairness and integrity are maintained and promoted, every citizen in our nation wins. The New York City Charter Revision Commission has developed sensible and worthwhile campaign finance reform proposals that deserve public support and approval. The proposed Charter amendments would close a number of loopholes that continue to plague the existing campaign finance system. Specifically, the new provisions would do three things that are of particular importance. First, the proposal would ban, outright, corporate contributions. Corporate contributions reduce confidence in the electoral system because many people believe that corporations can essentially “buy” elections for candidates that are willing to do their bidding. Second, the amendments will place restraints on campaign contributions by people or entities doing business with the City. Candidates will be required to identify those contributors doing business with the City, and the Campaign Finance Board will be empowered to regulate and even prohibit these contributions. Again, these types of contributions are particularly insidious because they leave voters with the impression that money can be equated with electoral power. Finally, the proposal would regulate “soft money” or indirect contributions. In the current system, large sums of unregulated “soft money” can be spent promoting a candidate, and yet this money does not qualify as an “official” contribution. This type of indirect assistance gives some candidates an unfair advantage. All three of these changes are important to me because they would solve problems that I, and other candidates, have faced when running for election. Having run for Congress, Mayor, Comptroller and Borough President, I know that those of us who don’t come from wealthy communities are at a distinct disadvantage when we run for elective office. The goal of the original campaign finance legislation was to replace all candidates on equal footing, regardless of their background or access to wealthy donors. Unfortunately, the early promise of campaign finance reform has not been fully realized. We want to encourage the best people in the City to run for public office, and we want to ensure that good candidates have that opportunity regardless of their access to money. These proposals will help us achieve that goal. STEPHEN J. FIALA The passage of the proposed charter amendments will improve New York City’s overall campaign finance program. In an attempt to level the playing field for all candidates regardless of net worth, political affiliation, and access to corporate donations, the Charter Revision Commission has seen the faults in the campaign finance system and recommends many important changes. Approval of these amendments will tackle the loopholes that currently exist by:
These measures will go a long way in ensuring that our elections are fair for all who want to represent the people of our great City and an important step forward in our continual pursuit to bring about meaningful campaign finance reform. RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI The proposal before you will greatly improve the current campaign finance system. Approval of this proposal will make the electoral system fairer and cleaner and it will enhance the public’s confidence in their elected officials. The Charter Revision Commission I appointed to strengthen the City Charter is recommending this proposal. It will make changes in a number of areas: it will require disclosure and regulation of contributions by those doing business with the City; it will regulate “soft money”; and it will ensure the independence of the Campaign Finance Board. Another important change would be the prohibition of corporate contributions. Candidates for city public office would no longer be able to accept campaign contributions from corporations. In the 1997 election, almost a third of the money raised by candidates participating in the campaign finance program was contributed by corporations. Corporate contributions create the appearance that entities that are economically powerful have a greater ability to influence government decision-making. The proposal before the voters will help to insulate campaigns and elected officials from the undue influence of special interest money, enhance the voters’ right to a meaningful voice in elections, and preserve the integrity and autonomy of those elected to serve the residents of New York City. MARTIN J. GOLDEN Having been a participant in the voluntary public finance program administered by the Campaign Finance Board, I can attest to the importance of this program in reducing the influence of “big money” on politics. It has given many candidates, including myself, the opportunity to run for office without relying on wealthy contributors or my own financial resources. However, after four election cycles it is clear that some “fine tuning” of the program is necessary. The proposed charter amendments go further in leveling the playing field. Banning corporate contributions and disclosure and regulation of contributions from those who do business with the city will reduce the public perception that large corporations have an undue influence on the political process. Giving the Campaign Finance Board the power to regulate “soft money” closes a major loophole in the existing law. We are all aware of the soft money abuses that have been discovered in federal elections. Soft money has the potential to undermine the campaign finance reforms that were implemented 10 years ago. The Campaign Finance Board must have the ability to insure the integrity of the program. Finally, there is a need to insure the Campaign Finance Board’s independence. A procedure for filling vacancies and creating a special budget process for the Board will insure the independence of the Board. No one should ever question the Board’s integrity. These procedures will further insulate the Board from both real and perceived political pressure. For the reasons outlined above, I urge a yes vote on the Charter Amendment. Passage of the proposed charter amendments will improve New York City’s voluntary campaign finance system. The current system, run by the Campaign Finance Board, promotes a number of important goals. First, the system levels the playing field and ensures that candidates who are not wealthy can run for office, by providing public matching funds and capping campaign spending. Second, the system limits the influence of large donors over government decision-making by restricting the amount of money that a candidate can receive from any one donor. Although the current system has worked so far, a number of serious problems remain. Approval of these amendments would resolve these problems in four ways:
In sum, approval of these amendments will lead to fairer elections and improved public confidence in the electoral process. THOMAS V. OGNIBENE I wish to submit this statement in support of passage of the proposed charter amendments concerning New York City’s voluntary campaign finance system. Approval of the charter amendments will make New York City’s campaign finance system a model for the entire nation. First, candidates who participate in the campaign finance system will be prohibited from accepting corporate contributions. This will help to eliminate the perception that elected officials are beholden to corporate interests because they rely on corporations to finance their campaigns. Second, the Campaign Finance Board (“Board”) will have the authority to regulate so-called “soft money” contributions, that is indirect contributions to a candidate. Currently, only money given directly to a candidate and spent directly by his or her campaign is regulated. The lack of control over this “soft money” creates a loophole that undermines the effectiveness of the campaign finance system. Third, unlike the current system, the amendments would require the disclosure of contributors doing business with New York City, and would also regulate their contributions. This information is vital, because campaign contributions from those who do business with the city may be perceived as having a disproportionate effect on the decision making of elected officials. The charter amendment would require the Board to collect this information and release it to the general public. The board would also have the authority to prohibit the acceptance of campaign contributions from anyone doing business with the City. Finally, the proposal would ensure the independence of the Board by establishing procedures for filling Board vacancies, and would also create a special budget process in order to protect the Board’s budget. Both of these changes are essential to sustaining the Board’s credibility with voters and candidates, and to insulate the Board from political pressure. I urge all that are interested in clean, fair and open process to support these amendments. ALFONSO C. STABILE Passage of the proposed charter amendments will improve New York City’s voluntary campaign finance system. Although the current system has worked so far, a number of serious problems remain. Approval of the charter amendments would resolve these problems in four ways:
Overall approval of these amendments will lead to favor elections and improved public confidence in the electoral process. PRISCILLA A. WOOTEN I wish to submit this statement in support of passage of the proposed charter amendments concerning New York City’s voluntary campaign finance system. Approval of the charter amendments will make New York City’s campaign finance system a model for the entire nation. Under the charter amendments, candidates who participate in the campaign finance system will be prohibited from accepting corporate contributions. This will help to eliminate the perception that elected officials are beholden to corporate interest because they rely on operations to finance their campaigns. Second, the Campaign Finance Board (“Board”) will have the authority to regulate so-called “soft money” contributions, that is, indirect contributions to a candidate. Currently, only money given directly to a candidate and spent directly by his or her campaign is regulated. The lack of control over this “soft money” creates a loophole that undermines the effectiveness of the campaign finance system. Third, the amendments would require the disclosure of contributors doing business with New York City, and would also regulate their contributions. This information is vital, because campaign contributions from those who do business with the city may be perceived as having a disproportionate effect on the decision making of elected officials. The charter amendment would require the Board to collect this information and release it to the general public. The Board would also have the authority to prohibit the acceptance of campaign contributions from anyone doing business with the city. Finally, the proposal would ensure the independence of the board by establishing procedures for filling Board vacancies, and would also create a special budget process in order to protect the Board’s budget. Both of these changes are essential to sustaining the Board’s credibility with voters and candidates, and to insulate the Board from political pressure. I urge all that are interested in a fair and open process to support these amendments. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC — CON PETER F. VALLONE I urge you vote “No” on the Charter Revision Commission’s proposal. The Charter Revision Commission’s proposal purports to be a Charter Amendment for “Campaign Finance Reform.” It is not. This proposal is a political ploy and the only product of a legally tainted, politically motivated, and hand-picked Charter Revision Commission. Its only purpose is to block New Yorkers from voting on whether or not they want to spend $1 billion of public funds to move the Yankees from the Bronx to a new stadium in Manhattan. The Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission used an outdated legal loophole in an attempt to knock off the Yankee Stadium referendum. In fact, the Commission’s proposal would obstruct and make unworkable a far more comprehensive and meaningful campaign finance reform package that was passed by the City Council and praised by good government groups. The Council’s legislation encourages new people to run for elected office. It regulates private financing of transition and inaugural activities by candidates elected to local offices; and it prohibits elected officials from appearing or participating in any television, radio, print advertisement that is paid for by governmental funds in an election year. A “No” vote will put a better campaign finance reform law on the books and it will send a clear message to the Mayor that he cannot prevent the citizens of New York City from having a say on keeping the Yankees in the Bronx. The proposal on Campaign Finance Reform, issued by the Charter Revision Commission, has nothing to say that any person could argue with; it actually has nothing to say. It does a very good job of telling the voters that something is being done to clean up our election process. Its wording is very general, and it is simply a distraction. The Commission which wrote the proposal was set-up by Mayor Giuliani to prevent the Yankee Stadium proposition and the Clean Money/Clean Elections proposition from getting on the ballot and to reduce voter turnout in November. The Mayor has very bluntly stated his original reason for creating this Commission is to block Speaker Peter Vallone’s effort to put a referendum on the ballot that would let the voters decide whether to build a new Yankee Stadium on the West Side. The Mayor announced earlier this year that a Charter Revision Commission wasn’t necessary, but after Peter Vallone announced his Yankee Stadium proposition, the Mayor decided to revive the city Charter Commission, which puts him in a position to make certain the City Council can’t put referenda on the ballot this year. The commission’s chair is Peter Powers, the Mayor’s former deputy Mayor and longtime friend. The Vice-Chair is Paul Crotty, former Corporation counsel in his Administration. These people are all in the sphere of the Mayor and have put together this proposal to suit his purposes. It probably does not matter to those who created this proposal whether it passes or not. However, a vote against it could send a message that the voters are not fooled by this travesty of our voting process. C. VIRGINIA FIELDS Vote “No” on Charter Change I oppose the City Charter Revision Commission’s ballot proposal because it comes from the wrong source at the wrong time and in the wrong way. There can be little doubt in anyone’s mind that the sole reason this Commission exists was to come up with a proposal that would knock off the ballot the referendum approved by the City Council on whether to construct a new West Side sports stadium--a referendum the Mayor opposes. A hastily cobbled together ballot initiative is the wrong way to go about addressing a subject as important and complicated as public campaign finance. In fact, as this Voter’s Guide was being prepared, the City Council was completing work on a set of local laws that strengthen a City campaign finance system already considered one of the most progressive and effective in the nation. This legislative package limits corporate contributions to candidates more fairly and effectively than the proposed Charter revision does, precisely because it was subjected to a level of public scrutiny and debate that has been lacking in the Charter revision process. I strongly support public campaign financing for every level of elective office. I respect this system too much to subject it to ill-considered and hasty revisions. Charter revision is an important job--too important to be done carelessly or inadequately, or to achieve partisan ends. That’s why I ask Manhattan voters to say “no” to Charter revision this Election Day. CHARLES JUNTIKKA During the last three years, I have spent all of my spare time fighting for campaign finance reform in New York City. (In 1996, my group of students filed 70,684 signatures requesting reform be put on the 1996 ballot.) On August 27, 1998 the cause of reform succeeded with the passage of a reform bill by the City Council that The New York Times called “excellent.” This bill is now law. I have devoted my life to this issue. I have no doubt whatsoever in opposing the Charter Revision Commission’s “reform” referendum because it is (1) inadequate, (2) unnecessary and (3) counter-productive. First, this referendum is inadequate. All it does is ban corporate contributions with no attention to details. A simple ban on corporate giving only has so many loopholes it is worse than our old law. The biggest loophole is that corporate officers only have to form PAC’s and under the Commission’s proposal their contributions would then be legal. This referendum calls for a “review” of the “soft money” problem, but does not ban soft money in any way, shape or form. Reviewing a problem does not solve it especially when the Council has adopted a law that helps address this issue. Second, this referendum is unnecessary. The Council’s law levels the playing field for candidates by reducing contribution limits for political fat cats and increasing public matching funds to reduce the influence of private contributions:
Finally, this referendum is counter productive. Some attorneys believe this referendum in some ways may conflict with the Council’s law. I disagree. However if the referendum passes, enemies of reform are likely to bring a lawsuit to undercut the Council’s excellent legislation. The City Council has adopted the best campaign finance law in the country. Let’s not muck it up by adopting this ill-advised referendum. As a lead sponsor of this City’s original strong campaign finance reform legislation, I urge a NO vote on this Question. First, the Charter Commission decision to put this item on the ballot was made without sufficient public debate and was entirely undemocratic. It came several weeks after the very few public hearings they bothered to hold. There was no opportunity for the serious discussion of its pros and cons which New Yorkers deserve. There was no extended analysis of the consequences of the resolution or of the many problems it will create. Second, this question, proposed as a major reform, actually does much LESS than amendments to the campaign finance law already adopted by the City Council after many public hearings. The ballot measure prohibits corporate contributions and requires disclosure of contributions from those doing business with the city, but does not explain how those changes will be enforced. In contrast, the City Council has already taken dramatic steps to improve the existing law. Their bill significantly levels the playing field for candidates and provides the incentive for candidates to participate. If this hastily crafted ballot item were to pass, New Yorkers would be denied the benefit of important improvements to the law adopted by the Council. Finally, this question is on the ballot to prevent the public from voting on the future of Yankee Stadium. The Council proposed that New Yorkers vote on whether their public tax dollars should be spent to build a new Stadium that would move the Yankee team out of the Bronx. New Yorkers should be heard on this issue, but the Mayor wanted to block the vote. He named a politically motivated Charter Commission with no time for serious work solely to get a measure on the ballot that would block the referendum on Stadium spending. This is not the way to make public policy. Accordingly, I urge a NO vote on a measure that was adopted without real public input, that blocks more serious reform and is on the ballot only to keep another measure off. A. GIFFORD MILLER The City Charter is the City’s basic governing document, much like the U.S. Constitution. Charter Revision is serious business and should only be done for the right reasons. The current Charter Revision Commission was created for purely political reasons. Mayor Giuliani has stated that the Commission was created in order to block a referendum on whether to build a new stadium for the Yankees on the West Side of Manhattan. This Commission’s founding purpose was anti-democratic. For this reason alone, the voters should oppose the Commission’s questions and send a message that baseball and politics don’t mix. Even if you ignore that the Commission is a political ploy, its proposal should be rejected because the Commission’s conduct was unrepresentative, secretive, rushed and lacked public input. Nearly every “good government” group in the City from Citizens Union to Common Cause has strongly opposed the Commission for its politically motivated origin, lack of minority representation, and faulty process. Rejecting the Commission’s ballot question sends the message that the City’s Constitution shouldn’t be revised without proper public input. Finally, the questions put forward by the Commission are of little merit and most are already being addressed by the City’s elected legislature. However, at least one--the Commission’s proposal to ban campaign contributions by corporations--would actually set back the cause of campaign finance reform. While it might sound good, the fact is that by banning corporate contributions, the Commission threatens reform legislation recently adopted by the City Council which mandates stronger incentives for clean and fair elections. It would potentially eliminate a four-dollar-for-one public financing match that creates an incentive for small contributions from city residents. In addition, the proposal would do nothing to stop corporations from making contributions through PACs. The bottom line is that the Commission is a politically motivated sham that taints the importance of charter revision. While the Commission’s ballot questions may seem reasonable at first glance, they spring from an anti-democratic process and will actually do more harm than good. In order to preserve the integrity of the City’s Charter, I urge you to vote “NO.” NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
GROUP, INC. The New York Public Interest Research Group recommends a “no” vote on this ballot question. The proposal misleads voters--and may even harm the city’s widely-respected campaign finance program, which was set up to reduce the influence of large campaign contributions on city elections. Why misleading? The proposal says it will “require” the New York City Campaign Finance Board--which runs the program--to regulate “indirect campaign expenditures.” In other words, the proposal claims it will minimize campaign spending by political parties and others that is designed to evade current city campaign finance limits. But the Campaign Finance Board has said that state and federal laws “appear to leave [it] little room for restricting political party spending.” That means the ballot question promises something it won’t deliver. The ballot question may also jeopardize the future of the campaign finance program. Under the law, candidates are eligible for additional public funds as an incentive to raise small contributions from city residents. As an August 21, 1998 editorial in The New York Times noted: “Some readings of the [ballot question] suggest it could also undermine the...matching fund system.” Finally, this proposal is the product of an indefensible process. It was drafted to “block efforts to put a referendum on the November ballot that would allow the public to vote on whether the city should pay for a new [Yankee] stadium in Manhattan” (The New York Times, August 28, 1998). The proposal was developed in unseemly haste in a handful of weeks over the summer. There was no time for real debate and no chance to iron out the problems described above. The ballot question does contain some provisions to promote the independence of the Campaign Finance Board. But these are clearly outweighed by what’s wrong with the proposal. The proposal has been criticized by many civic groups, including Common Cause/NY and the City Club of New York. Voters who want more information about NYPIRG’s views can call (212) 349-6460. To learn more about the city’s campaign finance program, consult this Voter Guide. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
