|
|
As it stands now, candidates get up to four public dollars matched to every one dollar they raise. The bill introduced last week would lower that to two dollars.
Announced during the same week that the mayor asked city agencies to cut back even more than they expected, one might naively think that the councilmembers are out to save the city some money. After all, we are facing a budget deficit next year of up to $5 billion, and if tax revenues continue to decline, the city could face another $1 billion shortfall by the end of the current fiscal year. Those realities cannot be discounted.
But let’s be honest. Sure, there are some fiscal conservatives, especially the handful of Republicans who were philosophically opposed to the campaign finance bill in the first place (even though they happily set their opposition aside last year when they dipped into the funds themselves). Yet compared with massive city departments, the campaign finance budget last year was chump change: $41.5 million. Nearly two-thirds of that went to races that aren’t up for election next year. All told, only $13.8 million in public money was spent on the council races last year, and that figure will probably be even smaller next year because there are incumbents to face.
What the “reform” charade is really about is undercutting the competition. When you’re an officeholder, you are in power. You might not be the most influential councilmember, but you cast votes on important issues, you have a budget of your own and the lobbyists are knocking at your door with potential donations.
As such, an incumbent has the ability to raise campaign cash that far outstrips what a well-intentioned civic leader or resident activist has. When you cut the amount of public money that your challengers can get by half—which is what the bill’s supporters would like to do—it becomes at least twice as hard for them to run against you.
The current class of 14 Queens councilmembers has been in office for less than a year, and many are vulnerable because they haven’t established firm incumbencies. Some who are supporting this bill faced white-knuckle primaries last year; in two cases, only a few hundred votes separated them from defeat. Other backers of the bill have important family and business connections that already allow them to outspend opponents.
The price of councilmembers’ insecurity should not undermine what has been an effective tool of democracy. We know budget cuts are going to have to be made everywhere, and no one will like everything. But this proposal clearly does not serve the public as much as it does the officials themselves. As such, it should be scrapped.
