Governor Andrew Cuomo has introduced legislation that seeks to enact a system of small donor matching funds for state elections, along with a number of other provisions designed to reduce corruption and special interest influence. The Governor embraced campaign finance reform as a priority in his State of the State Address back in January, but had not introduced his own bill on the issue until Tuesday of this week. Thelegislation is part of a broader package of laws designed to improve enforcement of election laws, ease voter registration, strengthen anti-bribery laws, and provide district attorneys with greater power to prosecute public corruption cases. The Governor’s bill lowers contribution limits, requires disclosure of independent expenditures, prohibits using campaign money for personal expenses, and matches small donations from constituents with public funds. “I think on the merits, this is a powerful proposal. It’s long overdue. It’s needed,” the Governor said at a news conference. If Legislators fail to pass the anti-corruption measures, Governor Cuomo has threatened to appoint a special panel, a Moreland Commission, to investigate corruption in the body.

NY LEAD Sends Letter to IDC Urging Reform

On Monday, members of the New York Leadership for Accountable Government – a bipartisan coalition of business, civic, and philanthropic leaders dedicated to reforming elections laws in the state – delivered an open letter to the Senate Independent Democratic Conference. The letter asks Senate Co-President Jeffrey D. Klein and Senators David Carlucci, Diane Savino and David Valesky to ensure that campaign finance reform is brought to the floor for a vote. “We understand that you introduced a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill…However introducing a bill without working to get it passed is worth little to the people of New York,” the letter states. Prominent signatories include Chris Hughes (Facebook Co-Founder), former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (Co-Chair of Americans for Campaign Reform and two-time NBA Champion), Cynthia DiBartolo (Chairperson of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce), and Philip D. Radford (Greenpeace US Executive Director), among many others. The signatories reminded the Senators of their pledge earlier in the session to make Albany functional and institute major reforms. The letter was printed in the Journal News and the Staten Island Advance and was covered by the Wall Street Journal and City & State.

Journal News Editorial: IDC Should Not Hinder Reform

The Journal News put forth an excellent editorial this week in favor of comprehensive campaign finance reform, including small donor matching funds. Reform has already cleared through the New York State Assembly. However it has failed to move in the State Senate. The Independent Democratic Conference and the Senate Republicans share control over the NYS Senate’s daily agenda. Although the IDC has introduced wide-ranging reform legislation – which includes public matching funds for small donations – and held public hearings on the matter, they’ve refused to bring the bill to a vote without approval from the Senate Republicans. “That is a kind of power sharing that favors political leaders but not people,” the Journal News stated. Federal Prosecutor Preet Bharara has decried the “casualness and cockiness” of corruption in Albany. The IDC members Senator Klein and Carlucci have echoed this sentiment, stating that the “people of New York deserve nothing less” than major change. As the Journal News puts it plainly, “There’s no doubt about that. It is past time to put such rhetoric into concerted action.”

Celebrities Tell Albany Representatives, “Don’t Come Home Without it”

Several notable celebrities have joined the movement to reform electionsin New York. Alec Baldwin told Legislators in a YouTube video that “It’s time to stop talking about cleaning up Albany, and start doing it.” There are videos from Liev Schreiber, Jason Alexander, Kathleen Turner, andCynthia Nixon, and others. The actors have endorsed the Fair Elections reform package which includes a system of matching small donations with public funds, as well as lower contribution limits, restrictions on contractors and lobbyists doing business with the state, and greater enforcement and transparency. Turner put it rather bluntly: “State Legislators, patting each other down for wires, isn’t that embarrassing. It’s time Albany got cleaned up.” All of the actors had an important closing message for Legislators: “Don’t come home without it.”

Governor Cuomo Holds Events Upstate to Boost Support for Public Financing Legislation

After introducing his campaign finance reform legislation in Albany, Governor Andrew Cuomo held events in Syracuse and Buffalo to push for his public financing proposal and other anti-corruption measures. New York Leadership for Accountable Government members former U.S. Representative Mike Arcuri and Diane Cihak, Founder of WomenElect, also spoke at the events. Speaking before community members at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, the Governor informed the audience that he can “receive $50,000 in contributions.” Such a high amount, he insisted, can disenfranchise those who can’t afford $1,000-per-plate fundraisers. Under Cuomo’s proposal, donations to statewide candidates would be capped at $25,000 for those not receiving public money and $12,000 for those participating in the new publicly financed system.

Congressional Candidate Explains Why we Cannot Outsource Elections to Wealthy Special Interests

In an op-ed in the Poughkeepsie Journal, 2012 Congressional candidate Julian Schreibman explained why adopting Fair Elections is so important for New York. Schreibman, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Senior Assistant District Attorney for Ulster County, said he discovered shortly after campaigning that the need for multimillion-dollar fundraisers turned him away from voters. “The influx of big corporate money has turned campaigning into an arms race for cash, and it forced me to spend far too much time shaking hands with donors instead of speaking with voters.” It is no surprise then that our elected officials spend extraordinary amounts of time fundraising in office for their next election, rather than serving their constituents. With the continual gridlock in D.C., it is essential that states take the lead on passing reform legislation. Much of the stated opposition against publicly financed elections stems from the cost of such a program, which opponents of reform have falsely exaggerated. As Schreibman explains, “Public funds are already used to pay for lawmaker salaries, staffing and other expenses, including direct mail from elected officials. Our campaign finance system is the only aspect of our democracy that is not publicly funded, and it has allowed our campaigns to be captured by wealthy interests. Publicly financed elections will put our campaigns back in the hands of the people, where they belong.”

Buffalo News Editorial: Make Campaign Finance Reform a Priority before End of Session

The Buffalo News has editorialized about its priorities for what the legislature needs to accomplish before adjourning next week. Campaign finance and ethics reform were ranked as number one. As the paper put it bluntly: “Albany remains a cesspool of corruption.” This year several of our assembly members and senators were embroiled in corruption scandals. Publicly matching small donations will allow candidates without deep pockets or entrenched connections to run against financially flush and corrupt incumbents. Research from the good-government group Citizens Union confirms that the New York City elections, where public funding is already in place, allow for greater voter choice and more electoral competition, when compared with New York State races.

In a Times Union op-ed Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., corporate counsel at the Brennan Center, and Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, explained how the Senate is at a historic crossroads, with a unique opportunity to usher in an era of transparency and cleaner elections in Albany. Currently the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) controls the chamber in a power sharing agreement with the Republicans. When forming the coalition, IDC Leader Senator Jeffrey Kleininsisted that it would help end gridlock in our legislative process. However, now the IDC is saying that it will not bring its own campaign finance reform bill up for a vote despite overwhelming support for comprehensive reform from the public, a majority of Senators, and all three statewide leaders, including Governor Cuomo. After a string of corruption scandals that confirmed the corrosive role of big money on our elections and policy process, campaign finance reform with independent enforcement of the law should be part of a comprehensive remedy. “Scandal often breeds innovation, and fractured party control of the Senate could offer a rare chance for meaningful change. It still can — if the IDC members decide to let their own proposal come to the floor for a vote.”

Citizens Rally in Albany for Campaign Finance Reform

Hundreds of citizens rallied in Albany on May 29^th to pressure their legislative representatives to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform with public financing. Nearly 500 people marched in the Capitol building, and met with over 100 state Assemblymen and Senators from both sides of the partisan divide. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli spoke to the crowd, criticizing the current limits on donations for the Comptroller’s race, which stand at $19,000 for the primary election and $41,100 for the general election. “That’s outrageous,” DiNapoli said. “No wonder people feel that they don’t have power.” New York State Senate Democratic Leader Andrew Stewart-Cousins was also present. Regarding reform she emphasized that “We all understand the importance of getting people back involved in the process.” Photos and videos from the event are available here.

Residents of Key Senate Districts Ask Their Senators to Pass Reform

Voters across the state are letting their State Senators know that comprehensive campaign finance reform should be an important legislative priority before the end of the legislative session. The Fair Elections proposal is a set of reforms intended for our state’s lax campaign finance laws. New York’s current limits for gubernatorial elections are the highest of all states that restrict campaign donations. Comprehensive reform would not only to reduce these outrageous contribution limits but also provide an incentive for candidates to be responsive to their constituents, by matching donations up to $250 from district residents with public funds. A number of constituents are calling on their Senators to show true leadership and bring the Fair Elections bill, S04705A, to a vote. Constituents of Senators Mark Grisanti, Diane Savino, and David Carlucci have expressed their support for the bill.

Buffalo News Editorial: Senate Should Pass Public Financing

On Sunday, the Buffalo News editorialized in favor of campaign finance reform, and asked Senate Republicans, including Buffalo Senator Mark Grisanti, to pass a comprehensive plan that puts “state government back on the path of respectability.” With the “swamp of criminality and unethical behavior in Albany” and “voter disgust” at unprecedented heights, the time for reform is now, before the end of the legislative session on June 20^th. The Buffalo News strongly endorsed public financing of elections as a key aspect of any reform package to “encourage participation by potential candidates who are now intimidated by a system that costs millions of dollars to access and that tilts dramatically toward incumbents.” The proposal follows the model in New York City, which has worked well for two decades. “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is pushing for reforms this year, and the Assembly is already on board. What is needed are some Senate Republicans who understand the overarching need to restore the trust of their constituents. There are many possibilities and, in Western New York, they include Sen. Mark J. Grisanti, R-Buffalo, who has already demonstrated an unusual quotient of political courage.”

NYS Attorney General Schneiderman Unveils Disclosure Regulations, Praises Public Matching Funds

At an event sponsored by the Brennan Center and New York Leadership for Accountable Government (NY LEAD) – a coalition of business, civic and philanthropic leaders who favor campaign finance reform – New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman unveiled new disclosure requirements for non-profits engaging in political activities. Under the new regulations, 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations that spend more than $10,000 on federal, state and local political activities will be required to file itemized schedules of their expenses and contributions. The regulations cover express advocacy, such as ads that call directly for the election or defeat of a candidate, as wells as issue ads broadcast close to an election. Organizations that fear reprisals or threats from donor disclosure can file exemption waivers. “By requiring nonprofits to disclose the extent and nature of their electioneering activities, we are protecting prospective donors from misleading solicitations, and giving voters more information about who is behind many of the ads they will see in this year’s elections,” Schneiderman stated. NY LEAD member David Calone, President and CEO of Jove Equity Partners, praised the Attorney General’s efforts: “Attorney General Schneiderman’s new disclosure policy offers a concrete solution to the explosive growth in secret non-profit political spending.” Attorney General Schneiderman also remained optimistic that campaign finance reform would pass this year before the end of the legislative session. He dismissed allegations that matching funds would allow corrupt incumbents to gain access to public money, arguing that it would instead expand the field of candidates running. “The bigger problem in New York State is not that we’re spending too much on elections, it’s that in many many cases, as with Mr. Lopez last year in the Assembly race, people easily win re-election no matter what their conduct,” he added.

Professor Benjamin Explains Costs of Publicly Financed Elections

Recently there has been contention about the cost of adopting a public financing system in New York State. According to Professor Michael Malbin, a leading national expert on state and local campaign finance and head of the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute, the cost would range from $1.34 to $2.08 per New York resident per year. In sum, that amounts to between $26 million to $41 million per year. Public financing would encourage new donors to participate since their contributions up to $250 would be matched by public funds. Consequently small donors would be able to compete with big donors. The Senate Republicans have pitched several inflated and often contradictory figures for the cost. Ultimately New Yorkers must ask themselves, is $2.08 a high price to pay for clean elections? As Gerald Benjamin, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at SUNY New Paltz, points out in aJournal News op-ed; Forty-nine out of 63 New York State Senators received most of their campaign contributions from corporations or big money donors.Millions are wasted and misdirected each year because of sweetheart deals for the special interests. “We can choose to take ownership of our troubled state political system by each paying our share toward democracy’s overhead. Or we can outsource democracy, and let the big money interests continue to call the shots.”

Op-Ed by NYC Councilman Koppell Asks Senator Klein to Bring Fair Elections Legislation up for a Vote

On Friday, New York City Councilman Oliver Koppell wrote an op-ed in the Norwood News asking New York Senate Co-Leader Jeffrey Klein to bring Fair Elections legislation to the floor for a vote. Councilman Koppell, who currently represents parts of the Bronx like Klein, also served in the State Assembly in the 1980s. In 1986, he helped draft the first campaign finance reform statute to be introduced in the New York State legislature. Now, 27 years later, a comprehensive reform bill has passed the Assembly and has the support of Governor Cuomo. The fate of the bill depends on the Senate governing coalition of the Independent Democratic Conference lead by Senator Klein and Senate Republicans. Koppell asserts that once public financing is combined with drastically lower contribution limits, improved disclosure rules and stronger enforcement of election laws, it will “restore New York’s democratic integrity by making campaign finance more dependent on the people.” His judgment should carry some weight; he has been an active participant in elections in New York City, where such a system is already in place. Although we cannot eliminate corruption, we can change Albany’s culture of dialing for dollars from lobbyists and deep pocketed special interests. “The Senate is big money’s last bastion of power, and it’s up to Mr. Klein to demonstrate real leadership and get a bill to the floor.”

Comptroller DiNapoli Addresses Business and Civic Leaders in Buffalo
Last week, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli was in Buffalo to speak to a group of business, civic and philanthropic leaders about the need for reforming our state’s campaign finance laws. The event – co-sponsored  by the Brennan Center for Justice, NY LEAD, American for Campaign Reform, SUNY Buffalo Law School, Common Cause and Housh Law Offices – also featured Brittany L. Stalsburg, an analyst at Lake Research Partners. In December of 2012, Lake Research released an extensive poll illustrating broad support, at 79 percent, for a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s campaign finance system. Also speaking was Larry Norden, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. Norden emphasized that matching small donations with public funds in New York City has made candidacies independent of political machines and unbeholden to special interest donors possible. Only 7 percent of the contributions to New York City candidates for the 2013 election came from special interests compared to 69 percent of contributions to New York State Legislative candidates in the 2012 election. Comptroller DiNapoli said,“The bottom line is we need more good and honest people who want to make themselves available to serve in public office. The reality is the way our system is currently set up, the reliance on private donation—and big donations—is a deterrent to people getting involved.”

Siena Poll: 57 Percent of New Yorkers Favor Public Financing
A new research poll by Siena shows that New York residents across the state express strong support for the public financing of elections. Approximately 57 percent of survey respondents indicated that they support creating a system that would limit the size of political contributions to state candidates and match small donations to public funds.  This is the twelfth poll conducted since 2010 that demonstrates strong voter demand for the idea. Support cuts across ideological lines and geographic regions, with 64 percent of liberal, 57 percent of moderate, and 52 percent of conservative voters, as well as 60 percent of New York City dwellers and 55 percent of both Upstate and suburban residents standing behind reform.

Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley to NY Legislature: Reform will Reverse Mistrust Among Voters
On Wednesday, former U.S. Senator from New Jersey and NY LEAD member Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed in the Daily News urging the New York Legislature to adopt reforms that will improve our democracy. The current mistrust and cynicism among voters can be reversed by adopting public financing of elections with a small donor match.  These ideas will put voters in the driver’s seat of democracy as candidates are able to rely on a broad base of small donations from their constituents rather than large donors and special interests. “Three states — Connecticut, Arizona and Maine — offer candidates for public office the opportunity to compete in roughly the same way” Bradley stated. “The result, more often than not, is that qualified people from all walks of life are able to serve, and the relationship between money and politics is greatly reduced.  All voters have the opportunity to be in control of their government, not just the connected few.”

NYPIRG Report: Over 100,000 Campaign Law Violations in Last Cycle
A report by the New York Public Interest Research Group found that there were 103,805 violations of New York State’s campaign finance laws between January 2011 and January 2013. The New York Board of Elections sent violators warning letters but did little to follow-up. Over 2,300 campaign committees filed late disclosure reports, 224 political clubs failed to register with the state, and 346 corporations donated more than the state’s annual limit of $5,000 without any fines or legal repercussions. Currently, the Board of Elections is severely under-staffed with no investigators and only four auditors. By contrast, in New York City, where profound reforms were implemented in 1989, the Campaign Finance Board imposed 128 penalties on 31 candidates that accepted contributions above the legal limit. Governor Cuomo issued a statement immediately following the release of the report: “The buildup of over 100,000 campaign finance violations over the last two years is unacceptable and a clear sign that the current self-policing system at the Board of Elections does not work.”

Brennan Center Responds to Senator Skelos’s False Claims
Last week, Senate Republican Conference leader Dean Skelos published an op-ed in the Albany Times-Union arguing against public financing of state elections. This week, Ian Vandewalker, counsel at the Brennan Center, responded to Skelos in a letter to the paper. Skelos asserted that “real world job creators” are opposed to reform. In reality however, 72 percent of New York business leaders support campaign finance reform, including matching small donations with public funds. They understand that clean elections will allow their business to compete freely in the marketplace rather than on the political stage. Skelos and the Senate Republicans have also quoted exaggerated, unsubstantiated and contradictory numbers pertaining to the cost of publicly funding elections, ranging anywhere from $143 to $286 million per year. A reasoned estimate by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute sets the figure at $26 to $41 million per year. Lastly Skelos argues that public financing has “been a recipe for corruption.” This could not be further from the truth. Since the passage of reform, New York City has not seen corruption scandals like those of the pre-reform era. In neighboring Connecticut, federal corruption convictions reached a record low four years following the adoption of public financing.

The outlines of Lopez’s empire of influence peddling have been described many times, but for the unfamiliar, here’s a synopsis. In 1973 Lopez founded the non-profit Ridgewood-Bushwick Senior Citizens Council. Under Lopez, the group used city and state contracts and grants to provide services to seniors, and to buy and rehabilitate abandoned or tax delinquent properties.  After he was elected to the state assembly in 1984, Lopez used the center as a power base to reward supporters, relatives and friends with high paying jobs and housing.  The center was notorious for the enormity of the city and state contracts and grants it received and Lopez’s blatant nepotism. Lopez’s campaign treasurer, Christiana Fisher served as executive director and was paid $607,000 a year in 2010, before being indicted. Lopez’s long-time girlfriend Angela Battaglia, remains at the center as assistant executive director.

But despite being under intense scrutiny from the state and city, the center is still heavily populated by Lopez loyalists;  ten Ridgewood-Bushwick employees recently donated to Vito Lopez’s City Council Campaign, including Jeanne Laino, the executive director and Battaglia. Despite the scandal and investigations, Ridgewood-Bushwick also continues to be heavily funded by New York State and City tax payers. As of May 17, 2013, the center had $32 million in active city contracts and about $19 million in contracts with the state. But this may understate the size of Vito’s publicly funded empire. The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism counts 80 separate legal subsidiaries of Ridgewood-Bushwick.
We’re glad to see Vito out of office, but we wonder what would have happened if Vito had kept his hands to himself and been content to simply pervert government, rather than be a pervert.

More on Vito Lopez’s empire of corruption.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/disgraced-brooklyn-assemblyman-vito-lopez-amassed-power-loyalty-appointments-cheap-housing-article-1.1160656?pgno=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/assemblyman-lopez-is-a-fierce-politician-who-tolerates-no-dissent-associates-say.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2012/08/what-does-lopez-censure-mean-for-brooklyn-real-estate/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/nyregion/at-ailing-brooklyn-hospital-insider-deals-and-lavish-perks.html?pagewanted=all

1. Create datasets from collected information with the expectation that data will be used by other sources; keep information machine-readable.
2. All agencies must internally catalog and index their datasets in both human- and machine-readable formats.
3. Agencies must publish the portions of the indexes containing datasets which could be made public. (e.g. which do not contain Federal secrets or social security numbers or the like.)
4. Agencies must create a forum for public dialogue, where members of the public to request certain datasets be prioritized over others.

These are all promising steps, and the White House has created a Github repository with best practices and policies for agencies to learn from and share their experiences, as well as case studies, tools, and various written resources for officials and open government advocates alike.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman  seems  ready  to do more to fight corruption.

“And public confidence in government is very important to me. I’m a Democrat and I tell my fellow Democrats it is the party that tells voters the public sector can be a force for good, we have to be the harshest critics of corruption and waste and fraud in government.”

— NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, May 2012

Halleluiah Mr. Schneiderman. We couldn’t agree more. This why we hope that you use the powers you already have to help change things.  There are many things that Governor Cuomo and Comptroller DiNapoli can also do using their existing powers, and we’ll get to them shortly. But your remarks suggest you are motivated to take on a bigger role in this fight.

Things AG Scheiderman can do now to fight corruption

1. Convene an expert corruption risk task force and issue a report identifying state spending and processes vulnerable to abuse and pay to play, and how to reduce that risk with transparency, better reporting, and other safeguards. NY has a wealth of knowledgeable Albany hands across the ideological spectrum that you could draw on, for instance, Richard Brodsky, David Grandeau, Rose Gill Hearn, Blair Horner and EJ McMahon. Maybe they can be done in conjunction with the Comptroller’s Office.

2. Improve non-profit transparency by upgrading the AG’s Charities website and posting state disclosure forms for all charities that receive government funds in a machine searchable and readable format.

3. Upgrade the AG’s www.nyopengovernment.com/NYOG/ and Foster “Transparency Apps” using API software code. This will allow other government agencies and watchdog groups to easily combine political contribution data on the NYOG site with state and city contracting and public expenditure data.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial Asks Cuomo to Propose Reform Legislation or Endorse Assembly Speaker Silver’s Bill
In a Monday editorial, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicleencouraged Governor Andrew Cuomo to propose new laws that ensure greater accountability from our elected officials. The governor has endorsed campaign contribution limits and matching campaign donations less than $250 with state funds as key reforms for the future of New York. These measures can go far to help regenerate public confidence in our state institutions. Cuomo should propose his own legislation or endorse Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s bill for campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform and early voting can help reduce the influence of well-heeled special interests and increase grassroots participation.

Daily News Editorial: Enforcement of Law is Key Component of Reducing Corruption
In late April, Governor Andrew Cuomo called for a new watchdog to enforce New York’s campaign finance laws. The indictments of former State Senator Malcolm Smith and Assemblyman Eric Stevenson for bribery led the Governor to propose new ideas to combat corruption including harsher punishments for corruption, giving prosecutors greater investigative powers and cracking down on campaign finance violations. The Daily News editorialized in favor of enforcement this week. The Fair Elections campaign has consistently called for enforcement as one of four key reforms, along with public financing, lower contribution limits, and disclosure. Currently, the State Board of Elections has no staff committed to conducting investigations. With such lax enforcement, former Bronx State Senator Pedro Espada got away with failing to disclose his finances for 15 years. Politicians and donors routinely violate contribution limits and disclosure rules without any consequences. The Daily News advised Governor Cuomo and the Legislature to create an enforcement agency that is (a) independent of the State Board of Elections, (b) has investigative authority, (c) is equipped with subpoena power, (d) can prosecute offenders in civil and criminal courts and (e) receives adequate funds and staff.

Richard Davis: Matching Small Donations Can Change Albany’s Culture of Corruption
Richard J. Davis, a former Watergate prosecutor and a member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board and New York LEAD, wrote anop-ed in Long Island Newsday advocating for the adoption of public financing in New York State. Although Governor Andrew Cuomo has unveiled legislation that will give prosecutors greater authority to punish corrupt politicians, without systematic changes to our campaign finance laws, Albany still remains the Wild West of money in politics. As a former prosecutor, Davis sees a connection between porous campaign finance laws and corruption. At a time when we should be enfranchising citizens so they can hold elected officials accountable, repeat scandals are tuning voters out of the political process. In the New York City small-donor matching-funds system, candidates can rely on their constituents for campaign expenses rather than a few wealthy special interests. By contrast, at the state level, sky-high contribution limits and a myriad of loopholes allow State legislators to fundraise outside of their home districts from lobbyists and special interests. A report last year showed that only three out of 575 donors to former State Senator Pedro Espada Jr.’s campaign – who faced federal and state corruption investigations – were residents of his district.

Public Financing Bill Introduced by NY Senate Independent Democratic Conference
The New York Senate Independent Democratic Conference introduced acampaign finance reform bill this week with Senate Co-Leader Jeffrey Klein as the chief sponsor. The bill includes public matching funds for small donations, restrictions on fund transfers between candidate campaign committees and political party committees, dramatically lower limits on contributions to campaigns and parties, ceilings on contributions by those doing business with the state, and greater disclosure of outside spending. The bill, S04897, would utilize unique sources of financing for the public matching component including transfers from the abandoned property fund to a campaign finance fund, an optional tax return check-off and a surcharge on securities fines that Speaker Silver’s bill also includes.

Hearings on Senate IDC Reform Bill
Hearings on the Independent Democratic Conference’s bill for campaign finance reform were held on Wednesday in New York City. A series of additional hearings are scheduled over the next month across the state. Before the hearing, the Fair Elections for New York coalitionheld a press conference with supporters to encourage Legislators to bring a bill to the floor for a vote. David Donnelly, Executive Director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, stated that “New Yorkers know that reforming the pay-to-play system in a way that lifts up the voices of everyday people is the best answer to the corruption scandals of the past months and years.” Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause New York, also present at the conference said that “One too many corruption scandals have finally tipped the scales of decency, and the voters are crying out for campaign finance reform built around a system of public matching funds.” Representatives from more than 10 groupstestified at the hearing that followed. Ian Vandewalker, counsel at the Brennan Center, informed the lawmakers about the benefits of public funding systems as evinced by clean elections in states such as Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, as well as New York City. “At bottom, opponents of comprehensive reform are defenders of the status quo, champions of a system that works for lobbyists and special interests, but not every day New Yorkers,” Vandewalker stated.

Campaign Finance Reform Proposals by Assembly Democrats and Senate Independent Democratic Conference
New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has unveiled a new campaign finance reform proposal. The bill, A4980B, includes a small donor matching component, where every contribution up to $250 by state residents is matched with public funds at a 6-to-1 ratio. “We cannot allow elected public service to become the exclusive domain of the wealthy and the well connected,” Speaker Silver stated. Stronger enforcement of the law and penalties for violations will be enforced by a new body, the Fair Elections Board, to be situated within the state Board of Elections. Organizations making independent political expenditures over $1,000 would have to disclose the name of the person or group behind the spending, and report all major contributors (those that donated over $1,000) to the Board of Elections. The Senate Independent Democratic Conference, headed by Senator Jeffrey Klein, criticized the proposal for failing to eliminate political party housekeeping accounts, and transfers between party committees and individual candidates.”Unless these measures are part of a more comprehensive plan to eliminate party slush funds and slash six figure contributions, we’ll be right back to where we started.  Our members look forward to discussing these proposals alongside the more comprehensive plan outlined by the Independent Democratic Conference last week,” IDC Spokesman Eric Soufer stated.

The Cost of Public Financing is about $2 per New Yorker per Year
Recently, the New York State Senate Republican Conference, which is opposed to publicly funded elections, finally explained how it arrived at its inflated estimate of the cost of public financing. The method was immediately assailed by campaign finance expert Prof. Michael Malbin, who called it “little more than back of the envelope arithmetic based on incredible assumptions.” The Campaign Finance Institute has used peer-reviewed methods to conclude that the cost of public campaign funding under current proposals would be between $26 and $41 million per year. Senate Republicans’ estimate is many times higher. The Republicans’ calculation unrealistically assumes that there would be two candidates in every general election and each would earn the maximum amount of public funds. For primary elections, the GOP analysis assumes that a quarter of senators would participate in a primary, with one candidate per race receiving the maximum amount of public funds. It is important to note that under Speaker Sheldon Silver’s bill, (1) receiving public funds depends on the candidate’s ability to raise money from numerous small donors, so only donations up to $250 are matched with taxpayer dollars and that (2) candidates are limited to a maximum amount of public funds ($400,000 for Senate candidates and $200,000 for Assembly candidates in the general election race). The Senate Republicans’ assumption, that two candidates in every general election would receive the maximum amount of public funds, does not jibe with the experience of New York City, where a multiple matching funds system is already in place. Between 2001 and 2009, only 51 percent of candidates running in New York City elections received the maximum amount of public matching funds. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, under the least expensive scenario, the cost would be $1.34 per New York resident per year, while it would be $2.08 per New York resident per year for the most expensive scenario—a small price to pay for cleaner elections.

Campaign Finance Reform Can Help Crack Down on Corruption
A 2011 report by the Center for Competitive Politics has been seized upon by opponents of Fair Elections to argue that the public financing system in New York City is characterized by consistent abuse of public funds and corruption. But the facts just don’t support that characterization. Since New York City adopted public financing in 1988 it has not faced a corruption scandal on the same scale as the 1980s. The CCP report outlines 24 scandals related to New York City elections in an attempt to argue that public funding does not deter corruption. Brennan Center counsel Ian Vandewalker’s detailed investigation of the report reveals that several cases have no relationship to public financing, including one involving a state legislator who never participated in city elections. Half the cases involve allegations or investigations that yielded no criminal or election law violation. Furthermore, several others listed describe instances where candidates attempted to violate the rules of New York City’s public financing system, but were caught by the city’s enforcement agency and fined or denied public funds. Enforcement is a necessary component of any effective campaign finance reform proposal. Along with vigilant enforcement of the law, disclosure of contributions, and lower contribution limits, public financing of elections can “end the mad chase for campaign cash that starts some elected officials down the road to corruption and … make candidates dependent on ordinary voters rather than special interests.”

• The process for submitting FOIL requests to City agencies and tracking their status is inconsistent and can be extremely challenging for the public to navigate. 40% of City agencies lack information on their website about where to direct FOIL requests. Neither 311 nor the City’s Green Book provide this information.

• For the three months of FOIL data analyzed, nearly 1,000 individuals or groups had not received an approval or denial determination after more than six months of waiting – that represents one-in-ten requests that were either ignored or fell through the cracks. While these non-responses represent de facto denials, the lack of firm response impedes the appeal process and legal action.

• When City agencies responded to FOIL requests, response times varied dramatically by agency. Only 7% of requests to the Department of Education received a response within 30 days, whereas 86% of requests to the Department of Transportation (who received eight times more requests) received a response within 30 days.

While only two agencies (NYPD and NYC Housing Authority) received failing grades, there is plenty of work to be done citywide; fully 10% of all FOIL requests are either lost or ignored, and at problem agencies, that number soars to over 30%, according to the report. Reinvent Albany thanks Public Advocate de Blasio for drawing public attention to the haphazard and murky way that New York City is following the state Freedom of Information Law. New York City is supposed to be in an era of open data and data driven government. Yet, New Yorkers’ single most important transparency tool — FOIL — is being disregarded, gamed, and neglected by city agencies far too often. One simple step the city could take: agencies should be publicly rated as part of their basic performance as part of the Mayor’s Management Report.

Reinvent Albany has strongly applauded online transparency initiatives in New York State and New York City.  This said, we completely with Bharara’s concern that many government transparency sites do not include crucial information that would make them truly potent. For instance, we’d like to see the actual contracts between our state and city governments and businesses and non-profits. We’d also like to see who is actually getting the hundreds of millions in tax credits to unknown businesses, or the full disclosure forms of non-profits that receive billions in government contracts.  Much is still missing, but there is a great deal of  important information relevant to government spending and political and lobbying spending which is already online.  Bharara should have applauded those transparency efforts, even while identifying the additional data that he’d like to see put online.

————————————————

Excerpt from Preet Bharara’s April 22, 2013 speech.

“One more point on this—the creation of databases and websites which make certain information about government officials public, which seem to promote transparency and are unveiled to great fanfare are a step toward true transparency but by themselves are not enough.

A database that is accessible only by physically going to a city office building to access through an outdated computer portal does not accomplish its intended purpose.  (Bharara is referring to the VENDEX system of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Contracts.)

A government website that is so difficult to navigate that it is nearly impossible to piece together any real-life understanding of the information it purports to convey or that offers millions of rows of data but without any context or meaningful ability to conduct analysis is not that much more helpful than keeping the information locked away in a filing cabinet. (Not clear what this is? NYC Open Data? If so he misses the point of open data entirely.)

We should perhaps hold our applause for certain transparency measures until we’ve scrutinized whether they truly reveal anything about the workings or behavior of government and public officials.”

Preet Bharara april 22 2013