On the same day that Mayor Bloomberg signed the term limits extension into law (and held that mockery of a "hearing"), the Campaign Finance Board issued an "Advisory Opinion" in which they gave people who had spent a lot of money on higher office a "do over" if they choose to run for their current seat.

It's a clearly and obviously illegal ruling, to anyone who bothers to read NYC's campaign finance law, something the CFB theoretically should have done. For those who haven't read the law, ask yourself if high-spending incumbents should be allowed to pretend they didn't spend the money, just so that they can get your tax money to spend on their campaigns, and so that their opponents' spending was limited while they went crazy. Ask yourself if the campaign finance system, which was supposedly designed to level the playing field, should be [ab]used to tilt that playing field instead.

There will be a press conference to announce the lawsuit, Tuesday, December 2, at 2:30, on the steps of City Hall (where better to announce we're fighting City Hall?).

Come on out and support this fight -- see you at City Hall!

(Note: Cross-posted from my website)

One standard effect among magicians is misdirection. They make you look in one place while they’re busy fooling you somewhere else. The same practice is common among politicians.

As Mayor Bloomberg “holds a hearing” prior to signing his bill extending term limits, everyone’s attention – especially that of the press – will be focused on the Blue Room at City Hall. Meanwhile, something sinister will be happening down at 40 Rector Street; the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) will almost certainly be breaking the law.

Before the City Council voted to extend term limits, many Council members were planning to run for higher office. To that end, they had been spending a lot of money. If they decide instead to run for a third term, they will not be eligible for matching funds, because they will not be able to stay under the spending limits that come with matching funds.

That’s not really a problem. What is the problem? Read on...  read more »

You may have read (on Azi's blog, for instance) that a bunch of Council members who were running for "higher office" and will now run for a third term could also run afoul of campaign spending limits. As a result, they would be ineligible for public matching funds, which wouldn't be a problem since they've already raised a fortune.

More importantly, any of their opponents would be eligible for extra matching funds, and would also be allowed to spend more than the "limit" currently allows. That would be a problem for would-be third-termers. The CFB's proposed new rules amount to giving these big spenders a "do over," and would only serve to hurt any possible challenger.

The thing is, the CFB's proposed rules violate their own precedents and are illegal.

My initial e-mail to the Campaign Finance Board after the jump:  read more »

On Thursday, Feb. 21, the NYC Campaign Finance Board "celebrated" 20 years of the city's "matching funds" campaign finance system and their own existence as administrator and enforcer. But instead of taking the opportunity to pat themselves on the back for being great administrators/enforcers (which they are) or as conservators of a great program (which it isn't), they did something extraordinary.

They held a day-long conference, comprising six panels comprising people with a wide variety of experiences, perspectives, and opinions. It seemed that they were truly interested in an expansive discussion and debate over where to go next and what changes to make in the current system.

Unfortunately, I didn't get word about the conference until it had already started, so I missed most of the first half. I came in during the latter part of the third panel discussion, which featured representatives from the Brennan Center, the JEHT Foundation and Public Campaign.

See more about the rest of the conference after the break.  read more »