publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
THE GOLISANO FACTOR
Last week upstate billionaire, and three time gubernatorial candidate, Tom Golisano announced with great fanfare that by this November he was going to spend $5 million to help elect candidates that supported Golisano’s agenda for the state. Golisano complained that Albany needed to be reformed and that it hasn’t happened. He touched on measures that he supported — campaign finance and election reforms, more conservative fiscal measures, and other ways to change Albany. His announcement sent shockwaves throughout the Capitol. Anyone who has followed Albany — and its controversies, convicted former lawmakers, scandals and resignations — might feel sympathy for Golisano’s frustration. After all, Albany is a mess and despite repeated promises for change, things are as bad — if not worse — than ever. And there is a delicious irony to the plight of elected officials. After the collapse of the Spitzer Administration, many of Albany’s political elite were privately relieved and viewed it as the end of the reform effort as well. Now, those same elected officials are staring down the double barrels of Golisano’s $5 million political shotgun. For those who support reform, there are mixed feelings — sympathy, shared frustration — but there is also discomfort and dread. After all, how can it be that a wealthy individual can pledge millions of dollars to aid candidates’ efforts? How can he ignore the state’s campaign contribution limits? What does it say if it takes a billionaire to shake up Albany? And if he is successful, what will that mean for the future? Here are the current rules. Under New York State law, no individual is allowed to donate more than $150,000 annually in the aggregate on state and local campaigns. Golisano contends that if he created a political committee and spent his own money, no limits apply. He cited US Supreme Court decisions that have equated the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech with spending money on politics. The nation’s top Court has decided that no law can limit political spending, unless it is a direct campaign contribution. The Court makes a distinction between different kinds of money in politics; it has argued that in order to prevent outright corruption, or the appearance of corruption, contribution limits are permissible but spending by campaigns increase free speech and therefore can’t be involuntarily limited. Golisano is arguing that he is not making a campaign contribution; he is merely expressing himself through political speech. As such, he argues he can spend as much as he wants on whoever he wants to support, and he might be right. But there is one key rule he cannot break. Golisano must not coordinate his spending and electoral strategies with candidates or the political parties. If he does, then the campaign contribution limits apply. And his actions to date may invite litigation on this point. There have been media reports that he has met with, and pledged support to, candidates for office. If this means that he is coordinating, then he will not be able to spend the $5 million as he pledged. And if that’s the case, he may face court challenges that could stall his efforts even if his actions turn out to be legal. If he is successful, however, it will mean that campaign contribution limits don’t really apply to the wealthy. While they will not be able to coordinate their spending with candidates, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how best to impact these elections. If successful, Golisano will have helped to create a political caste system, one in which the wealthy play an even more powerful role in choosing our elected officials, while the rest of us watch. There is not much — outside of an amendment to the US Constitution — that can be done. The critical issue appears to hinge on whether a wealthy individual’s spending is truly independent. In the Golisano case, whether the spending is truly independent will rely on vigorous oversight by the State Board of Elections – an entity which to date has done virtually nothing to aggressively enforce the law. If elected officials learn anything from this experience, it should be this: ignore New York’s reform movement at your own peril. And instead of enabling the Barney Fife enforcement behavior of the Board of Elections, create a new organization to enforce New York’s campaign finance law. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. |
 |
