Mayor Rudolph Giuliani filed suit yesterday to halt improvements in New York City's exemplary campaign financing program. The mayor's legal team argued that a 1998 charter revision banning corporate campaign contributions also had the effect of nullifying a law that encourages candidates to rely on smaller contributions in return for receiving more city money for their campaigns. The City Council speaker, Peter Vallone, has vowed to fight the mayor in court or "to use any means necessary to protect the integrity of the law." That is a wise move. The mayor's lawsuit should not be allowed to stall the nation's best campaign financing program.

Mr. Giuliani has been trying since 1998 to block what his lawsuit calls the "enhanced" financing system. Under the old system, candidates received matching funds from the city, dollar for dollar, on all contributions up to $1,000. That was changed in 1998 so that candidates who agreed to forgo corporate contributions could receive an even better, 4- for-1match from the city on all contributions up to $250. But when the charter revision banned corporate contributions entirely, the mayor asserted that the 4-for-1 match was also invalidated, while the Council claimed that it remained to encourage small donations.

The cost has always rankled the mayor, and this year the price tag could exceed $60 million, by one Council estimate, partly because small contributions are proliferating and partly because term limits are forcing all but a few of New York's elected officials to look for other jobs. These open seats provide better opportunities for new candidates, especially when the city helps finance their campaign. More than 150 candidates have indicated they want to run in this year's electoral marathon, many of whom have been plotting their courses and their fund-raising budgets based on the promise of this new matching bonus.

If the price tag for this system now looks steep to the mayor, consider the alternative costs to the city's taxpayers if candidates have to rely on fewer and bigger contributors, many seeking favors. A voluntary matching program that encourages small contributors, discourages private interests and brings out fresh political talent is worth the price.

Mayor Giuliani is making a mistake by suing to overturn a portion of the city's campaign finance law. He should let it stand.

The part of the law that bothers the mayor was passed by the City Council in 1998 over his veto. It establishes a 4to-1 match for campaign contributions of less than $250. Before that, the matches were set at 1-to-1, with a $1,000 maximum. The '98 amendment did not change the cap, it simply gave more clout to small contributors.

When the 4-to1 law was passed, it also stated that the higher match went only to candidates who gave up corporate gifts. However, that same year, the mayor appointed a Charter Revision Commission that banned corporate donations from all candidates in the program - a change the voters approved at the polls.

It is good that candidates in the city's campaign finance program are barred from taking corporate money. But joining the system is still voluntary. There should be as much inducement as possible to join.

As to complaints about the cost, there is no price on clean government. And, with the top matching grant still capped at $1,000, the 4-to-1 match does not mean that the public cost will be four times greater.

Another problem is that there already have been two special elections in which candidates received the 4-to-1 deal. The major Democratic mayoral candidates, who all have pledged to join the system, have come together to support the current law.

This is one that Giuliani should leave alone.

Newsday Tuesday, January 30, 2001
Rudy Should Keep Hands Off Campaign Finance Plan

One might think that with the popularity of public campaign finance proposals these days, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani would have the sense to keep his mitts off the city's successful plan.

Unfortunately, he doesn't.

Last week, the mayor announced that the city had sued the Campaign Finance Board in an attempt to overturn a crucial reform.

Background: In 1988, the City Council - over a Giuliani veto - voted to ratchet up the program's matching formula from 1-to-1 to a 4-to-1 rate, Under the revised formula, for example, a candidate who got $250 in a private contribution would get $1,000 in public cash. The change was envisioned as a way to get more candidates to take part in the program.

What do ordinary taxpayers have to gain from this campaign subsidy?

Several things. As the program encourages outsiders to run for office, it takes away some advantages of incumbency. This can only help democracy. By contrast, if Giuliani's suit wins, it could discourage worthy insurgents. What's more, a strong campaign finance program helps mitigate the power of special interests.

In truth, the city has never received all the huzzahs it deserves for its system. That's not too surprising. Local incumbents have tended to distrust it because it aids challengers. State politicians have always worried that a noisy victory for campaign finance in the city might saddle them with a similar program. And folks outside New York have mostly doubted that a trick-free good-government finance plan could ever work in the hometown of Tammany Hall.

But it has. So why the Giuliani suit? He points to the program's high price, but this rings hollow. For years, it came in way under estimate. Some think he is angry about a tiff he had with the board a few years ago. Well, who knows? Here's what matters. The system is a national model, and Giuliani needs to let it be.