THE FACTS:
THE MAYOR ATTACKS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

UPDATE: On Wednesday, April 25th, the City Council voted to override the Mayor's veto of Intro 879 -- the 4 to 1 public campaign matching funds bill. It was by a vote of 40 to 6, with 2 abstentions and 3 absent.

Congratulations to all the groups and individuals who made this important victory possible.

The six "no" votes were four of the six Republicans (Thomas Ognibene, James Oddo, Martin Goldin and Michael Abel) and two Democrats (Pedro Espada and Noach Dear.) The two abstentions were Priscilla Wooten and Thomas White. The three absentees were Lloyd Henry, Howard Lasher, and Al Stabile.

First Deputy Mayor Joe Lhota worked the Council chamber, offering goodies to Council Members to vote "no" -- but to little avail.

This should be the end of the Mayor's attack on the best campaign finance system in the country -- at least until a likely Charter Revision Commission over the summer. But even if the commission attacks campaign finance reform, it won't be in time to affect this fall's campaigns.

BACKGROUND:

In late January, Mayor Giuliani sued to stop the city's landmark campaign finance law from fully encouraging city candidates to limit their campaign spending and contributions. By a veto-proof vote of 40 to 4, the City Council enacted legislation to moot Mayor Giuliani's lawsuit against the city's campaign finance program's four-to-one matching formula. The Mayor vetoed the legislation on March 16th. It was this veto that the Council overrode on April 25th.

During the debate over the bill many Council Members stressed how the match empowered average New Yorkers and that it was wrong to change the rules of the game so close to Election Day. Council Member Helen Marshall, an African-American running for Queens borough president, noted that if she won, her historic first would be due in large part to the law.

Speaker Peter Vallone refuted the mayor's charges of high costs and potential corruption, forcefully arguing the bill was a strong anti-corruption measure to reduce the influence of wealthy special interests.

Congratulations to all the groups and Council Members who stood up for and defended the country's most effective & progressive campaign finance program. We also commend all the groups and individuals who testified in front of the Mayor telling him not to veto the Council's legislation. And thanks to all the groups who signed on to the Open Letter in support of the program below. Click here to view endorsers.

THE FACTS:

What was the recent Council legislation all about?
Since 1988, a city law let's city candidates voluntarily agree to hold down campaign spending and abide by strict contribution limits. In exchange, they get public matching funds. In 1998, the City Council lowered contribution limits and increased incentives for candidates to seek small contributions from city residents. Mayor Giuliani vetoed the law, but the Council overrode him. Now, less than seven months before primaries for mayor and other offices, the Mayor again wants to kill the new incentive. By a veto-proof vote of 40 to 4, the City Council enacted legislation to moot Mayor Giuliani's lawsuit against the city's campaign finance program's four-to-one matching formula. The mayor vetoed that legislation. Once again, the Council has overriden a Mayoral veto to protect the law.

What's at stake?
"A voluntary matching program that encourages small contributors, discourages private interests and brings out fresh political talent is worth the price," as the New York Times editorialized in condemning the mayor's suit. In the past, candidates received $1 for every $1 they raised in contributions of up to $1,000 from city residents. The new formula matches contributions of up to $250 or less from city residents at a rate of $4 to $1. The new match greatly helps candidates with local grassroots support. A $50 contribution yields $200 in public matching funds, for example. The new incentive is needed: A 1997 NYPIRG study found that mayoral candidates had taken more contributions from outside the city than from the four outer boroughs combined. The 4:1 match also makes up for the money lost through lower contribution limits and another law, requiring candidates to forego corporate contributions.

Why did the mayor sue and veto?
Mayor Giuliani says the new incentives cost too much. But his estimates are greatly inflated according to the Campaign Finance Board, City Council Finance Division and the highly respected Independent Budget Office. And the major cost impact is the large number of "open seats" this year because of term limits; more than 165 candidates have filed so far, a record. If successful, the mayor's attack would have helped some but hurt many candidates. Perhaps that was his intention. It's also important to recall that the mayor was fined $220,000 for campaign finance violations in 1997. Whatever his motives, the mayor's action represented a shocking double standard. No individual has received more public matching funds in city history than Rudolph Giuliani-$4.1 million in three election bids. Indeed, he received a 2-to-1 match in the 1989 Republican primary when he faced a high-spending opponent.

What were the arguments in the case?
The mayor's case rests on a technical challenge to the wording of the 1998 amendments to the law. He argued it conflicts with a charter provision approved by voters that same year. But the charter commission explicitly said it was leaving decisions on such issues as matching funds to the Council. And both the Council and the Campaign Finance Board-the agency charged with administering the law-disagree with the mayor.

The Big Apple's Big Spenders

Who Represents Me?
how to reach your elected representatives