<\/p>\n\n\n\n
New\nYork considers itself \u201cprogressive,\u201d which in many ways is true. The state\u2019s Constitution preserves vast\nswaths of the Adirondack and Catskill mountain regions, protect workers,\nmandates help for the needy, guarantees free public education, among other\nmeasures. However, in one area New York\nis anything but progressive: its democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Low\nvoter participation rates, difficulties in registering to vote, inadequate\nenforcement of ethics laws, and a \u201cdisgraceful\u201d system of campaign finance have\ndeprived New Yorkers of the best elements of a functioning democracy found\nelsewhere in America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Over\nthe many years of complaints about New York\u2019s democracy, few reforms have been\nenacted due to partisan differences; Republicans and Democrats simply could not\nagree how to fix what ails Albany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\nall could change in 2019 with one party control of the executive and\nlegislative branches. Last week, Governor\nCuomo laid out early on what he was hoping to get out of the 2019 legislative\nsession. In a speech on his goals for\nthe first 100 days, the governor called for across-the-board actions to tackle\nclimate change, ensure continued health insurance coverage, broader reproductive\nrights protections for women, and to take on the democracy challenges that face\nthe state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In\nhis speech, the governor called for new voting reforms, such as enacting\nautomatic voter registration and early voting, and to make it easier to vote by\nmail. He also called for campaign\nfinance changes, such as closing the notorious loophole that allows businesses\norganized as Limited Liability Companies \u2013 known as \u201cLLCs\u201d – to have much\nhigher campaign finance limits than other businesses and to ban corporate\ndonations altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\ngovernor also called for a campaign financing change that would be most\nimpactful: the establishment of a voluntary system of public financing. In this area, the governor did not have to\nlook far for a model. The City of New\nYork has had a system for three decades that is viewed by reformers as the best\nin the nation at allowing candidates to run for office without having to rely\non powerful special interests. New York\nCity\u2019s system is praised because it encourages candidates to engage with\nrank-and-file voters instead of dialing for dollars from the wealthy and\npowerful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Essentially,\nthe City\u2019s system allows candidates to choose to participate in the program\nthat allows for $6 in clean public resources for every $1 raised in small private\ncontributions, no more than $175. (Those\nlimits will increase during upcoming elections.) Thus, candidates are required to search out\nsmall donors and rely far less on big ones. \nA system that relies on a large number of small donors instead of a\nsmall number of large donors (those usually with business before the\ngovernment) is a system that is far less prone to corruption,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coincidentally,\na report on this very topic came out last week from a non-partisan national\nthink-tank. The Campaign Finance\nInstitute \u2013 which studies the nation\u2019s best practices in campaign finance \u2013\nreleased a report on the projected impacts if New York State embraced the\nCity\u2019s system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Institute found that lowering\nthe contribution limits, closing the LLC loophole, and instituting a system of\nmatching funds, would in fact substantially increase the importance of small\ndonors to candidates across the board while decreasing their dependence on\nlarge donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\nalso found that the cost of the proposed system would be modest \u2013 less than one\npenny<\/em> per day for each New Yorker\nover the course of four years. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Will\nthat package solve the crisis of corruption in Albany? Sadly, no. \nThe benefits of a voluntary system of public financing would be limited\ndue to the Citizens United<\/em> case,\nwhich allows unlimited spending by mega-donors to influence elections. But the New York City system offers clear\nchoices since it allows candidates the option of making a run for office\nwithout owing fealty to real estate developers, bankers, and other\nwell-organized interests. Instead, those\ncandidates have be appeal to average voters to obtain small contributions that\nget turbo-charged through its public financing matching system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of\ncourse, more needs to be done, such as independent oversight of how the state\nawards government contracts and independent oversight of ethics. After all, even the best laws fall short if\nthey are not adequately enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether\nNew York acts could not only have an impact in the state, but nationally as\nwell. Since the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s now-infamous\nCitizens United<\/em> decision in 2010,\nonly localities have embraced campaign finance reforms similar to those found\nin New York City. No state has adopted\nand successfully implemented a public financing system for gubernatorial and\nlegislative elections since Connecticut in 2006. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If\nNew York acts, it would dramatically improve our campaign finance system and\nsend a powerful signal to the nation that despite court cases that have\nincreased the risk of corruption, state governments can act to establish better\nways to run for office. That\u2019s an\ninvestment in democracy New York should make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New York considers itself \u201cprogressive,\u201d which in many ways is true. The state\u2019s Constitution preserves vast swaths of the Adirondack and Catskill mountain regions, protect workers, mandates help for the needy, guarantees free public education, among other measures. However, in one area New York is anything but progressive: its democracy. Low voter participation rates, difficulties […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2164"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2169,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2164\/revisions\/2169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}