Campaign Finance Reform?Needs More Bite, If You Ask Me

The most recent showing of the candidates for office this year is indicative of the overall problem I’ve had with so-called “campaign finance reform” for years.
It doesn’t do what it’s intended to do — namely, make contests fair.
The clearest example of this is the race for City Hall, although the smaller races for City Council display the same disparities.
In the mayoral race on the Democratic side, the results do not bode well for the contenders.
Going up against the juggernaut that is the Michael Bloomberg money machine, the four would-be’s are lagging so far behind it’s really not even going to be a fair General Election fight, monetarily.
It’s quite amusing to go to the CFB website and look up Bloomberg. His statline: Net contributions, $23,655,868; Number of contributors, 1; Net expenditures, $23,028,336. Any normal candidate would be freaking out to only have $627,532 on-hand left, but there’s plenty more where that came from for Mayor Mike. He is his own fundraiser (the man has one contributor! himself!). He don’t need no stinking matching funds.
And yet, every one of his mayoral opponents needs matching funds to the -nth degree, and there could never be enough in the city coffers to get them close to what Bloomy will be able to shell out for his re-election.
Then look at some of the local council races. Melinda Katz leads the way in Queens with $551,078. Her only competitor, Joseph Nocerino, has raised $16,340.
Even if he qualified for the maximum matching funds allowed by law, Nocerino would still not come anywhere close to Katz. And maybe he should and maybe he shouldn’t. This column is not aimed at judging the viability of candidates, only to show the ridiculousness of the situation.
According to the Campaign Finance Board’s laws, the program is designed to:
In my estimation, it accomplishes number five on that list — their website is a ton of fun for poli-nerds like me. In terms of making candidates more responsive to citizens than big interests, that’s a laugh. How do you think someone amasses $500K? It isn’t through Aunt Millie’s $10 donations, that’s for sure. Katz netted an average $984 per contributor, Nocerino, $142. You do the math.
“Help credible candidates run competitive campaigns?” Well, what is your definition of competitive? Of the six Queens primaries in 2003, the only one that was within 30 percentage points was Allan Jennings squeaker over Yvonne Reddick.
The recent buzz over “pay to play” politics has shown that the finance program has failed to curb these practices and I think by now we realize that equal footing is a lost cause when someone has a foot the size of Shaquille O’Neal.
In a nutshell, this reform movement needs a Martin Luther who can push through real change. It’s just not there now. Maybe we put real spending and raising caps in place. You can only raise/spend $100,000 to run for council, period. Perhaps we ban labor/organizational money outright. I’m just thinking out loud here — please don’t shoot the thoughtful messenger.
Or maybe nothing will make a difference — beating an incumbent here is tough business and takes a nearly perfect situation (just ask Jimmy Meng). By 2009, when most of the incumbents will be term-limited out, let’s hope we have a system that provides competitive races to replace them, rather than coronations.
politics@queenscourier.com