Trending
Good government groups are urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to veto last-minute legislative changes to the state's public campaign financing system.
The state Assembly and Senate both took up legislation (S.7564/A.7760) as the state legislative session rush to a close last week. Publicly financed campaigns were approved back in 2019 but aren't scheduled to begin until the 2024 elections. The law initially was written to encourage small dollar donors to campaigns by providing a 6-to-1 publicly funded matching system for donations of $5 and $250 to statewide candidates. Bigger donations wouldn't have been eligible for the matching taxpayer funds.
Now, contributions of up to $18,000 for statewide races, $10,000 for state Senate, and $6,000 for state Assembly would be matched with public funds.
The state Senate passed S.7564 by a 32-31 vote, with some Democrats joining with Republicans in opposition. State Sen. George Borrello, R-Sunset Bay, was also among those opposed to the public campaign finance bill when it was first approved in 2019.
"I think there were a lot of us just opposed to this in general but we'll reluctantly have to participate in this program because it will be there for everyone else," Borrello said. "And we face the same problems. But, my friends in the majority have the distinct ability to change the rules of the game and that's what we have done. Because they came to the realization that this i essentially going to fuel primary opponents and Republican opponents, so the whole idea of a grassroots effort to get small donors engaged was the original intention way back when. Now we'll allow someone to donate $5,000 and get back another $2,300, and almost 50% match, courtesy of the taxpayers. … So this is going from being a grassroots efforts to, essentially, an incumbency welfare program."
Supporters say S.7564 and A.7760 are minor tweaks that correct minor issues with the original law. Specifically, the legislation clarifies that to have their donation matched with public funds, donors must live in the candidate's district at the time of the donation. It also amends the state Election Law to redefine "surplus" so that public funds must be returned to the state if the surplus is more than the difference between the public matching funds received and the total qualified campaign expenditures. Finally, the legislation stipulates that in order to qualify for matching funds, candidates must not have unpaid fines for public campaign finance programs from the last 10 years and that having unspent public funds from the primary election reduces the amount of public funds candidates can receive in the general election.
Assemblywoman Latrice Walker, D-New York City and Assembly sponsor of A.7760, also noted the legislative tweaks will help weed out those who aren't mounting a serious run for office. The recently approved changes require Assembly candidates to raise $12,000 from 145 in-district donors, an increase from $6,000 and 75 in-district donors, to qualify for public financing for their campaign. Senate candidates must raise $24,000 from 350 in-district donors, increase from $12,000 and 150 donors.
"The proposed changes to the states's public campaign finance will still provide matching funds to people whose campaigns are funded primarily by small donors and the law will still provide the transparency necessary to ensure public confidence in campaigns and elections in New York state," Walker said. "I know people have concerns. People have raised good questions about the rationale about the number of donors in the district and the total donations amount required to qualify. I believe this change will weed out candidates who are not actually serious about running for office but instead are more so serious about taking advantage of our very progressive election laws. It is important that we hit the ground running as we prepare for 2024, the first election under the state's public campaign financing program, which of course is one of the most progressive in the country and aggressive in America."
Reinvent Albany is among the organizations pushing Hochul to veto the legislation. One reason to veto, organization officials argue, is some of the changes should be vetted before the legislation is signed into law. Among the changes is criteria for competitive elections. If an election is not competitive, candidates receive only one-quarter of the public campaign money they would otherwise receive. Among the criteria are a margin of victory for general elections in the last eight years of 20 points or less for the seat, if the opposing candidate received the endorsement of a current or former statewide official or the current federal official representing the district, the opposing candidate has received three or more endorsements from other current or former state or local officials, if the candidate's spouse held elective office in all or a part of the district, the opposing candidate has received state public matching funds during the election cycle, if a candidate is self-funding and has given or loaned themselves enough money to qualify and, finally, if the opposing candidate previously held elective office.
"What's this bill do?" Assemblyman Andrew Goodell, R-Jamestown, asked. "First of all it eliminates any incentive for small contributions because rather than just match small contributions this says you can get the largest contribution allowed by law and the first $250 will be matched. Under the old law you could only get a contribution of $250 and have it matched. The second thing this did is instead of leveling the playing field, it blew up the chances of an incumbent to be successful because it dramatically increased the number of contributors you had to have to qualify for funding. Now as an incumbent I have a well-established donor base. I already have the databse. I've always matched or exceeded these levels. None of my challengers will ever have ever come close to these new higher levels. So what's that mean? That means with this program incumbents will have almost unlimited funding and their challengers will be frozen out. I almost raised a point of order sir, before you called me out of order for running out of time, because our rules normally require our bills to have an accurate title and this one should be called the Incumbent Reelection Guarantee Act."