The New York City Campaign Finance Board scored a huge win in the courts Friday. Republican mayoral candidate George McDonald had sued the city in hopes of eliminating the city’s strict contribution limits and attempt to bring them in line with the state’s limits. However, the Manhattan court said the city’s contribution limits are legal and reasonable to keep money from influencing elections.

Judge Kathryn Freed, who gave the decision for the court, held, “The court finds that the establishment of uniform limitations on both participating and non-participating candidates is reasonably related and calculated to achieve the goals of reducing the influence of ‘wealthy special interests’ over local elections, and increasing public participation and public confidence in those elections, is well within the powers granted to the City to protect the welfare and well being of its citizens.”

McDonald recently announced that he would join the voluntary public financing system and would conform to the current contribution limits, but promised to keep his fight up in court. McDonald still has the option of appealing this decision, but declined to say whether he would. He was disheartened in the entries process, saying “It’s disappointing that it took 147 days to ‘just say no’ in long form.”

McDonald is the underdog in a three-way battle for the Republican nomination with Joe Lhota and John Catsimatidis. The primary election for the mayor’s office, and all other city offices, is September 10.

The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) unveiled proposed changes to the ethics rules Tuesday, which could make it easier for lobbyists to conceal their donors and funders from the public. At its monthly meeting, JCOPE proposed changes to the gift regulations and the recently enacted source of funding regulations.

Under the source of funding regulations, lobbyists must disclose the names of anybody who provided them with funding in excess of $5,000 for lobbying purposes, but only if they meet a certain threshold. The current rules allow for a waiver of this requirement only if there is a substantial likelihood of harm. Under the proposed change, JCOPE would lower the standard to a reasonable likelihood or probability of harm.

Executive Director Ellen Biben said the current standard may be unconstitutional, thus necessitating the change. “The substantial likelihood standard may be constitutionally too high,” Biben said. “We agree.”

In the proposed change to the gift ban, JCOPE puts a concrete dollar amount on the term “nominal value.” Under current law, a lobbyist is prohibited from giving a gift to a public official and gift is defined as something worth more than nominal value. However, there is no dollar figure attached to the current definition of nominal value.

Under the proposed definition, nominal value will be defined as an item or service with a value of $10 or less. Therefore, if the proposed change is enacted, lobbyists will be prohibited from giving a public official a gift with a value in excess of $10.

In order for the rules to go into effect, JCOPE commissioners must approve the proposals. There is no set time table on when the commissioners will review the proposals and make a decision on their enactment.

The New York City Campaign Finance Board scored a decisive court victory when a court ruled in favor of the city’s campaign finance laws. United States District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain upheld the city’s provisions limiting the amount of public funds available to candidates who do not face meaningful competition.

This provision, dubbed the “sure winners” provisions by the Campaign Finance Board, was under attack in Ognibene v. Parkes, a suit filed in 2008. In a non-competitive race, the city is allowed to withhold public funds from a candidate. The candidate may appeal that decision, claiming they face a significant opposition based on a set of objective criteria.

Examples of the criteria used include the opponent’s endorsements and the media coverage of the opponent. The court did say that the city could not use the opponent’s financial activity as criteria for the appeals process, but overall it was a clear victory for the Campaign Finance Board.

Amy Loprest, executive director of the Campaign Finance Board, said “This victory allows the CFB to hold on to an important tool for maintaining public confidence in the city’s campaign finance program.”

Neither party has any intentions of appealing the District Court’s ruling, effectively ending the suit after nearly five years.

Photo of Manhattan courtesy of AngMoKio on Wikipedia.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has made a bold move; a move he hopes will slow down the corruption emanating from New York City. Governor Cuomo has decided not to call a special election to replace Assemblyman Nelson Castro’s seat representing the Bronx. Instead, the election to replace Castro will take place during the regularly scheduled city elections this November.

Castro resigned from his state Assembly seat as part of a deal made with prosecutors investigating public corruption in the Bronx.

Cuomo decided against the special election as way to quell the corruption taking place the city. Had Cuomo scheduled a special election, the Democrats would have had free reign to choose the successor, because the Bronx Democratic leader, Carl Hestie, would have been the one picking the candidate for his party. In the open primary, scheduled for September 10, outsiders have a much better chance at securing the Democratic nod.

Cuomo said, “Having the election during the already scheduled New York City elections, instead of calling a special election, will ensure maximum participation from the constituents of the 86th Assembly District and be the most cost-effective for taxpayers.”

Photo of Governor Cuomo courtesy of Pat Arnow on Wikipedia.

New York City mayoral candidate George McDonald has momentarily thrown up the white flag in his attempt to circumvent the contribution limits. McDonald, who is running for the Republican nomination, filed suit against the New York City Campaign Finance Board in hope of removing the city’s very strict contribution limits.

McDonald’s argument relied on the theory that the state’s contribution limits, which are higher than the city’s limits, superseded the city’s restrictions. McDonald had hoped for a quick resolution, but the court has taken nearly a month to decide the case and McDonald fears he is running low on time.

McDonald now plans on raising enough funds to qualify for the public financing system, meaning he will have to raise at least $250,000 from donations of up to $175. If he is able to do that, the city will give his campaign $1.5 million.

McDonald is considered a long shot to win the Republican nod as he is going up against a political veteran, Joseph Lhota, and a billionaire businessman, John A. Catsimatidis. McDonald has argued that the city’s laws give these two types of candidates an unfair advantage over first-time candidates.

McDonald’s lawsuit still must be decided by the court, but most experts believe he has little chance of winning.

Image of the flag of New York courtesy of Wikipedia.

The New York City Council has overridden Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of a campaign finance bill loosening the disclosure requirements. The law, which will go into effect immediately, was fiercely opposed by both Bloomberg and New York City Campaign Finance Board Director Amy Loprest, but the City Council has nearly unanimously supported it from the outset.

The law will allow labor or other membership organizations, as well as corporations, to send campaign communications to its members, executive and administrative personnel, and stockholders without having to disclose that information to the Campaign Finance Board. According to Loprest, $35,000 in outside spending on mass mailers was spent in the two special elections since the city adopted its stringent rules.

In a statement Loprest said, “Disclosure helps voters understand who is speaking and trying to influence the outcome of their election. Just as important, disclosure helps voters hold candidates accountable for their supporters during an election and for the policies they pursue. New Yorkers want and deserve access to complete information about the interests supporting candidates for city office. The legislation approved by the Council today will hide some of that information from public view.”

Councilwoman Gale Brewer disagreed with this notion, saying “Member-to-member communications are not intended to influence the public. So, the public’s interest in source disclosure is significantly reduced.”

With city elections upcoming in November, both sides will see how these new rules actually affect the elections and spending.

Photo of the New York City Hall by Howrealisreal on Wikipedia.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed a campaign finance bill aimed at decreasing campaign finance disclosure, even though City Council overwhelmingly passed the bill by a 47-1 margin in January. The bill would have allowed labor or other membership organizations, as well as corporations, to send communications to its members, executive and administrative personnel, and stockholders without having to disclose that information to the Campaign Finance Board.

Bloomberg was noncommittal at the time about whether he would veto the bill, even though he was adamantly opposed to its passage. However, now with his decision to veto it, the ball will bounce back into the City Council’s court.

The council has 30 days to override the veto, with a two-thirds majority required, or allow the bill to die. The council had enough votes to override the veto originally, but there has been no word on whether every council member will stick with his or her original vote.

Photo of Mayor Michael Bloomberg by Rubenstein on Wikipedia.

The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) is currently in the process of developing draft regulations for the state’s gift laws. These draft regulations will attempt to provide clarity and guidance to those regulated by the commission.

The draft regulations concerning gifts given by lobbyists allow lobbyists to follow a step-by-step guide to determine whether he or she is allowed to legally give the gift. JCOPE is accepting written comments on the draft regulations until February 15, 2013. JCOPE will then use those written comments to draft proposed regulations.

Updated February 13, 2013: The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics has extended the deadline to submit written comments on the draft regulations to March 8, 2013.

The New York City Council overwhelmingly voted in favor of a campaign finance bill that has drawn sharp opposition from the city’s campaign finance board.

The bill will allow labor or other membership organizations and corporations to send communications to its members, executive and administrative personnel, and stockholders without having to disclose that information to the city. Currently, these types of expenditures would have to be disclosed, but the bill, if signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would eliminate that requirement.

The city council passed the measure by a vote of 47-1 ensuring that it has enough votes to survive a veto by the mayor. However, that has not stopped Mayor Bloomberg from expressing his displeasure with the bill. Bloomberg has not given a firm answer about whether he will veto the bill, but his spokesperson did say “the bill will only weaken the city’s strong campaign disclosure laws and he sees no reason why unions shouldn’t be held to the same standard as others who are advocating candidates for elective office.”

Earlier this month Amy Loprest, executive director of the city’s campaign finance board, spoke against the bill saying it would set the city’s landmark disclosure laws back and hurt the city’s voters. However, not everybody believes it is a bad thing.

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, praised the council’s vote saying, “this is the way in which a representative democracy should function with the city council exerting oversight to clarify important sections of the law. Membership organizations must be allowed to communicate with their willing members about the issues they collectively care about.”

Photo of the New York City Hall by Momos on Wikipedia.

The essence of the rule will force people who make independent expenditures to disclose funding and amounts spent by treating them as a political committee. Therefore, they will have to register as an independent expenditure committee and, for those elections in which they support or oppose a candidate, file reports before and after the election. The committee will also be responsible for filing periodic reports on January 15 and July 15 of each year.

Independent expenditures are defined by the state as expenditures made in support of or opposition to a candidate, expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, and made in complete independence from the candidate. Expressly advocate is defined as communicating with specific words calling for the election or defeat of a candidate, such as “vote,” “oppose,” “support,” “defeat,” “elect,” or “reject.”

Using these definitions, groups can avoid registering and reporting as an independent expenditure committee if they avoid using the special buzz words that would make their advertisements expressly advocating. The board of elections has said these rules are not completely new, but rather have been adopted to shed light on the rules and to ensure that people understand exactly what is expected when making independent expenditures. The rules have already taken effect and committees making these expenditures will next have to file a report on January 15, 2013.

The Suffolk County legislature has voted to hold a special election on January 15, 2013 to replace outgoing legislator Ed Romaine.

Mr. Romaine was recently sworn in as the town supervisor of Brookhaven, New York.

Sean Walter, the republican candidate, and Al Krupski, the democratic candidate, will vie for the vacant seat in the county’s first legislative district.

New York Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman, issued a draft regulation that could lead to massive changes in the way political spending is disclosed. The proposed regulation would require any tax-exempt group that does business in the state to disclose what percentage of its total spending went to political activities.

This means that any group who spends money in New York in support or opposition of a candidate would be forced to disclose its spending. Further, once the group has spent over $10,000 for state elections, it will have to disclose each individual donor who gave $100 or more.

The proposed regulation does allow for a waiver to be granted if the group feels that disclosure of names could lead to serious threats or harassment. The proposal calls for disclosure during the six months before any Election Day in the state.

Public hearings must be heard on the proposed regulation, but the attorney general may unilaterally approve the final regulation. If approved by the attorney general, the rules could be placed into effect in time for the upcoming New York City mayoral election.

The city council has introduced a bill that would change the way unions and corporations, among others, could contribute to elections. The bill, introduced by Councilmember Rosie Mendez, would remove contribution limits on unions or other membership organizations and corporations for communications aimed at its members, stockholders, or employees. The only catch would be that the union or corporation must use reasonable efforts to restrict the communication to its members, employees, or stockholders.

Those in favor say that it will allow a small non-profit group to disseminate a candidate’s photograph in its newsletter. Councilmember Gale Brewer said, “You cannot put a television ad, you cannot do that now, and have a communication. This is just member to member.”

However, not everyone agrees. Amy Loprest, executive director of the city’s campaign finance board said, “I think we have one of the best campaign finance laws in the country, and this is a big step backwards.”

The bill was sent to the council’s committee of governmental operations where a hearing will be held on Thursday. A full city council vote could come as soon as next week. At this point, it is impossible to tell whether the council will pass the bill. But, either way, it is sure to drum up some strong emotions during debate.

Photo of the New York City Hall courtesy of Howrealisreal on Wikipedia.

The New York State Board of Elections has approved and adopted rules concerning independent expenditures, but many feel the rules won’t do a thing to slow down the campaign money train. According to the rules, people making independent expenditures will have to register and report as if they were a political committee.

Independent expenditures are defined by the state as expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate that the candidate did not authorize in any way. Expressly advocated is defined as containing express words calling for the election or defeat of a candidate. Therefore, committees can run advertisements that avoid using certain words and can escape registration and reporting requirements.

Bill Mahoney, a research coordinator for a New York good government group said the new rules “will make it even easier for independent expenditure committees, Super PACs, to hide who’s paying for them, and because of that it will lead to language that is much more harsh than what we’ve heard before.”