cfb 2009 post-election report highlights

8/8/2019 CFB 2009 Post-Election Report Highlights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cfb-2009-post-election-report-highlights 1/6

New Yorkers Make Their Voices Heard 1

The2009electionyearmarkedthetwenty-yearanniversaryo

thefrstelectionheldundertheCampaignFinanceProgram.Inthat1989election,achallengerdeeatedathree-termin-

cumbent mayor, as New York City voters elected the frst Arican

Americanmayorinthecity’shistory.NewYorkersimmediatelysaw

the possibilities opolitics underthis new system—largecontribu-

tionsandspecialinterestmoneywerenolongerthemostimportant

actorsincityelections,andthevalueograssrootssupportromaver-

ageNewYorkerswasmagnifed.

eleaderswhocreatedthepublicundsProgramhopeditwoulden-

couragegreaterelectoralcompetitionandreduceperceptionsocor-

ruptionincitygovernment.eexperienceothehistoric2009elec-

tionshowstheProgramhascontinuedtoadvancethesecriticalgoals.

Increasing the role of small donors:Changesinthelaworthe2009

electionsincreasedthevalueosmallcontributions.enewmatching

rateprovidedagreaterincentiveorcandidatestoocusonlow-dollar

undraising,encouragedcandidatestobringmoreNewYorkersintothe

politicalprocess,andenabledmorecandidatestorunorocewithout

relyingonlarge,inuence-seekingcontributionsorpersonalwealth.

e matching rate increased rom $4-to-$1 to $6-to-$1; the

match isappliedto thefrst $175 ocontributions rom New

Yorkers.Asaresult,almost70percentoallcontributorsgave$175orless—anincreaseoone-fhrom2005.eproportion

oundsraisedinthesesmallamountsgrewbynearly75percent

(rom8.5percentto15percentonetcontributions).(p.103)

Almost34,000NewYorkCityresidentswhocontributedto

candidatesinthe2009elections—morethanhal—hadnev-

erbeoremadeacontributiontoacandidateinaNewYork

Cityelection.Morethan80percentothosenewcontributors

gave$175orless,comparedwith60percentorepeatcontrib-

utors.(p.105)

Newtechnologieshelpedcampaignsreachouttosmalldo-

nors.All the leading candidates or citywide oce had so-

phisticatedWebpresencesthatallowedcontributorstomake

contributionsbycreditcardovertheInternet.eproportion

ocontributionstocitywidecandidatesmadebycreditcard

morethandoubledin2009,toalmost30percent.(p.106)

NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD

10.0% 8.5%

14.8%

200920052001

Contributions of $175 or Lessas Percentage of

Total Net Contributions ($)from Individuals,

Participating Candidates

Contributors Giving $175 orLess as Percentage of All

Individual Contributors (#),Participating Candidates

200920052001

58.5% 56.5%

68.9%



2 2009 Post-Election Report Highlights

Helping candidates run competitive campaigns:Competitionincreasedinthe2009elections.Spiritedchallengers

ensuredthatincumbentswereorcedtoengagetheirconstituentsandmaketheircasetothevoters.eincumbent

mayoroptedtospendmorethan$100milliononhiscampaignagainstaparticipatingcandidate;hewasre-elected,

butbyasurprisinglyslimmargin.FiveCouncilchallengers,eachowhomparticipatedintheProgram,deeated

incumbentopponentsinCityCouncilelections—anunprecedentedlevelosuccessorinsurgents.

In2009,twoormorecandidatesreceivedpublicundsin37o51Councildistricts;in2005,multiplecan-didatesreceivedpublicundsinonly26districts—barelyhal.(p.122)

osepublicundshelpedmorechallengerscompete.In2005,onlyoneincumbentwasoutspentbyachal-

lengerineithertheprimaryorgeneralelections.Inthe2009primaries,sevenchallengersoutspentincum-

bentopponents,andfvemoreoutspentincumbentsinthegeneralelection.(p.125)

COMPARISON OF SPENDING BY INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS IN COUNCIL ELECTIONS

Primary

Elections

General

Elections

2005 2009

no incumbent in race/incumbent ran unopposed

incumbent outspent nearest challenger by $25,000 or lessincumbent outspent all challengers by more than $25,000

challenger outspent incumbent

Note: Includestransactionsthroughtheprimaryelection:September15,2009forthe2009elections;September13,2005

forthe2005elections.




Moreincumbentsacedprimaries,ewercandidatesranun-

challenged,andtheaveragemarginsovictorywerenarrower

thaninpreviousCouncilelections.Withacomparablenum-

beroopen-seatraces,the2009Councilelectionswerecon-

siderablycloserthan2005.e2009primarieshadmorethan

twiceasmanyraceseaturingawinnerwhoreceivedlessthan

60percentothevote.Inthe2009generalelections,there

werefvecompetitiveraces;in2005,therewerenone.(p.121)

Participating candidates saw success against non-partici-

pants.InfveelectionsattheCouncillevelpittingparticipants

againsthigh-spendingcandidateswhooptedoutothePro-

gram,theparticipatingcandidatewonthree,andfnishedas

closerunners-upintheothertwo.(p.126)

Facilitating broader participation in the Program:Forthesystemto

besuccessul,candidatesneedtoparticipate.Candidateswhojointhe

Programagreetolimittheirspendingandcareullydocumenttheireligibility oranduseopublic unds.eparticipationratesshow

that the overwhelming majority o candidates believe the benefts

ojoiningtheProgramoutweightheburdens.eslateoocials

electedin2009wasthemostdiverseincityhistory.

Participationratesorthe2009electionswereamongthehigh-

estintheProgram’shistory.Ninety-threepercentocandi-

datesontheballotintheprimaryelectionswereparticipants,

matchingthepreviousbenchmark,setin2001.Two-thirdso

candidatesontheballotinthegeneralelectionparticipatedin

theProgram.(p.140) eProgramhelpsmorecitizensconsiderrunningoroce;

morefrst-timecandidatescompetedin2009thandidin2005.

Morethanhaloallparticipantsinthe2009elections—101

candidates—wereseekingcityoceorthefrsttime.(p.141)

Decreasing real and perceived corruption associated with large con-

tributions and unlimited campaign spending: Along with public

unds,limitsoncontributionsandspendingensurethatcandidates

arenotcompletelyreliantonlargecontributions.Becausecandidates

muststillundraise,perceptionsopotentialinuence-seekingasso-

ciatedwithprivatecontributionsmaystillarise.

Smallcontributionsoutnumberlargegistocandidates;$100

wasthemostrequentcontributiontoparticipatingmayoral,

comptroller,boroughpresidentandCityCouncilcandidates.

emostrequentcontributionsizetocandidatesorpublic

advocatewas$175.(p.104)

Te results madeit clear thataccess to largecontributions

or personalwealth providesno guaranteeo success;candidates whoconcentratedtheir undraising

eforts towardsaverage New Yorkers wererewarded.




Someorganizationalcontributions—romLLCs,partnerships,employeeorganizations,andpoliticalcom-

mittees—werestillpermittedinthe2009elections—buttheycompriseasmallpercentageoundsin

cityelections.Whenpublicundsarefguredin,organizationalcontributionscomprisedsevenpercento

candidates’undinginthe2009elections.Atthestatelevel,thepictureisentirelydierent;two-thirdso

theundsavailabletocandidatesorstatelegislativeoceinthe2008campaigncameromthesespecial

interestorganizations.(p.138)

FUNDS BY SOURCE

Still,thelargestcontributorstocandidateswereorganizations—asinpreviouselections.Eightothetop

10contributorstoparticipatingcandidatesin2009wereemployeeorganizationsorpoliticalcommittees

connectedtolaborunions.Sixothetop10appearedonthetop10listorthe2005elections.(p.38)

So-called“doingbusiness”contributionsrompeoplewhohavebusinesswithcitygovernmentweremadesubject

tonew,lowlimits,eliminatingareadysourceoinuence-seekingmoneyincitypolitics.e“doingbusiness”lim-itsenactedbeorethe2009electionsareamongthemostcomprehensiverestrictionsonpay-to-playinthenation.

Analysisshowsthat“doingbusiness”contributionsdroppedromanestimated22percentoallunds

raisedin2005(beorethelegislationwaspassed)tolessthanourpercentin2009.(p.151)

contributions from individuals† public funds contributions from organizations‡

2009 New York City Elections

(Participating Candidates)

2008 New York State Elections

(Assembly and Senate Candidates)*

66.6%

33.4%

7.2%

49.2%

43.6%

* Source:NationalInstituteonMoneyinStatePolitics,Followthemoney.org.

† Includescandidates’personalcontributions.

‡ Includespoliticalcommittees,businessentities,employeeorganizations.




Mostpeoplewhoaredoingbusinessarenotcontributingtocampaignsatall;approximatelysevenpercent

opeoplewhohavebusinessdealingswiththecitygavecampaigncontributionsduring2008-2009.(p.156)

SeveralfndingsinthereportpointtochallengesaheadortheCampaignFinanceProgram.

Independent expenditures played a larger role in the 2009 elections. Spending made independent-

lyoanycampaignisnotcountedagainsta candidate’sspendinglimit.oughitmaybenefta candi-dateorcityoce,itisneitherlimitednordisclosed.Complaintsaboutthird-partyspendingtookcenter

stageinseveralraces,asthe2009electionsbroughtorthanunprecedentedleveloindependentactiv-

ity.ManyhavepredictedthattheSupremeCourtdecisioninCitizens United could“opentheoodgates”

tomassiveindependentspendingbycorporationsandotheractors.(p.165)

Court decisions have raised concerns about whether the Program may continue to provide extra support

to candidates who face self-funded candidates with unlimited wealth. Recentdecisionsregardingpublic

fnancingsystemsinFlorida,Connecticut,andArizonahaveraisedconcernsaboutwhethertheProgram

willbeabletocontinueprovidingextraassistanceorparticipantswhomustcompetewithhigh-spending,

non-participatingopponents.eProgramcannotguaranteeaparticipatingcandidatewillalwaysprevail,

but the2009electionsprovidedan unmistakablereminderohowalittleextrahelpcangoa longwaytowardsprovidingtheresourcestocommunicateamessageeectively.(p.126)

A signicant amount of public funds were paid to candidates in noncompetitive races, despitechangesto

thelawmeanttoreducetheamountoundspaidtocandidatesacinglow-spendingopposition.ough

ewercandidatesaskedoradditionalundsunderthenewlaw,almost$2millionwaspaidtoCityCouncil

candidateswhowonelectionswithmorethan60percentothevote.(p.119)

Alongwithitspost-electionreport,theBoardismandatedtorecommendurtherreormsthatwilladvancethe

CFB’smission.ismandateorreectionandrenewalkeepstheProgramrelevant,helpingensurethattheCFB

ispreparedtomeettheevolvingneedsothecandidatesandthepublic.AmongtheBoard’srecommendationsor

legislativechanges:

Mandate disclosure of independent expenditures to the CFB:ereisacrucialdisclosuregapinNewYork

City’scampaignfnancelaw.Strongerdisclosurewouldbringindependentexpendituresoutotheshadows

andprovideNewYorkerswithaclearerpictureothespendingthatimpactscityelections.(p.180–181)

Require that campaign communications identify sources of funding :Campaigncommunicationsarenot

requiredtoidentiytheirsourcesounding.Requiringclearidentifcation(e.g.,“Paidorby…”)isasimple

stepthatwouldprovidecrucialinormationtovoters.(p.181)

Rene denitions of “doing business” with the city:elimitsshouldcoverplacementagents,entities,and

municipalunionsenteringintocollectivebargainingagreementswiththecity.(p.182)

Increase the threshold for full payment of public funds against “nominal” opposition: ough the

CampaignFinanceActlimitspaymentstocandidatesacinglow-spendingopponents,thecompetitiveness“trigger”istoolow,anditshouldberaised.(p.183–185)

Ease citywide candidates’ requirements to qualify for public matching funds: Reducingthethreshold

would help more grassroots candidates compete, andbroaden theconversation aboutcitywide issues.

(p.185–187)




Increase Tier 1 bonus threshold:espendingthresholdtotriggerthebonusundsmaybesettoolow;

some “high-spending” non-participants are signifcantly outspent by their participating opponents.

(p.187–188)

Prohibit candidates from accepting organizational contributions:Abanonallorganizationalcontribu-

tionswouldmakeindividualstheonlysourceoprivatecontributionsinNewYorkCityelections.(p.189)

Require participating candidates for borough president to debate:AddingboroughpresidentelectionstotheCFBDebateProgramwouldprovideNewYorkerswithanimportantopportunitytolearnmoreabout

thecandidates.(p.192)

cfb 2009 post-election report highlights

Documents