A sweeping proposal emerges

by: simonstl

Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:01:04 AM EST

There seems to be a rule in Albany that the loudest proponents of reform are those with the least effective power. In a new twist, though, that position seems currently held by Governor Paterson, who is now proposing a more thorough reform package than I've heard from anyone else so far:

While bills to create public financing have passed the Assembly many times, the expanded ethics oversight and term limits are expected to be a difficult sell in both houses of the Legislature, which has been slow to consider tougher ethics laws...

The legislation would effectively dismantle Albany's existing campaign finance system, in which corporations and labor unions deposit millions of dollars into central housekeeping accounts controlled by party leaders, who then use that money to finance individual candidates, making rank-and-file lawmakers dependent on the leaders.

Perhaps most controversially, Mr. Paterson will propose limiting statewide officials - the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and comptroller - to two four-year terms each, while members of the Legislature would be permitted six two-year terms. Such a change would require an amendment to the State Constitution.

Mr. Paterson is also including in his package a proposal he made last year to centralize ethics enforcement... The new commission would also have the legal authority to refer criminal and civil cases to the attorney general.

Why all this? Why now, after it seemed Paterson had moved such things to the back burner?

Mr. Paterson is pushing for the overhaul at a time when his efforts to guide New York through its worst fiscal crisis in generations have been thwarted by a powerful and well-financed alliance of state lawmakers, public employee unions and health care interests.

I'd be happy to see these proposals pass, even though I have serious doubts about term limits. I find the absence of proposals for better financial disclosure (or simply a full-time legislature, no moonlighting allowed) to be strange, though supposedly something's coming on that front.

Will it make a difference, even an incremental difference? It's hard to say. I suspect something will come out of it, but something seriously watered down. Paterson has more issues than just reform to deal with, and with everything likely in the same negotiating pot... well...

Good luck, Governor Paterson! (I haven't said that very often lately, but mean it here.)

Feds Clear Last Hurdle For Perpetual Bloomberg Reign

by: phillip anderson

Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 12:28:51 PM EDT

The federal government has approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg's change to city term-limits law, clearing the final hurdle for the billionaire to run again this year.

Under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department must approve changes to voting rules in New York City. Last fall Bloomberg got the City Council to approve an extension to the city's term-limits law so that he could run for a third consecutive four-year term.

The Justice Department's ruling was the final obstacle.

Thanks so much, Speaker Quinn and the rest of the City Council.

See you in the fall.

Parker's Term Limits Bill Clears First Hurdle

by: phillip anderson

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 13:45:58 PM EDT

With fireworks not normally seen in committee hearings, the Senate Elections Committee just voted along strictly partisan lines to approve a bill that would require a voter referendum on the repeal of term limits.

It was expected to pass the committee, but is not necessarily expected to get much further.

Republican State Senators Tom Morahan, Joe Griffo and Tom Libous voted against the bill, with Libous leading the charge and raising questions. He claimed that there was not enough time to pass the bill and hold a referendum by May.

"The bill is poorly drafted and it should be specific to New York City," he said. His questions were cut short due to time constraints, causing more ire.

...

After the committee's vote-Chairman Joe Addabbo voted for the bill, as did Jose Serrano (by proxy), both Martin Malave Dilan and Brian Foley-Parker claimed that the Republicans opposed the bill in "collusion" with Michael Bloomberg.

"They're in the pocket of Mayor Bloomberg," he said. "The amount of money that Mayor Bloomberg gave to stop us from taking the majority is well-documented." (Libous denied any collusion with the mayor.)

Good times.

Getting Schooled By Hugo Chavez

by: phillip anderson

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:44:31 AM EST

The people voted a while back to impose term limits on their political leadership. That was a nuisance for the man in charge. He was in his second term and prohibited by law from running again. But he sorely wanted to try for a third term.

Here's what he did. He went back to the people to ask if they'd had a change of heart.

Obviously, he was not from New York.

Ouch.

Another reason to support "Clean Elections"

by: Dan Jacoby

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:40:06 AM EST

Under the bill that is before the Council (Intro 803-2008), participating candidates would not be allowed to begin fundraising until December 1.  Since the bill was passed on October 23 and signed on November 3, nobody would have started yet.  With the [very predictable] uproar following the vote (see "Bloomberg 29"), a lot of people could have raised all the $5 contributions they needed to get public funding -- and a lot of incumbents who voted to extend term limits would have been very nervous.  If that had made a difference to even two second-term Council members, plus the two first-termers who switched at the last moment, that's the ball game.

Something to think about as the Clean Elections Act gains traction.  Meanwhile, anyone wishing to help lobby their own representative at either the local or state level should let me know.

The Mayor's Misdirection

by: Dan Jacoby

Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 21:17:09 PM EST

One standard effect among magicians is misdirection. They make you look in one place while they're busy fooling you somewhere else. The same practice is common among politicians.

As Mayor Bloomberg "holds a hearing" prior to signing his bill extending term limits, everyone's attention - especially that of the press - will be focused on the Blue Room at City Hall.

Meanwhile, something sinister will be happening down at 40 Rector Street; the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) will almost certainly be breaking the law.

Before the City Council voted to extend term limits, many Council members were planning to run for higher office. To that end, they had been spending a lot of money. If they decide instead to run for a third term, they will not be eligible for matching funds, because they will not be able to stay under the spending limits that come with matching funds.

That's not really a problem, since those Council members will have plenty of money to spend, and don't need matching funds.

The problem occurs when someone opposes a high-spending candidate. The opponent becomes eligible to receive far more matching funds (up to $201,000 vs. $89,000), and might not have to limit overall spending. The last thing a high-spending incumbent wants in this charged atmosphere is an opponent who gets a couple of hundred thousand dollars for free, and has no spending limits.

The CFB has proposed to change the rules so that everyone who has already spent a fortune can get a "do over." The problem is that the CFB has already ruled, twice, that with a minor exception there is no "do over." In addition, a change in the law, enacted after those CFB rulings, negates that minor exception.

Despite this, it is probable that the CFB will ignore their own precedent and the law, and allow those Council members their "do over" anyway. And they'll do it at a time when everyone's attention is focused on the Mayor's's "hearing."

What makes things worse is that there are, at most, only seven Council members who could benefit from the CFB's action. Six of those seven voted to extend term limits, so those six would get a special break to get out of a problem they created for themselves.

One of those six is the Speaker, and she helped shepherd the Mayor's bill through the Council. Could the CFB action be part of the Mayor's payback for her support? It's hard to prove a connection, but the CFB originally proposed the rule change shortly after Speaker Quinn announced her support for the Mayor's bill.

The Campaign Finance Board's new rules

by: Dan Jacoby

Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 15:03:55 PM EDT

Introduction

With the passage of a bill extending term limits from two to three full terms, some people who had been subject to term limits and were planning to run for higher office may now choose to run for a third term in their current office. Under the city's campaign finance system, however, they could have a problem. Since the spending limits that accompany partial public funding are lower for the office they currently hold than for the office they had planned to seek, some people have already exceeded, or are close to exceeding, the lower spending limits.

There are two consequences of exceeding spending limits. First, candidates who exceed spending limits are not eligible for partial public funding. Second, and more importantly, opponents of such candidates are eligible for extra public funding and are granted higher spending limits. In other words, the advantages enjoyed by high-spending candidates are greatly diminished.

In an attempt to restore those advantages, the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) has promulgated rules designed to allow those high-spending candidates to "freeze" the campaign committees they created to run for higher office, and create new committees in order to run for a third term to their current office.

These new rules are in violation of New York City Administrative Code, and must be thrown out.

Specifics

The Bloomberg 29

by: Dan Jacoby

Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 22:02:09 PM EDT

I'd also love to hear comments on the Bronx and Brooklyn races, as I'm less familiar with the politics involved. My initial views on the Manhattan/Queens folks:

Comrie -- Probably not vulnerable, unless someone can raise a bundle.
Dickens -- Got 28% in an eight-way race in 2005. Coalescing behind one opponent, funded with upper west side money, and she's vulnerable.
Gerson -- Margaret Chin might give him a run, especially since she's already gearing up for next year anyway.
Jackson -- Probably not vulnerable (of course, this leaves Denny Farrell stuck in Albany for another four years).
Katz -- Probably not vulnerable.
Martinez -- Just lost a bid for Assembly against his mentor, and Ydonis Rodriguez has already raised $30K.
Quinn -- If the potential candidates for next year can coalesce around one strong candidate, they probably still can't beat her, but it will be a helluva fight.
Sanders -- Wild card. Seven candidates have filed, but nobody's raised much.
Sears -- The most vulnerable in Queens; look for Danny Dromm to give her a huge fight.
Vallone -- Not vulnerable. Mike Gianaris will remain in Albany.
White -- Would Allan Jennings try to get his old seat back, the way White did? How about Albert Baldeo again? Seriously, he's probably not vulnerable

Memo to Campaign Finance Board -- Don't Change the Rules

by: Dan Jacoby

Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 15:04:15 PM EDT

More importantly, any of their opponents would be eligible for extra matching funds, and would also be allowed to spend more than the "limit" currently allows.  That would be a problem for would-be third-termers.  The CFB's proposed new rules amount to giving these big spenders a "do over," and would only serve to hurt any possible challenger.

The thing is, the CFB's proposed rules violate their own precedents and are illegal.

My initial e-mail to the Campaign Finance Board after the jump:

An Outsider's View On The New York City Term Limits Decision

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 20:45:22 PM EDT

I side with my friends in New York City who believe this should be left up to the public. After all, they elect these people to office. They should be allowed to determine how long they can stay there.

On a personal note, here in Orleans County we had our own term extensions effort by the Republicans here, although it was a little bit different. We don't have term limits here but our legislators serve a two-year term. The Republicans decided that too much of that two-year term was spent campaigning even though our local campaigns here last a few months. What the GOP here tried to do is stagger the terms so that the legislators who represented districts would run for re-election in one year and then in two years the at-large representatives would be up for re-election.

Oh, and one more thing: They wanted to increase the two-year terms to four.

The difference here was that the Republican legislators (at the time, it was an all Republican legislature) decided that they would leave it up to the people. In November, the citizens of Orleans shot it down by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York City Council should let this one be decided by the people. After all, the citizens of New York City decided that they wanted term limits not too long ago. They should be the ones to decide whether they want to keep them or not.  

Dear City Council, Please Vote Against A Term Limits Referendum. I Dare Ya

by: phillip anderson

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EDT

A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote.

As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum.

The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election.

...

It also complicates things for people who like to cloak themselves in the reform mantle, who can't argue now that they didn't have the opportunity to vote for the referendum bill because it wasn't on the floor.

No excuses now, huh?

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

Stop Bloomberg's power grab -- five votes away

by: Dan Jacoby

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 16:38:26 PM EDT

According to NY1, James Oddo has announced he opposes the mayor's power grab, giving the Republicans a clean sweep.  Unfortunately, Peter Vallone has gone the wrong (excuse me, the "other") way.

We still need five votes.  The 13 officially "undecided" are:
Arroyo
Brewer
Dickens
Felder
Foster
Gerson
Gonzalez
Katz
Lappin
McMahon
Sanders
White
Yassky

It seems to me that there are five or six among this list who could very easily vote against the mayor -- but we need to keep the pressure up.  If you haven't called your Council member (find your rep. here), now is the time to act.  If you have, call and e-mail your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.  Let them know that their right to choose is at stake.

Term Limits Coup Scheduled For Thursday

by: phillip anderson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 15:34:55 PM EDT

The City Council will vote on changing the city's term-limits law this Thursday, according to a Council spokesperson.

I guess this "gotta vote now" timetable shouldn't really surprise anyone. The Mayor and the Council Speaker know that the more people learn about the proposal and how it will be decided, the more they dislike both. A week ago, 75% of New Yorkers, "irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general" believed that this decision was for the voters, not for the Mayor and the Council. Today, 89% of NYC voters believe that VOTERS should decide this question, not the Mayor or his billions or the City Council.

The announcement also would seem to mean that the Mayor and Speaker Quinn believe they have the votes to pass this abomination, though only 16 17 members have had the guts to actually proclaim their support for it. That means that at least 10 Councilcritters are secretly for extending their own terms, but are too cowardly to publicly say so.

The Mayor and the pro "screw the voters" members of the Council know that the longer they wait, the more people learn about this affront to democracy, the more people actually learn what it is that they are about to do in their names, but without their input - the less they like it. The plan is to now rush this through the council and to the Mayor's desk post haste and hope that the voters either forget about the whole thing or are too stupid realize that anything has changed when they go to the polls next November.

Yeah, you really should be insulted.

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

It's OUR Decision: Q-Poll Shows Overwhelming Support For Voter Referendum

by: phillip anderson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EDT

There's plenty of other numbers in the poll. A majority supports the very notion of term limits (62-29). A majority also opposes extending term limits so that Bloomberg can run again (51-45). These numbers are important, but they are nowhere near as important as the big one - who should decide. New Yorkers are crystal clear on that point by a better than 9 to 1 margin.

Today's poll tracks well with last week's NY1 poll which found that 75% of New Yorkers believed that the decision was theirs, not the Council's:

There is overwhelming agreement that voters should decide the issue in a referendum, irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general.

Whatever you feel about term limits, and as I have said many times, I've never been a huge fan of them, the decision to extend or retain them belongs to the voters that approved them not once, but twice. The WFP's Dan Cantor weighs in:

"Apparently the voters have heard enough and they've decided.  This poll makes clear that New Yorkers of all stripes agree with the simple proposition that in a democracy you don't change the rules of the game at the end of the fourth quarter just so your team can keep playing.  Whether you're for or against term limits, New Yorkers seem to agree: term limits should be up to the voters to decide."

"We're increasingly optimistic that Council members are getting the message and will consider the clear preference of New Yorkers when this comes before them for a vote."

There can now be no doubt where New Yorkers stand on the issue of who should be deciding this.

Will the Mayor and the City Council listen?

On the web:

Its OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

Testifying on Term Limits

by: Dan Jacoby

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 17:24:43 PM EDT

By then, I had discarded my prepared text in favor of a few talking points.  One (for now) was particularly important to the general argument, because I believe I'm the only one who has made this point.

Mayor Bloomberg's #1 talking point is "choice."  He claims that term limits deprive voters of choice.  He's wrong, and nobody else is challenging him on that fact.

First of all, voters made a choice in 1996.  We chose two terms over three terms.  If the Council switches to three terms, they are overriding the voters' choice.

It's Our Decision: 75% Of New Yorkers Say VOTERS Should Decide

by: phillip anderson

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM EDT

Term Limits- Overview: Memo by NY1 Pollster Mickey Blum

• Let the people decide. Three-quarters (75%) of New York voters say they should decide term limits on a referendum-not the council. One-quarter say council (10%) or not matter (14%).

• By nearly 2 to 1 margin (62%-33%) city voters favor term limits for city elected officials.

• However, voters are more divided on the mayor's proposal to extend limits from 2-3 terms (50% oppose/44% favor).

• Majority oppose to having limits extended for the mayor only (55% not only for mayor/ 39% say okay if mayor only).

• There is overwhelming agreement that voters should decide the issue in a referendum, irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general.

• A smaller majority - but again a clear majority -approves of term limits in general. Again there is agreement across the demographic, geographic and opinion spectrum.

How much clearer can we be?

Is Anthony Crowell Stupendously Dumb? Or Is He Simply Full Of Crap?

by: phillip anderson

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EDT

"A special election to decide this question is far more problematic, and far less representative," he said, "than a vote by the 51-member Council."

I'll just say that I doubt Billionaire Bloomberg has a stupid lawyer.

You do the math.

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

Come On Down To City Hall

by: phillip anderson

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 17:00:20 PM EDT

Paid Sockpuppets At Term Limits Hearing? Looks That Way

by: phillip anderson

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 13:11:04 PM EDT

Around 11:15 a.m., an organized group of about 50 people, who are supporting the mayor's term limits legislation, arrived at City Hall, taking over about one-fourth of the seats in the City Council chambers, where the public hearing will begin at 1 p.m.

The group appears to be under instructions not to speak to the press. Six people approached by reporters refused to disclose their name or what motivated them to attend the hearing. They declined to say whether they had been paid to be there.

The person who was instructing the group about which seats to take - and would only describe himself as a Baptist minister from Brooklyn - said the group was constituted by "concerned citizens who want to speak their mind."

This is a pretty common tactic, stuffing a hearing with paid ringers. The most recent high profile instance that comes to mind is when Comcast packed a net neutrality hearing with paid bench warmers.

Whatever. Let's keep them up all night. Come to City Hall. I'm on my way. Let's make it a party.

Come To City Hall TONIGHT

by: phillip anderson

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EDT

Cue the Fireworks: Hearings on Term Limits Begin

The caffeine will flow, extra security will be on hand, and the room is expected to be packed. Some staffers are joking about bringing cots and pajamas into the Council chambers.

Thursday opens the most eagerly anticipated hearings in years at City Hall, as friends and foes of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's plan to overhaul New York's term limits law marshal their forces to testify on the legislation.

The mayor's political operation is showing its muscle, using Neil Giacobbi, director of Mr. Bloomberg's 2005 campaign volunteer operation, to turn out a crowd in favor of Mr. Bloomberg's proposal, which would permit the city's elected officials to serve for 12 years rather than 8.

...

Not to be outdone, the Working Families Party is urging those who object to the mayor's plan to show up, too. And to get the word out, the party produced a commercial to air during Wednesday's presidential debate and distributed fliers focusing on undecided council members in their districts.

No matter what happens, people are already expecting that the hearings will be a memorable moment in the city's political history.

"I'm surprised at the tremendous effort going on on both sides, in getting the vote, and in spinning this story the right way," said George Arzt, a veteran political consultant and former City Hall reporter. "We haven't had an issue as dramatic as this in many years. I haven't seen anything like since the 1970s."

You know you don't want to miss this. Come on down to City Hall!

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote