You are here
Campaign Finance and the Perception of Independence of a Chief Financial Officer
Thursday, July 10th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
One goal of campaign finance reform is to end the appearance and reality
of corruption that comes with large campaign contributions. This
appearance is attached especially to large contributions from those
doing business with the city or trying to change its laws --
contractors, lobbyists, and unions. This appearance is most serious when the position has fiduciary obligations and is supposed to be independent rather than representative, such as the New York City Comptroller.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
New York City's Campaign Finance Board recently placed a serious contribution limit on contractors and lobbyists (click here and go to Section 3-703(1-b)), and the first election this new limit affects is the fall 2009 election. But the contribution limit doesn't become law until December 2008.
According to an article in today's New York Times, the chair of the Council's Land Use Committee (running for Comptroller) wants to not only be able to get big contributions for the primary now (the limit is $4,950), which she can legally accept. She wants to be able to get big contributions (up to $2,475 more) for the likely runoff, as well.
Normally, according to the article, a runoff account is approved by the Campaign Finance Board a month or two before the runoff (it's now 14 months before a potential runoff). The Land Use Committee chair wants her runoff account approved now.
It doesn't take much imagination to guess the principal source of a Land Use Committee chair's contributions. And this is where the appearance of corruption comes in. The chair says that her request has nothing to do with the new contribution limit, but is an example of how forward-looking she is and, therefore, how qualified she is to be Comptroller.
The issue isn't how forward-looking she is, the issue is how forward-looking or backward-looking her contributors are. Real estate professionals giving large contributions will be seen as either thanking someone for past favors, or looking for future favors. The Comptroller is a powerful position (click here and then in the top right-hand corner for the job description), and everyone who can benefit wants the person in that position to be their friend.
But the last thing a city's chief financial officer should seem is deeply indebted to anyone. A truly competent and forward-looking candidate would realize the importance of the perception of the Comptroller's independence and embrace the new contribution limit now. Think how different the Land Use Committee chair's request would be seem if it came with a promise to accept the new limit five months early! This would not only make it more likely she could open a runoff account now (there would be no question that she was trying to take advantage of the period before the law changes), but it would also pressure her competitors to accept the new contribution limit early. It would show her leadership abilities and her understanding of the value of the Comptroller's perception of independence. and would not involve excessive risk.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
New York City's Campaign Finance Board recently placed a serious contribution limit on contractors and lobbyists (click here and go to Section 3-703(1-b)), and the first election this new limit affects is the fall 2009 election. But the contribution limit doesn't become law until December 2008.
According to an article in today's New York Times, the chair of the Council's Land Use Committee (running for Comptroller) wants to not only be able to get big contributions for the primary now (the limit is $4,950), which she can legally accept. She wants to be able to get big contributions (up to $2,475 more) for the likely runoff, as well.
Normally, according to the article, a runoff account is approved by the Campaign Finance Board a month or two before the runoff (it's now 14 months before a potential runoff). The Land Use Committee chair wants her runoff account approved now.
It doesn't take much imagination to guess the principal source of a Land Use Committee chair's contributions. And this is where the appearance of corruption comes in. The chair says that her request has nothing to do with the new contribution limit, but is an example of how forward-looking she is and, therefore, how qualified she is to be Comptroller.
The issue isn't how forward-looking she is, the issue is how forward-looking or backward-looking her contributors are. Real estate professionals giving large contributions will be seen as either thanking someone for past favors, or looking for future favors. The Comptroller is a powerful position (click here and then in the top right-hand corner for the job description), and everyone who can benefit wants the person in that position to be their friend.
But the last thing a city's chief financial officer should seem is deeply indebted to anyone. A truly competent and forward-looking candidate would realize the importance of the perception of the Comptroller's independence and embrace the new contribution limit now. Think how different the Land Use Committee chair's request would be seem if it came with a promise to accept the new limit five months early! This would not only make it more likely she could open a runoff account now (there would be no question that she was trying to take advantage of the period before the law changes), but it would also pressure her competitors to accept the new contribution limit early. It would show her leadership abilities and her understanding of the value of the Comptroller's perception of independence. and would not involve excessive risk.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
