As Goes Term Limits, So Does Campaign Finance?
August 22, 2008 | By: Laurence D. Laufer
In the last decade, competitiveness in New York City elections has increased substantially. The “chicken and egg” question has always been: was term limits or enhanced public campaign financing the key reform?
Now comes talk of legislative change or repeal to the two-term limit for NYC officeholders. Should the 36 currently term limited NYC office-holders gain legal permission to seek re-election in 2009, what will be the campaign finance ramifications?
For example, some term-limited officials are raising and spending funds at the higher limits the law permits for candidates seeking higher office. A change in the term limits law could convince some to lower their sights and seek re-election instead.
Each such switch potentially creates a campaign finance chain reaction. For example:
- How will prior campaign spending be treated? If it is subjected to the spending limit applicable to the lower office, will that be a disincentive to accepting spending limits?
- If so, will the resulting “non-participation” lead to “bonus” matching funds payments for the larger field of opposing candidates that had emerged when the seat appeared to be open?
- Alternatively, if some of those other candidates decide not to oppose an incumbent, what becomes of the campaign contributions they had already accumulated? Will these function as a matchable warchest that discourages competition in the election after 2009? Or, could these funds be converted to “political action” uses that influence the 2009 election in other, unforeseen ways?
- How would NYC’s two-tiered contribution limits be applied to funds raised for a city-wide race that will now be used instead for a lower office? Given the current reach of City law to non-participants, “opting-out” doesn’t seem to be an option for avoiding a retroactive contribution limitation.
Tag: New York City