Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Campaign contribution cap

From the NY Sun:

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the two sides of City Hall have agreed that the city will not impose an outright ban on campaign contributions, but will severely restrict the amount that some people could give. Who would the cap apply to? Lobbyists, those who do a certain amount of business with the city (the minimum dollar amount has yet to be determined), and property owners with pending zoning changes and other land-use actions.

City Readies a New Cap on 'Pay To Play'


Anonymous said...

How often do we hear this kind of thing when campaign finance comes up?

"It's all about the First Amendment," he said. "You have a right, whether you have business with the city or not, to be able to express support for a candidate."

I don't understand the reasoning of how the first amendment right to free speach translates into being able to give rediculous amounts of money to politicians. Free speach can't equal free spending when it comes to political contributions.

Anonymous said...

This is a sorely needed first step. Somehow I have a bad feeling that it will be significantly watered down or that some large loopholes will be created.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter one way or the other!

There's always a way to pass money under the table and skillfully hide campaign contributions.

Late columnist Jack Neufield pointed out on a radio appearance years back...... if someone hires a lawyer and puts them on retainer (and that lawyer happens to be a NY City Council most are).....any money passed between them is protected by client lawyer privilege!

This is how they do their laundry in City Gov't!

Anonymous said...

Campaign reform is easy:

Limit the election season to one month.

Limit donations to a lump sum from the public purse.

Everyone knows this. The politicians will do this only at the point of a bayonet.

Anonymous said...

New York City officials - from Bloomberg to The Clerk's Office are so corrupt from hundreds of years of expert criminal behavior that "solutions" such as controlling or capping campaign contributions seems to be the action required to squelch the corrupt.

But, the "solutions" are just as corrupt as the problems they address.

Any official or government agency standing between any citizen and the ballot is a corrupt violation of the First Amendment.

The actual cause of the corruption is the lazy electorate, who equate celebrity with integrity; drive-by campaigning with the likelihood of an energetic official; polling with listening.

If a candidate has never knocked on your door to learn what YOU think, that candidate is laughing at you; you're either in the bag (with no necessity of courting your vote), or discounted (with no necessity of courting your vote).

If you vote for a candidate from the same party each time, what should you ever expect from members of that party? The party officials (and the candidate) laugh at you. You roll over every time.

Do some homework. Ask questions of each candidate. Write to the campaigns and instruct each candidate on your opinions of the issues.

Can't make up your mind? Vote for the candidate from the party you never voted for before. No lightning will strike. You will not go to hell.

Either you are in control of the election outcome, or someone else will be. Your choice. And, it IS a choice! No conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Even if campaigns are funded (and $$$$$ limited) from the public purse.....candidates will all go to the "Parkside Group" for consultation and Evan Stavisky and partners will make out like bandits !

Anonymous said...

The way to really do it is political advertising allowed.....only the publication of a candidate's curriculum vitae !

After all...this is a job interview....isn't it ? !!!!

No enhanced photos, "dog & pony shows" or skillful manipulation of a candidate's record of "service" to his community !

Just a no frills "classified ad" type listing !