Now covered . . . officers, shareholders, partners, LLC members, and their spouses, resident children, and civil union partners. Indeed, new forms issued by Treasury indicate that each of these individuals may be required to submit a separate certification form prior to contract award. Just imagine: each time your company seeks to enter into a new State contract, you may need to obtain a new signed certification of compliance from a shareholder’s resident children or an officer’s civil union partner.

Because Executive Orders 117 and 118 broaden the scope of individuals and entities subject to state pay-to-play restrictions, now is the time to adopt or update your Company’s Political Activity/Pay-to-Play Policy. One of the keys to an effective policy is making sure that all individuals covered by these new pay-to-play restrictions are aware that their political contributions may have a serious impact on the company’s eligibility for a state government contract or a state redevelopment project. In this economy, a company simply cannot afford to have someone else’s $300.01 political contribution preclude its contracting opportunities for years to come.

New York City’s spending limits won’t be an impediment in a Bloomberg re-election campaign.  As before, he will likely run without limits by opting out of the voluntary public financing program.

But for other candidates, the decision to abide by spending limits may turn on whether their prior campaign spending (in anticipation of seeking an open seat in a higher office) will now be counted against a lower limit applicable in an unanticipated re-election campaign.  If so, there will be a great incentive for these candidates to opt-out as well. Like Mayor Bloomberg, these candidates would then run without spending limits.

When candidates choose to run without spending limits, the law provides that their participating opponents may qualify for increased public funding and an increase in their spending limits.  In such contested races, where the spending limit is effectively nullified, a higher level of private and public campaign financing will be likely.

As emphasized in today’s New York Times editorial, part of the rationale for repealing term limits is that New York has a “strong public campaign-finance system” sufficient for giving “voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad.”  To sustain the system’s strength, in the face of a term limits repeal, steps will be needed to ensure that the incentive to choose to abide by spending limits remains strong.

Currently, the following laws regulate pay-to-play restrictions and reporting: 1) Chapter 51; 2) Chapter 19; 3) Chapter 271; and 4) Local ordinances enacted by various county and municipal governmental entities.

Stay tuned for our analysis.

A month ago, we discussed some of the ramifications a term limits change or repeal would have for campaign finance requirements. Ultimately, will the City Council weigh in on the ground rules or will it just defer to the CFB’s soon-to-be-announced plan?

Thus, it can be instructive to probe a bit when reform takes a U-turn, when there is no legislative instruction to do so. (more…)

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? (more…)

The public is invited to submit comments by September 22, 2008 - the date of the public hearing on the proposed amendments.