In a city filled with many world class entertainment venues, such as Madison Square Garden, Radio City Musical Hall, Yankee Stadium, CitiField, Broadway theaters, Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, the National Tennis Center and the brand new Barclays Center, tickets for City officials just became harder to come by.  Lobbyists and NYC public servants should now be reflecting on a newly published Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) advisory opinion.

COIB opines that a public servant may not accept a free ticket to a sports or other entertainment event absent: (1) a clear and direct nexus between the recipient-public servant’s official duties and the nature or location of the event; and (2) the public servant must in fact perform some official function at the event.  Similarly, a lobbyist may not give a ticket to a public servant unless these same two criteria are met.

Query 1: while joining in singing of the national anthem is unlikely to satisfy the second criterion, might that standard be satisfied by inviting the public servant to be the featured singer?

Query 2: does the opinion portend a more influential role for lobbyists, who arrange for public servants to perform an official function at an entertainment event in the course of donating a free ticket?

The opinion does not reference potential sanctions.  These include civil penalties of up to $25,000, potential removal from office, and criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor for public servants receiving prohibited gifts.  Lobbyist-donors who commit multiple offenses are subject to civil penalties of up to $30,000 and also face the possibility of criminal prosecution.

On Monday November 26, 2012, Mary Schapiro, the SEC Chairwoman, announced that she would step down effective December 14. Schapiro will be replaced in the interim by Elisse Walter, a current SEC Commissioner. This change comes in the wake of the announcement by Meredith Cross, director of the SEC’s division of Corporate Finance, that the unit will be considering the political disclosure petition filed by the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending. As we previously discussed here, the rulemaking petition would require publicly traded corporations regulated by the SEC to disclose information about their political spending. Schapiro’s departure raises the question of whether this issue will be addressed under the new Chair’s tenure.

Some say it’s wrong and some say it’s right.  But either way, when does the law allow a New York City candidate to use a NYC Campaign Finance Board (CFB) public matching funds payment to pay fines assessed for violations of the NYC sign posting prohibition?

The NYC Campaign Finance Act states that public funds may not be used for “payment of any penalty or fine imposed pursuant to federal, state or local law.”  Yet, the CFB agrees that public funds may be used to pay posting fines.  So what turns this clear prohibition into express permission?

The answer lies in the distinction between “campaign expenditures” and “qualified campaign expenditures.”  Public funds may only be used for qualified campaign expenditures.  After an election, the CFB looks at each campaign’s valid matching claims and total qualified campaign expenditures to determine the amount of public funds that it is eligible to receive.  Liabilities for posting fines are excluded from that calculation.

But that’s not the end of the story.  If the campaign has outstanding liabilities and a margin of qualified campaign expenditures in excess of prior public funds payments, it may receive a final public funds payment equal to the lesser of those two amounts.  The CFB permits that final public funds payment to be used to pay outstanding liabilities for campaign expenses, such as the “payment of non-criminal penalties or fines arising out of a political campaign”, such as posting fines.  The legal fiction here is that use of these public funds has been fully accounted for by the prior qualified campaign expenditures.

Indeed, it’s the flip side of this reasoning that also allows the CFB to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars leftover in other campaigns as unspent public funds.  And what editorial board would want to argue against that result?

Disclaimer: Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster represented William Thompson’s 2009 campaign committee in obtaining a final public funds payment of $444,029; we were not retained in the defense of the posting violations.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), enacted in 1977, generally prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA Resource Guide, released yesterday,  provides information helpful to companies  engaging in  transactions abroad. The guide addresses a number  of topics including: 1) who and what is covered by the FCPA’s anti-bribery and accounting provisions; 2) the definition of a “foreign official”;  3) what constitute proper and improper gifts, travel, and entertainment expenses; and 4)  the hallmarks of an effective corporate compliance program.

Four years ago, Jersey City adopted one of the toughest local pay-to-play ordinances in the State of New Jersey. Indeed, the Jersey City Ordinance has become the model for the transitional aid ordinances  adopted by dozens of New Jersey municipalities in recent years.

Last night, the Jersey City Council voted on introducing competing amendments to the current Jersey City Ordinance. One proposed amendment would expand the ordinance to include contributions by city vendors to Jersey City Board of Education candidates and the other proposed amendment would expand the ordinance to include contributions by city vendors to both Jersey Board of Education candidates and candidates for State Assembly and Senate representing Jersey City.

The amendment expanding the scope of the ordinance to both Board of Education and Senate and Assembly candidates was voted down. The Jersey City Council is scheduled to hold a final vote on the amendment to expand the scope of the ordinance to cover contributions to Board of Education candidates on November 14, 2012. The question remains whether additional amendments will be proposed for consideration between now and then and how far those amendments may go in expanding the scope of an already stringent ordinance.

The following is our final post from our Guest Blogger Series on Campaign Finance Reform in NY.  Heather C. Briccetti is the President & CEO of The Business Council of New York State, Inc.

Elections determine elected officials, elected officials decide state budgets and legislation, and budgets and legislation can have a significant impact – good and bad – on private sector business.  So the business community is compelled to participate in the political, as well as legislative process.

Given the wide range of legislative issues impacting the private sector – taxes, labor regulations, corporate governance, environmental and energy policy among others – it is fair to say that my organization has not developed a specific, comprehensive position on campaign finance reforms.  However, we have looked at, and responded to, a number of proposals before the New York State legislature, as well as a few at the federal level.  From that experience to date, I would like to share five personal thoughts on the private sector’s interest in campaign finance reform – informed by business input, but not (at least not yet) formal Business Council positions.

Be Honest – Before acting on any campaign financing reform legislation, we need to have an honest discussion about what problems we are trying to fix, and whether proposed reforms actually implement a real fix.  Some reformers cite New York’s dysfunction and corruption, and say, “campaign finance reform” is the remedy.  True, New York has had more than its share of legislative corruption cases in recent years, but few if any were related to campaign contributions.  Most were cases involving long-standing legislators who were able to divert public money for private gain.  Proposals need to be subject to careful evaluation of both the direct and intended impacts, and unintended consequences, with a special focus on whether we making real improvements.

Equal Treatment –Call me cynical, but we see a number of campaign finance reforms as deeply self-serving, including proposals that tilt the law to the advantage of organized labor and the disadvantage of business.   New York State campaign financing law is already lopsided, with corporations subject to a $5,000 annual limitation in total “hard” campaign contributions, whereas unions are subject to no such aggregate limits and are limited only by the individual candidate or committee’s limit which can be as high as $102,300.  Likewise, by statute, union dues – from which most of union PAC funds are derived – can be withheld from workers’ paychecks, but voluntary withholdings to support employee PACs are categorically prohibited (a prohibition we have not found in most other states.)   We have seen proposals before the New York State legislature that would prohibit businesses bidding on state contracts from making political contributions – but impose no comparable restrictions on labor unions that receive state grants, or negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the government.  Other proposals would mandate corporations to get majority shareholder approval of individual campaign contributions, an administrative hurdle we have not seen proposed for other types of organizations such as unions.  Any reforms – such as lower limits on contributions – should apply equal standards regardless of the source or form of financial or in-kind contributions.

Election Reform versus Finance Reform – Changing the way in which campaigns are financed is not the only way to promote better elections, and in many districts, may have absolutely no real effect on the political process.  New York should consider ways to improve elections, not just the process by which they are financed.  Many “reformers” decry an insufficient number of competitive districts and competitive races.  However, in a number of districts in New York, enrollment heavily skewed to one party leaves many voters with no real say as to who runs for office.  New York should look to election reforms in other states for ideas that go beyond financing.  As example, under California’s Proposition 14, adopted in 2010, elected officials (except president and certain county positions) are decided by an open primary, and the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, regardless of party.

Public Funding? – Most “reformers” support some form of public financing of elections.  The Business Council has not taken a formal position on public campaign funding in general, but we question whether it is the reform panacea that some suggest.  Since you can never fully divorce government from politics, the key details of any public financing legislation will be largely influenced by who holds political power at the time of its adoption.  In other words, any public financing plan will be shaped by politicians and – if the reform crowd has accurately described the impact of our current financing mechanisms – by the special interests that fund them.  Likewise, the impact of public financing laws like that adopted in New York City, with a 6 to 1 public funding match for certain contributions, is amplified by statutory authorizations for and restrictions on private contributions.  We need to make sure that public financing – if it is to be considered at all – isn’t designed to benefit one party or one set of interests over others.

Do No Harm – We need to avoid imposing other harmful or misdirected mandates as part of any “reform” legislation. As example, several legislative proposals before the New York State legislature would use increased penalties under the Martin Act, the state’s notoriously open-ended securities fraud law, and use this new civil penalty income to fund public campaign expenditures. We have several real problems here. Due to its inappropriate, unfair standards, The Business Council opposes any expansion of the Martin Act, including an expansion of its financial penalties or settlement provisions, regardless of the use of funds. More broadly, we believe it is inappropriate to make the funding of governmental program dependent upon the level of enforcement income generated by the state. Civil and criminal penalties should be based on the nature and degree of a violation, and not influenced by a perverse incentive to meet budget needs.

The views, opinions and positions expressed within this guest post are those of the author alone and do not represent those of Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster.  This post has been published as provided by the author, without any substantive edits; GBGW makes no representations of any kind as to the content of this post.      

Yesterday, the AP reported that millions of dollars from outside spending groups, including SuperPACs, were pouring into New York.   And the 2013 city-wide elections have not even come into full swing.   Is this only the beginning?  Come find out at a panel event hosted by Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster and New York Law School, moderated by  David Chen of The NY Times.  Panelists include:

Richard Davis, NYC Campaign Finance Board

Kevin Finnegan, 1199 SEIU

Douglas Kellner, NYS Board of Elections

Bradley Tusk, Tusk Strategies

L. Joy Williams, LJW Community Strategies

The following post is the third of four contributions from our guest bloggers. Adam Skaggs is Senior Counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law.

Among states that put any limits on the size of contributions individuals and corporations can give to elected officials, New York has the highest limits.  As a result, corporations and individuals can give politicians in New York State more campaign cash than is legal in almost every other state.  A wealthy donor with an interest in Albany policy-making can give a candidate for New York governor more than twenty times what she could legally contribute to the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.  Given these sky-high limits, it’s no surprise that officials in Albany are disproportionately dependent on mega-donors to finance their campaigns.  It’s equally unsurprising that we’ve developed a campaign finance system in which Albany officials are more concerned about what matters to their deep-pocketed benefactors than they are about the public interest.

There’s no shortage of examples of how our state government has devolved into a pay-to-play system that puts government on the auction block.  Given the high cost of living in the Empire State, for example, working New Yorkers support increasing the state’s minimum wage above the federal limit.  But a group of corporations, groups and lobbyists opposed to an increase dumped about $400,000 in contributions to state lawmakers to ensure the reform agenda stalled. 

Another heated issue is “hydrofracking.”  Backers say fracking will create needed jobs, but critics say it will unleash severe environmental damage.  With stakes so high, one would hope that the policy decisions would be made on the merits—but the natural gas industry is surely hoping the $1.34 million it has given to state lawmakers and political parties will help its cause.

Or take the push to legalize gambling in New York:  as New York Common Cause has reported, the gambling industry has bet big by spending millions on contributions and lobbying.  Gambling interests have invested more than half of what the banking and financial sector spends, even though the financial sector is hundreds of times larger than the gaming industry.  The pace of gaming industry spending is peaking as decisions on racing franchises and a casino amendment approach since—whether it’s gambling or any other issue—as the Daily News reports, “spending spikes whenever Albany comes to a decision point.”

We can’t expect Albany to work for average New Yorkers instead of big donors if our elected officials continue depending on a tiny slice of wealthy contributors and ignoring regular voters.  Fortunately, the blueprint for changing this equation can be found in New York City, where an experiment unfolding over the last two decades points the way to reform.

In response to widespread corruption and a series of campaign finance scandals, New York City adopted a small donor matching system to bring fair and clean elections to the Big Apple.  Under the system—which is completely voluntary—small donations are multiplied through the use of public matching funds, so a $25, $50, or $100 dollar donation from a voter of modest means has real value to a candidate. 

The benefits of public financing have been impressive.  The small donor matching system supercharges small contributions from regular New Yorkers, and transforms candidates into agents of civic participation who fuse fundraising with voter outreach.  The system has had an impressive record of success, not only increasing the absolute number of voters who contribute to campaigns, but dramatically increasing the diversity of the communities where campaign dollars come from, and mobilizing communities often ignored by traditionally funded candidates.  It has allowed candidates without big bank accounts (or connections to wealthy backers) to run competitive campaigns, increasing political competition.

Adopting a small donor empowerment program like New York City’s for statewide elections will create the opportunity for an army of small donors to serve as a counterweight for the tiny slice of the electorate that now funds our elections.  To be sure, additional reforms are needed—including robust disclosure; meaningful contribution limits for candidates; restrictions on corporate giving; and effective, non-partisan enforcement.  Among all these necessary reforms, however, adopting a small donor matching system of public funding is the game-changer Albany desperately needs.  It will bring us government of, by, and for the many—not the money.

The views, opinions and positions expressed within this guest post are those of the author alone and do not represent those of Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster.  This post has been published as provided by the author, without any substantive edits; GBGW makes no representations of any kind as to the content of this post.         

The following post is the second of four contributions from our guest bloggers.  This post comes from Professor Joel Gora of Brooklyn Law School, ACLU counsel in many major campaign finance cases ranging from Buckley v. Valeo to Citizens United v. FEC.

In the 1970’s, when I was a young ACLU lawyer, my colleagues and I slowly began to realize that the new federal campaign finance laws, heralded as “reform” of our political processes, were anything but that.   They imposed limits on the funding of political speech, thus cutting to the heart of the First Amendment’s protections of the freedoms of speech, press, association, assembly and petition.  They required deep and onerous disclosure of the identities of people who contributed even the most nominal amounts to candidates or causes.  They created government agencies to monitor the raising and spending of every dollar used for political and electoral speech.   To the extent that they provided any public subsidies to political candidates or parties, they did so with severe strings attached and in ways that rarely benefited insurgent or dissident forces.  And, finally, these laws were passed by incumbents only too happy to fashion rules to benefit themselves and disadvantage their challengers, and to appoint the officials who would enforce these rules against precious First Amendment rights, with the added bonus of being able to claim that this was all being done in the name of “reform” and with the cheerleading approval of most editorial boards and media commentators.  How delicious all of that must have been for those politicians.

A three-fold First Amendment response to these new campaign finance laws was fashioned by the ACLU and others.

First, there should be no limits on contributions and expenditures used by individuals or groups in order to advocate candidates or causes in the public arena.    The principles that informed this approach were straightforward.  Limits on political funding were limits on political speech and would directly restrain and suppress speech that all agreed was at the heart of the First Amendment.    Such limits would benefit the political status quo, entrench the powers-that-be, and privilege those political speakers whose speech was not subject to the limits, most notably, the organized news media.    A far better approach would be to let the people decide for themselves – individually and in groups – how much speech is necessary and proper in an election campaign and not cede to government the power to control political speech.

Second, use disclosure as the antidote to governance concerns that may flow from campaign finance patterns so that the people can decide who has too much access or influence to what politicians or office holders.  But make it what we might call today “smart” disclosure:  focus only on large contributions to major party candidates.  Disclosure any broader or deeper than that, e.g. on minor parties, on issue organizations, on small contributors even to major party candidates,  needlessly sacrifices cherished protections for the rights of political association, political privacy and political anonymity.

Finally, address the imbalances and disparities that might result from no limits on giving or spending by significant public funding to expand political opportunity, without restricting political speech.   And the public funding should be generous and equally available to all qualified candidates, not just to those representing the two major parties.  But that public funding should not be limits-based, but rather should provide “floors, without ceilings,” platforms to facilitate speech rather than roofs to restrain it.  To impose spending or similar limits as the condition of receiving public benefits would be a back door way to restrain political speech.

The goal was to maximize political speech and minimize government control of it.

In the 40 years since then, my experiences as an advocate and an academic, have convinced me of the wisdom of those three principles of campaign finance reform:  no limits, smart disclosure, “floors without ceilings” public funding.    I would apply them in New York in the following ways.

Candidate contribution limits are generous in New York.  Good, I would leave them that way.  Haven’t we seen enough of what happens when you have low limits on contributions to candidates?   Ever since the Court in Buckley mistakenly upheld limits on the amount of contributions that individuals could give to candidates, we have seen constant and understandable efforts to get around those limits:  greater reliance on PACs (an incumbents-favoring device), use of soft money by parties and independent groups and individuals, and, highlighted in the current electoral season, independent spending “Super Pacs” and non-profits.   So much of this activity is attributable to the limits on direct contributions to candidates.    People and groups are going to try to use their resources to get their message out, especially in an election year, whether by direct or independent support of the candidates and causes they espouse.

Party contribution limits in New York are even higher, and some kinds of contributions to parties are unlimited.   I think that’s good too.  We should resist efforts to weaken the funding of our political parties.  Strong parties are essential to a strong democracy and a balance of power in governance.

In this regard, strong political funding may have been the pivotal factor in securing the passage of marriage equality in New York.  As is well-known,  key politicians who supported same-sex marriage were given generous campaign finance support for taking such stands.  Few claimed that this phenomenon reflected “corruption,” and it resulted in a major legislative victory for an important group of people in our State.   By the same token, though much more ironically, a major push for state-wide public funding of political campaigns is currently being lavishly financed by, among others, an internet multi-millionaire whose group will be giving campaign finance support in an effort to persuade key Republican State Senators to vote for public funding.  This is the very same kind of campaign finance stratagem which was successful with marriage equality.  Again, there have few complaints of “corruption” from the usual suspects.  Perhaps “big money” in politics doesn’t seem so bad if it’s supporting political outcomes you approve.    To my mind, campaigns like this are good examples of free speech and democracy in action.

Public financing.    Unlike the late, great liberal Senator Eugene McCarthy, who compared public financing of politics with the American Revolutionists asking King George to fund their revolution, and unlike many contemporary politicians who characterize public financing as “food stamps for politicians,” I think public funding and subsidies for politics can serve positive First Amendment purposes.   But not if the scheme is limits-based as are many, if not most, of the public funding schemes extant in America today.   You can summarize the most effective argument against limits-based public funding in just two words:  Barack Obama.    President Obama had no intention of letting his reputation as a campaign finance reformer encumber him with the spending limits that went with accepting presidential public financing, even though they were almost $100,000,000.    So he rejected the “clean” public money, raised and spent $750,000,000 in private money – becoming the biggest spender in American political history — and won a historic presidential election.

We need to rethink the limits-based models of public financing, rather than replicate them at the State-wide level.   I don’t think that models such as New York City’s public financing program have been sufficiently successful in either enhancing electoral competition or deterring official corruption as to justify automatic transplantation without further review.  In addition, in its recent decision in the Arizona public funding case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, entertained serious constitutional concerns about some of the more popular campaign finance mechanisms – such as “trigger” matches to counter high spending opponents or independent groups – and struck them down.   Instead, proposals should be developed which provide floors to facilitate electoral speech not ceilings to limit it.

Disclosure.   The benefits and value of disclosure to the electorate are overrated and the harm to freedom of association and political privacy from disclosure underappreciated.    The disclosure threshold in New York is $99.00, an outrageously and ridiculously low figure.  Give a penny more than that to a candidate or committee in an entire year and your name, address and other identifying information have to be reported to the government and made available to the public.  The amount isn’t even adjusted or indexed with the level of office in the way that certain contribution limits are.  Whatever claimed value there is in knowing who gave that paltry sum to a politician is greatly outweighed by the harm to freedom of association and political privacy.    Even some of the most ardent campaign finance regulation advocates believe that low-level disclosure thresholds like that in New York do much more harm than good.

Just as the depth of disclosure should be “smarter” than that, the breadth of disclosure should be limited to groups that engage in express advocacy of electoral outcomes.  Any broader scope of disclosure, encompassing issue advocacy, poses a serious threat to such advocacy and should be resisted.   One of the reasons the ACLU got into the campaign finance debate 40 years ago was to protect the right of itself and all other non-profits and similar issue groups to criticize politicians and public officials without having to disclose the identities of their supporters in order to do so.  That should be the proper approach now as well.

So, in summary, here are my five suggestions for campaign finance reform in New York.  First, contribution limits should be as high as possible, if not eliminated completely, and certainly not reduced.  Second, public funding needs to be seriously rethought, be as simple and straightforward as possible, and not be limits-based.     Third, disclosure requirements should be as focused and smart as possible.   Fourth, likewise, they should be limited to express political advocacy expenditures.  Finally, all of this should be guided by the realization that the best election reform provision ever enacted is the First Amendment.   The more we follow its letter and spirit, the better off we will be.

The views, opinions and positions expressed within this guest post are those of the author alone and do not represent those of Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster.  This post has been published as provided by the author, without any substantive edits; GBGW makes no representations of any kind as to the content of this post.         

The following post is the first of four contributions from our guest bloggers.  This post comes from Amy Loprest and Eric Friedman, Executive Director and Director of External Affairs, respectively, of the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

A decades-long succession of scandals has cemented Albany’s reputation as home to the most ineffective, ethically-challenged legislature in the nation. For those concerned about the role of money in politics and its effects on governance, it is accepted wisdom that New York State’s campaign finance laws need to be ripped up, thrown out, and rewritten from scratch. If the aim of a well-functioning campaign finance system is to minimize the perception that campaign contributions can sway the decisions of elected officials, New York State falls short.

The problems are well-documented. New York’s limits on direct contributions to candidates are the most permissive of any state in the country[*], allowing the wealthiest contributors an outsized role. Limited liability companies (LLCs) are treated as individuals, allowing corporate funds to flow directly to candidates without detailed disclosure of its sources. Voters are in the dark when it comes to independent spending. And the structure of the State Board of Elections makes it difficult for them to investigate and punish many violations of the laws on the books.

These suggestions for reform can start to put New York State on the right track.

1.  Establish a public matching funds system

NYC’s public matching funds system is viewed as a model for common-sense campaign finance reform. Why? New York City matches contributions from City residents up to $175 at a rate of six-to-one. Our small-contribution multiple-matching system provides a powerful incentive for candidates to look beyond wealthy mega-donors and build their campaigns with grass-roots, low-dollar support. To succeed, candidates don’t need billionaires in their corner; all they need is their neighbors.

A study by the Campaign Finance Institute found that candidates for New York State office in 2006 raised only seven percent of their total funds in contributions of $250 or less. By contrast, for candidates who participated in New York City’s public matching funds system during the 2009 elections, 38 percent of their contributions came from donors who gave $250 or less. When the public matching funds are added, those small donors were responsible for 63 percent of those candidates’ funding. The incentives established by matching funds do change candidates’ fundraising habits.

2.  Set common-sense contribution limits

A public financing program will succeed only if it is built on a sound foundation. This starts with lowering New York State’s astronomical contribution limits. A candidate for governor can solicit and receive an individual contribution as large as $60,000. Candidates may accept contributions directly from corporations and LLC’s, and party committees can take contributions larger than $100,000—funds that may be transferred without limit to any candidate.

The Supreme Court has allowed limits on individual contributions precisely because of the concern that direct contributions may lead to a quid pro quo. In New York City, contributions to candidates for mayor and other citywide offices are limited to $4,950; candidates for City Council may accept contributions no larger than $2,750. These limits apply to individuals and political committees, including parties. Contributions from corporations, LLC’s, and partnerships are banned. Common-sense reform must start with reasonable limits like these.

3.  Close the “housekeeping” loophole

Even beyond the State’s barely-there limits on contributions to regular party committees, political parties may accept unlimited contributions from any source for their “housekeeping” accounts—funds earmarked for party-building activities. Although housekeeping committees may not promote specific candidates, the law does allow housekeeping funds to be transferred to another committee that may promote or make contributions to candidates. Any meaningful limits on contributions must apply to housekeeping accounts as well.

4.  Require thorough disclosure of independent spending

Fueled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, spending on so-called independent expenditures has exploded in recent years—not just in this year’s Presidential election, but at every level of government. Spending by non-candidate actors may not be limited, the Court said, but it can and should be disclosed to the public so that voters can learn about candidates’ sources of support before they go to the polls. In November 2010, New York City voters approved a Charter amendment that required disclosure of independent expenditures in City elections. To ensure the most complete disclosure for the public, the rules adopted by the CFB require disclosure for express advocacy (i.e. “Vote for Joe”) and electioneering communications (so-called “sham issue ads,” nominally about issues, aired close to an election). As required by the Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011, the NYS Board of Elections has promulgated rules to require the disclosure of independent expenditures in State elections, but has not adopted them in time for the 2012 elections. New York State should create clear, comprehensive rules that require all independent actors to disclose the money they spend in State elections.

5.  Enact effective, non-partisan enforcement

None of these rules matter if there is no body vested with the resources and authority to enforce them effectively. But the State Board of Elections’ structure impedes its ability to enforce the law. With a partisan Board and staff evenly split between the two major parties, gridlock is guaranteed on all but the most routine enforcement actions. New York City’s system was set up to be non-partisan and independent from politics. Our appointing authorities may not appoint two members from the same party, but there is no requirement they represent the major parties. Our staff is professional and nonpartisan. A non-political, nonpartisan campaign finance enforcement entity would provide the authority and credibility the system needs to make these reforms work.

None of these reforms can guarantee corruption will disappear altogether from New York State. Together, however, they can create a system that offers more good people the opportunity to enter public life and succeed on their terms.