A federal court’s made it official: The Post was right, and the city’s political establishment is beside itself.
We’re talking about the unanimous decision by a three-judge federal appellate panel on Thursday to allow a political action committee to accept individual donations above the $150,000 New York state limit. In so doing, the panel overturned a ruling by a federal district court only days ago. The judge there had declined to enjoin the state from enforcing this campaign-finance limit because it would be “disruptive” to do so in the midst of a campaign.
The immediate effect will be that the pro-Lhota New York Progress and Protection PAC can accept a $200,000 pledge from an Alabama businessman. But long-term, it has the potential to open up a New York election system rigged to favor insider candidates. Although the appeals court declined to give a final ruling on the merits, it did suggest the plaintiff “has a substantial likelihood of success” and said courts should not be making distinctions “between speech that we find to be urgent and that which we think can bide its time.”
That’s been The Post’s position all along — that this is a First Amendment issue. Now that we have the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals backing us up, the usual suspects are hollering how the court has delivered New York into the hands of the “extremists.” Within hours of the ruling, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he was “deeply disappointed,” Common Cause fretted about “the corrupting impact” and the de Blasio campaign released an ad called, “Don’t let the Koch brothers buy this election.” Expect more to come.
Everyone in New York City agrees our electoral system makes it all but impossible for outsiders to challenge the status quo. Unfortunately, the establishment solution has been to make it worse, by limiting private speech and offering six-to-one public matches of private dollars.
Now federal judges say what we’ve been arguing: Let’s try the First Amendment. Good for them, and better for New York.