What exactly did Anthony Weiner mean when he told The New York Times, “It’s now or never for me, in terms of running for something”?
Here’s our guess: Weiner realizes that unless he runs this year, he’ll lose out on a $1.5 million cash windfall.
Under the city’s campaign laws, taxpayers provide a 6-to-1 dollar match for mayoral candidates with donations totaling at least $250,000 from 1,000 or more contributors. At last count, Weiner was just $1,290 short of claiming his prize. Besides, a new Marist College/NBC puts him behind only Chris Quinn in the Democratic primary.
But there’s a deadline, and it hits Weiner this year. Which means running for office even as his Twitter exploits remain fresh in voters’ minds. Use it or lose it.
We thought of Weiner as we listened to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who this week rolled out a plan to expand the 6-for-1 program statewide. Not surprisingly, he was joined by a host of labor and left-wing activists who railed about the influence of “corporate money” (though pointedly ignoring the fact that anyone can donate unlimited funds to the parties instead of a specific candidate).
What the champions of matching funds do not appreciate is that these funds introduce their own ethical challenges to politics. Comptroller John Liu’s former campaign treasurer as well as a former fund-raiser are now on trial in federal court for conspiring to use straw donations to qualify for matching funds. Back in 2003, ex-Councilman Sheldon Leffler was convicted in a similar scheme.
New Yorkers can expect more of these shenanigans in the future, because the big payday offered by a matching-fund program — especially one that gives a 6-to-1 dollar match — creates a huge incentive for dishonest candidates to doctor the books.
In sum, matching funds aren’t part of the cure for corruption, they’re part of the problem.