Gov. Cuomo is pulling out all the stops to promote his ideas for campaign finance. That includes holding a “telephone town hall” tonight on the issue with the folks from Fair Elections for New York.
As first articulated in his State of the State, the governor’s general idea of state campaign finance seems to be to follow the lead of New York City. That is, to impose stricter limits on what candidates can raise or spend, and to use matching public funds to fund more campaigns.
Here’s our question: So long as the city is a model, why no mention of the one big limit on city politicians that doesn’t exist at the state level — term limits?
Established politicians like campaign-finance limits on newcomers. But they hate term limits. That’s likely because term limits eliminate the greatest advantage in politics: incumbency. Term limits are popular, and they do their work cleanly, with no need for oversight boards or investigations.
Term limits at least force an occasional level playing field every few years in the form of an open seat. That allows new candidates to raise money without facing an opponent who enjoys the enhanced visibility of office as well as the enhanced fund-raising ability that goes with it.
The point is that if the state is really looking at the city as a model, why not go all the way? Wouldn’t it be nice if someone on the phone tonight would ask the governor that?