So much for the liberal dogma that mega-bucks guarantees electoral victory.
Fact is, Tuesday was a bad night for the well-heeled. For all their personal fortunes, both Eliot Spitzer and John Catsimatidis came up short. And this happened without the campaign-finance “reforms” that would have had them losing with your money instead of their own.
Granted, neither man spent as much as Mike Bloomberg did in winning and then retaining the mayoralty. And, yes, without his personal investment of $100 million or more each time around, Mayor Mike probably would never have made it to City Hall.
But this week’s primary races confirm that money alone can’t dictate outcomes. Spitzer couldn’t buy his way to victory, despite an outlay of more than $4 million from his family’s real-estate fortune and his own TV ad blitz. And supermarket mogul Catsimatidis outspent but couldn’t outdraw rival Joe Lhota in the Republican primary, notwithstanding his heavy media barrage.
In fact, Catsimatidis spent more per vote received — $169 — than any other mayoral candidate. Running just behind him, at $148 per vote, was Anthony Weiner.
The lesson we take away is that genuine campaign-finance reform for New York begins with ending the pretense that political contributions are evil instead of a legitimate exercise of speech.
It would be followed by getting rid of the state’s $150,000 cap on individual contributions to a political action committee. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this law is unconstitutional and just waiting to be challenged in court.
That’s the best way to open our system to new faces and “level the playing field” for those running against the super-rich — whether they are candidates like Spitzer, who spend their own millions, or candidates like Bill Thompson, who benefit from the millions spent by our public unions.