In last week’s State of the State Address, Gov. Cuomo called for “campaign-finance reform.” “It’s time we make sure that all New Yorkers have an equal voice in our political process,” he said, noting that the state ranked 48th in the nation in voter turnout. Cuomo added that “New York City’s public-financing system provides a good model for statewide reform.”
Well, not really. In fact, the reason New York as a state ranks so low in voter turnout is because New York City turnout drags down the state’s overall rate.
In the 2004 presidential race, statewide turnout was 63 percent, but it was just 55 percent in the city, and 68 percent in the rest of New York. In the 2006 gubernatorial race, statewide turnout was just 40 percent — 31 percent in the city, vs. 46 percent elsewhere. The 2008 presidential and 2010 gubernatorial elections yielded nearly identical results.
In short, New York’s turnout is consistently above or close to the national average — except in the city, which drags down the state’s overall rate.
Of course, the city’s public-financing law only applies in city races. But it hasn’t increased turnout in those races. New York City adopted its public-financing system in 1988; since then, turnout in city elections has dropped to its lowest level since 1969, even as turnout rates have grown more than 10 percent both nationally and in the rest of the state.
In short, since the city started subsidizing campaigns with tax dollars, its turnout has declined, even as turnout has increased elsewhere in the state, and it has consistently been far behind the rest of the state.
The governor also argued that reform would “restore public trust.” In fact, public funding for campaigns contributes to a lack of trust, and thus to the city’s falling turnout. How so? Funneling tax dollars to political candidates to use for their personal campaigns invites abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars.
Last year alone, a Post investigation found, more than 20 City Council candidates with no serious competition still got nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer funds to “campaign.” And what did they do with those campaign funds, so generously subsidized by the city’s taxpayers? Two examples:
* Public Advocate Bill DiBlasio, who received over $2.2 million in tax dollars for his 2009 campaign, used campaign funds to pay over $1,000 in parking tickets, and to travel to Puerto Rico.
* Meanwhile, after accepting over $1 million in taxpayer money to fund his campaign, Comptroller John Liu used campaign funds to throw three “victory dinners” costing more than $20,000.
* And, of course, Liu’s now embroiled in a federal investigation of illegal-seeming fund-raising — dubious dollars that city taxpayers matched at up to six-to-one.
Taxpayer funding of elections hasn’t begun to end outright corruption, either. In fact, taxpayers have subsidized the campaigns of various scoundrels. City Councilmen recently elected with taxpayer funds, to name a few, include:
* “Cash and Carry” Larry Seabrook, whose trial on 13 counts of corruption ended in a hung jury last month. (He faces retrial.)
* Miguel Martinez, serving a five-year prison term for corruption.
* Sheldon Leffler, convicted of attempted fraud.
* And Kendall Stewart, who recently had two aides plead guilty to theft.
The system doesn’t even cut out the influence of big donors. A 2009 investigation by the city, for example, found that six City Council candidates and DiBlasio used “a complicated web of coordinated activities, shared resources and staff, and quiet money transfers” between the Working Families Party and its for-profit affiliate, Data and Field Services, to circumvent the rules that govern candidates who take the public subsidies.
In particular, the shell game allowed DFS to provide services far beyond the $10,000 per campaign limit that its parent, the Working Families Party, could legally provide. More than $800,000 went through DFS to assist candidates.
And other candidates were fined for illegally coordinating activity with the Service Employees International Union in both 2005 and 2009.
Meanwhile, far from providing “an equal voice,” another of Cuomo’s goals, funding campaigns with tax dollars has led, according to one source, to an incumbent re-election rate in excess of 97 percent.
New York City campaigns a model for the rest of the state? Only if you think lower voter turnout, waste of taxpayer dollars and incumbent protection are things taxpayers ought to foot the bill for.
Bradley A. Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a law professor at Capital University Law School.