Q&A
Discussion on large independent expenditures in local elections
2:21:06
·
4 min
Council Member Restler and Paul Seamus Ryan discuss the issue of large independent expenditures in local elections, particularly a recent case where a PAC announced plans to spend $950,000 to support a single candidate in a city council race.
- Ryan explains the legal background, including Supreme Court decisions that limit responses to large independent expenditures
- He discusses the history of New York City's approach to independent expenditures and public financing
- The conversation touches on past attempts to address the issue, including a 2021 bill that was not passed
Lincoln Restler
2:21:06
I would like to start, Paul, with a disturbing article I read a week or 2 ago about an independent expenditure in an individual council district.
2:21:20
And the article, I believe it was in the city.
2:21:23
Somebody can correct me.
2:21:24
I don't want to not give credit after I failed to give credit to Tiff Colton earlier.
2:21:29
I believe this article was in the city, and it indicated that one PAC has announced its intent to spend $950,000 sorry.
2:21:38
It was a New York Focus.
2:21:39
Thank you.
2:21:39
Molly knows everything.
2:21:40
I I just sit here.
2:21:42
Thank you, Molly.
2:21:43
New York Focus.
Paul Seamus Ryan
2:21:48
The PAC announced its intent to spend $950,000 to support 1 candidate in one local city council race.
2:21:56
Given campaigns, as we all know, themselves are barred from spending more than 414 $1,000 per cycle.
2:22:03
Is there more that we should be doing to level the playing field with such extreme independent expenditures, being planned for the months ahead?
2:22:15
Tiny bit of backstory and but I'll begin with what you already know, I'm certain, which is that large independent expenditures have no impact under current law here in New York City on the legal requirements or restrictions applicable to candidates.
2:22:29
There's there's no interaction there.
2:22:31
Until 2011, some jurisdictions around the country with public financing programs did 2 things in response to big independent expenditures regarding publicly financed candidates.
2:22:41
They gave them more public funds and they increased their spending limits.
2:22:44
And then the US Supreme Court got involved in 2011 in a case by the name of Arizona Free Enterprise.
2:22:49
The court US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Arizona law that gave additional public funds to publicly financed candidates when they were faced by big outside spending.
2:23:01
The court, in my opinion incorrectly, but nevertheless, they are the Supreme Court majority, found that giving additional public funds to a candidate in response to independent spending and or, high spending, nonparticipating candidate spending, the the trigger in Arizona applied to both, violated the constitutional rights of the independent spender.
2:23:22
It it chilled their rights.
2:23:23
So at least since 20 since 2011, it has been unconstitutional to give extra money to publicly financed candidates.
2:23:30
However, the Supreme Court has not ever analyzed the constitutionality of simply increasing the spending limits for publicly financed candidates opposed by big IEs.
2:23:42
They didn't really have the occasion to consider that issue separately in the Arizona case because it was a full public financing program where and that any additional public funds was a dollar for dollar increase in the spending limit.
2:23:54
So, here in New York City, my understanding is independent expenditures weren't really on the radar.
2:24:00
They weren't much of an issue until about 2013.
2:24:04
They be they've been more of an issue over the past decade or so.
2:24:08
In the wake of the Arizona free enterprise decision, New York City stopped enforcing one relevant or related provision of law, which up until, this Arizona free enterprise case in the Supreme Court, New York City did give extra public funds, bonus public funds to candidates whose nonparticipating opponents spent on all of certain limits.
2:24:29
Stop doing it.
2:24:30
New York City has long had a expenditure limit trigger when a candidate's facing a nonparticipating opponent.
2:24:37
So if your opponent raises or spends 50% of the applicable spending limit, you get a bump, a 50% bump in your spending limit as a publicly financed candidate.
2:24:48
And then if your opponent spends raises or spends 3 times the applicable spending limit, the participating candidate is released completely from spending limits.
2:24:56
Still get your public funds, no spending limit.
2:24:58
In 2021, this committee considered, but the council did not pass, a bill that would have applied 2 independent expenditures, the same policy that presently and has long applied to participating candidates.
2:25:10
So under this bill, I believe mister Lander was the principal, sponsor of the bill.
2:25:16
It would just applied the same 50% and then 300% trigger to, independent expenditures.
