New York partner John Siegal was quoted in a July 8 "Huffington Post" article, "The Price of Bloomberg's Big-Bucks Campaign Spending."
According to the article, when New York City candidates file their updated campaign finance reports, the public will learn if Mayor Michael Bloomberg's re-election effort is still on pace to spend an astounding $140 million on this year's race. But it might be years before the full impact of Bloomberg's self-financed candidacies on the city's campaign finance system is understood.
Twenty years ago, New York decided to try to reduce the influence of money on politics after a lopsided 1985 election and a slew of municipal scandals, according to the article. The Campaign Finance Board (CFB) was set up to track donations and spending, restrict who gave and how much and run a voluntary public financing program: Candidates who opted to abide by spending limits could get taxpayer money for their campaign. The idea was to offset the advantage of wealthy donors and well-heeled candidates, according to the article.
Testifying before the CFB after the 2005 NYC mayoral race, in which Bloomberg spent $84.6 million on his campaign to be re-elected, Siegal said, "For two elections in a row, the system's paramount goal of leveling the playing field to neutralize the advantage of big moneyed candidates has been destroyed."