CFB Votes on Enforcement Matters for Fourteen Campaigns
At a regularly scheduled meeting today, the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) determined that 14 campaigns involved in the 2013 citywide election cycle committed violations. The Board assessed penalties for those violations, and determined that nine campaigns are required to repay public funds. Refer to the charts below for details on these determinations.
The Board issued the following statement:
"Today’s determinations reflect the Board’s commitment to safeguarding the public matching funds. The $38.2 million that the Board distributed in 2013 helped ensure cleaner, fairer elections in New York City. Every campaign receives a nonpartisan, independent review, and the results encompass a range from technical errors to serious violations."
During the meeting, CFB Chairperson Rose Gill Hearn issued the following statement:
"Today marks my last meeting as Chair of the Campaign Finance Board. I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with my wonderful fellow Board members and as head of this organization, and I include former Board member Courtney Hall in that category as well. Before I go, I want to share some observations.
One of my first acts as Board Chair was to preside over the agency’s post-election hearing in February 2014. Throughout that day-long hearing we heard testimony from dozens of New Yorkers – from candidates and campaign treasurers, from average citizens and campaign finance experts, from political consultants and election lawyers.
The Board and CFB staff heard that feedback, reflected on it, and used it to inform the Post-election Report and legislative recommendations that we released later that year. I was very impressed by how open and comprehensive that process was.
Based on our 2014 recommendations the Council is set to approve today a number of our proposals, including a bill that would eliminate public matching funds for contributions bundled by people who do business with city government. Another would provide public funds payments to eligible candidates earlier in the election year.
These bills will significantly strengthen the Campaign Finance Program. I am very pleased that the Council worked closely with the CFB staff and the Board to get them just right.
While I believe that those proposals should have been acted on more quickly, a thoughtful process that takes care to get the details right is how policy changes should be made. Indeed it is how the Council and the Board have worked together for nearly 30 years to make New York City’s public financing program the strongest in the country.
The process undertaken for those bills contrasts sharply with the approach taken for another set of bills the Council also plans to adopt today. These bills were introduced just last month. Many of them have been improved by the Council based on feedback from CFB staff in recent weeks.
For example, the Board focused extensively on Introduction Number 1355.
The revised version of this bill addresses our concerns and maintains the Board’s ability to protect the public funds invested in the Campaign Finance Program. We appreciate the Council’s willingness to take our feedback into account.
However, the Board continues to believe the remaining bills could have been improved significantly if they were considered on a schedule that allowed more time for deliberation as has been the custom for changes to this program. We believe that some of these bills will have an effect that runs contrary their stated purpose.
All of this points to a key lesson, namely, process matters. The Campaign Finance Board must make challenging and controversial policy decisions. Upholding the city’s complicated and rigorous law requires that the Board set policies that allow all candidates to feel they are treated equitably. It takes time and care to get to policies that balance the interests of all stakeholders.
The beauty of the Campaign Finance Act is that it requires the agency to review and reassess its policies after each election. That is what makes this program so vital. It is why the New York City program has thrived over nearly 30 years."
Violations and Penalties
(for details, follow the link in the Total Penalties column)
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Maria Arroyo (2013) Program Participant: $64,650 in public funds received |
City Council (District #17) | Failing to report transactions | $110 | $5,735 (Details) |
| Accepting over-the-limit contributions | $500 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $1,325 | |||
| Failing to document a transaction | $100 | |||
| Failing to report and document basic campaign functions or activities | $500 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | $100 | |||
| Making cash expenditures greater than $100 | No Penalty | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign | $410 | |||
| Converting campaign funds to a personal use | $334 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $1,063 | |||
| Late response to the Draft Audit Report | $1,293 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Christopher Banks (2013) Program Participant: $71,004 in public funds received |
City Council (District #42) | Failing to provide bank/merchant account statements | No Penalty | $7,119 (Details) |
| Failing to report transactions | $412 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with reporting requirements for disbursements | $500 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with subcontractor reporting and documentation requirements | $100 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $4,300 | |||
| Failing to document a transaction | $100 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign | $883 | |||
| Converting campaign funds to a personal use | $574 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $100 | |||
| Late response to audit documentation and information requests | $150 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Gale Brewer (2013) Program Participant: $847,451 in public funds received |
Borough President (Manhattan) | Failing to provide bank or merchant account statements | No Penalty | $3,036 (Details) |
| Failing to report transactions | $207 | |||
| Accepting an over-the-limit contribution | No Penalty | |||
| Failing to document joint expenditures | $100 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $129 | |||
| Late response to the Draft Audit Report | $2,600 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Bill de Blasio (2013) Program Participant: $3,994,496 in public funds received |
Mayor | Failing to report transactions | $407 | $47,778 (Details) |
| Failing to file/late filing of daily pre-election disclosure statements | $2,087 | |||
| Accepting over-the-limit contributions | $12,483 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $6,086 | |||
| Accepting contributions from unregistered political committees | $1,000 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | $3,200 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | $300 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign | $806 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $21,159 | |||
| Commingling campaign funds with funds accepted for a different election | $250 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Julissa Ferreras-Copeland (2013) Program Participant: $0 in public funds received |
City Council (District #21) | Failing to report transactions | $470 | $5,718 (Details) |
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with reporting requirements for receipts | $500 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with reporting requirements for disbursements | $2,000 | |||
| Failing to file/filing late disclosure statements | $1,850 | |||
| Accepting an over-the-limit contribution | $125 | |||
| Accepting a contribution from a corporation | $50 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign | $38 | |||
| Failing to respond to Initial Documentation Request | $685 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Vanessa Gibson (2013) Program Participant: $95,712 in public funds received |
City Council (District #16) | Failing to provide a merchant account statement | No Penalty | $68,639 (Details) |
| Failing to report transactions | $66 | |||
| Filing a late disclosure statement | $150 | |||
| Failing to file daily pre-election disclosure statements | $100 | |||
| Accepting an over-the-limit contribution | $125 | |||
| Accepting a contribution from a corporation, limited liability company, or partnership | $739 | |||
| Accepting a contribution from an unregistered political committee | $125 | |||
| Failing to document a transaction | $100 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | No Penalty | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $1,660 | |||
| Exceeding the expenditure limit | $65,574 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
Edward Hartzog (2013) Program Participant: $83,400 in public funds received |
City Council (District #5) | Filing a late disclosure statement | No Penalty | $834 (Details) |
| Late response to the Draft Audit Report | $834 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| William Moore (2013) Program Participant: $0 in public funds received |
City Council (District #18) |
Failing to report bank accounts used for campaign purposes | $96 | $1,552 (Details) |
| Failing to provide merchant account statements | $64 | |||
| Failing to report transactions | No Penalty | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with cash receipts reporting and documentation requirements | $55 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with reporting requirements for receipts and disbursements | $193 | |||
| Failing to file and late filing of disclosure statements | $424 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $281 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | No Penalty | |||
| Failing to report and document basic campaign functions/activities | $64 | |||
| Failing to respond to the Initial Documentation Request and Draft Audit Report | $375 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Christine Quinn (2013) Program Participant: $3,534,300 in public funds received |
Mayor | Failing to report bank accounts used for campaign purposes | $750 | $13,611 (Details) |
| Failing to provide bank/merchant account statements | $500 | |||
| Failing to report transactions | $297 | |||
| Accepting over-the-limit contributions | $5,425 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $1,962 | |||
| Accepting contributions from unregistered political committees | $975 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | $502 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | $3,200 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Joel R. Rivera (2013) Program Participant: $62,525 in public funds received |
City Council (District #15) | Accepting over-the-limit contributions | $2,850 | $8,722 (Details) |
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $602 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | $300 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign | $2,621 | |||
| Failing to respond to the Supplement Document Request and late response to the Draft Audit Report | $2,349 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Lynne Serpe (2013) Program Participant: $68,568 in public funds received |
City Council (District #22) | Failing to provide merchant account statements | $500 | $4,740 (Details) |
| Failing to report transactions | $210 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with cash receipts reporting and documentation requirements | $94 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with subcontractor reporting and documentation requirements | $100 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $2,475 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | $100 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $390 | |||
| Late response to the Draft Audit Report | $871 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Jean Similien (2013) Program Participant: $57,438 in public funds received |
City Council (District #45) | Accepting a contribution from a corporation | $150 |
$5,771 (Details) |
| Making cash expenditures greater than $100 | $50 | |||
| Converting campaign funds to a personal use | $750 | |||
| Failing to document a transaction | $100 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate that spending was in furtherance of the campaign |
$3,173 | |||
| Making impermissible post-election expenditures | $100 | |||
| Late response to the Draft Audit Report | $1,148 | |||
| Submitting false contribution reporting and documentation | $300 |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Scott Stringer (2013) Program Participant: $1,952,350 in public funds received |
Comptroller | Failing to report transactions | $3,689 | $10,514 (Details) |
| Failing to file daily pre-election disclosure statements | $200 | |||
| Accepting over-the-limit contributions | $3,500 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $550 | |||
| Accepting contributions from unregistered political committees | $675 | |||
| Failing to document transactions | $400 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | $1,500 | |||
| Commingling campaign funds with funds accepted for a different election | No Penalty |
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Office | Violation | Penalty | Total Penalties |
| Ruben Wills (2013) Program Participant: $84,030 in public funds received |
City Council (District #28) | Failing to report transactions | $50 | $810 (Details) |
| Failing to file daily pre-election disclosure statements | $150 | |||
| Accepting contributions from corporations, limited liability companies, or partnerships | $510 | |||
| Failing to demonstrate compliance with intermediary reporting and documentation requirements | $100 |
Public Funds Repayments
| Candidate (Election Cycle) |
Public Funds Received | Public Funds Repayment |
| Maria Arroyo (2013) City Council (District #17) |
$64,650 | $3,607.91* |
| Christopher Banks (2013) City Council (District #42) |
$71,004 | $12,848 |
| Gale Brewer (2013) Borough President (Manhattan) |
$847,451 | $405.00* |
| Bill de Blasio (2013) Mayor |
$3,994,496 | $485.02* |
| Vanessa Gibson (2013) City Council (District #16) |
$95,712 | $2,520.28* |
| Joel R. Rivera (2013) City Council (District #15) |
$62,525 | $14,303 |
| Lynne Serpe (2013) City Council (District #22) |
$68,568 | $42,591 |
| Jean Similien (2013) City Council (District #45) |
$57,438 | $45,535 |
| Ruben Wills (2013) City Council (District #28) |
$84,030 | $450 |
* Final bank balance.
Archived video of today’s meeting and hearing is available on our Youtube channel.
–30–