After the New York City Campaign Finance Board issued Advisory Opinion 2008-7, regarding the impact of extending term limits on the administration of the Campaign Finance Program for the 2009 election, Board Chairman Father Joseph P. Parkes, S.J. released the following statement:
The extension of term limits barely ten months before the 2009 primary elections poses a complex challenge for the Campaign Finance Program.
As candidates consider their next moves in this new political landscape, the Board’s task is to provide them with clear guidance.
Changing the limits from two to three terms for current officeholders generates new issues for the Board to contemplate, and it raises some recurring concerns the Board must consider anew. There are specific questions for two distinct groups of candidates in the 2009 election the Board will address today.
With this change in the law, some candidates may choose to forgo a race for higher office to run for re-election to a third term in their current offices.
These candidates create a specific challenge. Some have already spent considerably more than the Program’s spending limits allow. If they do not join the Program, they can access war chests of campaign funds that could deter or overwhelm potential challengers in their campaigns for re-election.
The Board believes that bringing even more money and more spending into these elections is not the best way to level the playing field.
Instead, the Board’s approach is to attempt to encourage these candidates to limit their spending between now and the election. We believe fairness is better achieved when all candidates operate under the same limits.
That is why the Board’s opinion seeks to provide these incumbents with an incentive to join the Program and agree to limit their spending for a re-election campaign.
Candidates who can show they were running for higher office will have the option to get a fresh start for the 2009 elections. They can “freeze” their campaign for higher office, preserving their efforts to qualify for matching funds in a 2013 race.
In return for this considerable benefit, candidates must declare their intentions early, providing certainty for potential challengers. Perhaps more importantly, they agree to set aside the war chest they’ve raised, giving challengers the opportunity to compete on a more level playing field.
Alternately, incumbent candidates who have raised and spent funds to pursue a higher office may decide to keep their current committees to run for re-election. They must return contributions that are larger than the limit for their current office, and if they wish to participate in the Campaign Finance Program, they must demonstrate that a sufficient amount of their spending to date does not benefit their campaigns for re-election.
An even greater number of candidates face a different choice: whether to abandon a campaign for a seat they presumed would be open, or continue a campaign against an incumbent running for a third term.
The opinion also provides guidance for those candidates who choose to step aside and suspend their campaigns until the next election cycle. They can preserve the efforts they’ve made to qualify for matching funds. Much of the spending these candidates have made in the current cycle would not benefit them in a 2013 campaign, and will not be counted against the spending limit for that election.
This advisory opinion will likely not anticipate every development during the 2009 election season. By issuing an earlier draft outline of this opinion, the Board publicly sought comment from affected and interested parties, which has helped to shape the Board’s interpretation of the law.
In the final analysis, what we have attempted to do is to provide guidance to affected candidates in a timely way, based on these objectives: to make it practical for candidates to join the Campaign Finance Program; to treat both incumbents and potential challengers fairly; and to encourage competitive races for all offices covered by the Program.