Campaign finance follies

Public financing of campaigns is now in effect in New York, but it’s questionable how much it will help stanch the flow of big money to elections.

Arather significant bit of news was lost for many in the drama of the midterm elections that decided the balance of power in Washington, D.C., and the state Capitol in Albany: One day after the election, New York’s long-awaited public campaign finance system went into operation — for all the good it will do.

We say this as strong supporters of the idea of giving small donors — people for whom shelling out $5, $10, $25 or $100 is no small thing — a greater role in the political system, through a program of matching public funds and a host of other reforms. But such reforms can only do so much in a state and a nation in which the law and the U.S. Supreme Court still allow big money to flood our elections, and where enforcement of existing restrictions is lax.

This past election offered two examples right here in New York of how the system appears to be so openly gamed. Both concerned what are known as “independent expenditure groups” — organizations that prior court rulings have left free to take in unlimited donations, without the individual caps that political campaigns are subject to. These organizations can spend the money on advertising and other activities aimed at electing or defeating candidates, with one condition: They must act independently, and cannot coordinate their activity with the candidates they support.

That’s how it’s supposed to work, at least. Experience suggests otherwise.

Consider, for example, the matter of two super PACs that supported Republican gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin this past election, Save Our State NY and Safe Together New York. Both were heavily supported by billionaire Ronald Lauder. The Estee Lauder heir had hit his contribution limit of $60,000 for donatof ing to Mr. Zeldin’s campaign directly, but could still pour more than $6 million into these presumably independent groups.

Presumably, we stress, because a cochair of Mr. Zeldin’s campaign — New York City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli — was also a spokesman for Save Our State NY. And Safe Together New York used McLaughlin Media to place advertising critical of Mr. Zeldin’s opponent, Democrat Kathy Hochul. McLaughlin Media is owned by Republican consultant John McLaughlin, who is also Mr. Zeldin’s longtime campaign pollster.

In another instance, an independent expenditure committee called Good Government for New York took out a television ad attacking Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner, D -Round Lake, who was challenged by Republican David Catalfamo. Mr. Catalfamo’s wife, Jessica Catalfamo, is the consultant, treasurer, secretary and director of another group, Good Government Coalition — the sole funding source this year for Good Government for New York.

Yet nobody in the campaigns, we’re told in both these instances, talked to anybody in the so-called independent expenditure organizations about any of this. That’s a lot of either unbelievably clueless operatives or an extraordinary absence of communication in the heavily managed world political campaigns.

So far, despite complaints from various good government groups — real good government groups, not outfits with contrived, wholesome-sounding names to dupe the public into thinking they’re not political operations — the notoriously indifferent state Board of Elections doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to look into these matters.

This isn’t to single out Republicans. These just happen to be recent examples that came to light. We’re probably not going far out on a limb to say that this happens on both sides of the aisle. And it certainly isn’t limited to New York.

As things stand, government that is truly of, by, and for the people — not just the rich — depends on politically stacked boards of election to aggressively investigate possible violations; it also requires the politicians who still depend on the big money that flows into politics to write laws to restrain spending that will withstand the scrutiny of a conservative Supreme Court that holds political spending as sacrosanct as free speech. The same politicians who rail against all this money in politics, while adamantly defending both their dogged pursuit of it and their acceptance of help from independent expenditure groups by saying they can’t just unilaterally disarm. That might be believable if they worked to do something about it once they’re in office. They haven’t. Their protests feel like just so much lip service.

So yes, we’re glad to see campaign financing finally become a reality in New York. But the celebration is tempered by the knowledge that plenty of candidates will welcome the support of super PACs and other ostensibly independent expenditure groups, and even encourage their donors, especially the more well-heeled ones, to cut checks to those organizations once they’ve reached their legal campaign contribution limits. Not that anyone’s coordinating with anybody. Wink-wink.