Glitched Campaign Laws

Something’s rotten in the city’s campaign laws. Actually, several somethings — starting with the fact that Bo Dietl was the only minor candidate to join Mayor de Blasio and GOP challenger Nicole Malliotakis in both generalelection debates.

Dietl, in case you didn’t make it that far into the fine print of the results, finished sixth — behind the big two, plus Sal Albanese, Akeem Browder and Michael Tolkin.

All three of those other contenders offered more substance. At least two, as the nominees of genuine minor parties, plainly had more support. So why was Dietl the one who made it onstage?

On top of this was the massive perversity of payouts under the city’s public-campaign-finance law. The Campaign Finance Board handed out at least $17.7 million in payments to 103 qualifying candidates — including $9.5 million for City Council races alone.

Yet the cash pumped up the already huge advantages of multiple incumbents, including Mayor de Blasio and Public Advocate Tish James.

De Blasio’s campaign got over $2.8 million in taxpayer money for a primary in which he faced zero real threats, then $614,000 more for a general-election contest that never became a race.

James grabbed $756,486 in public cash — despite out-raising her Republican rival, J.C. Polanco, by 4,000 percent.

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. got $215,737 from the taxpayers for a primary against an opponent who raised barely $6,000. And then he collected $190,660 more for yet another never- in-doubt general-election “race.”

Over in Queens, Borough President Melinda Katz out-raised her challenger 100-1 — yet still took $567,464 in public funds.

And for all the millions to City Council candidates, only a single incumbent may have lost. (They’re still counting in that Queens race.)

Only city Comptroller Scott Stringer declined the matching funds due to him under the law. Good for you, Scott.

Public funding is supposed to leave candidates less dependent on big-money interests. But the system didn’t deter de Blasio from selling access to City Hall, even if prosecutors decided they couldn’t build a safe case against him.

Instead, taxpayer money largely served as a giveaway to incumbents who had no need at all for the funds. How is this not “welfare for politicians”? Yes, the Campaign Finance Board does audits between elections to check if public cash was spent improperly. But the penalties amount to wrist-slaps.

In 2005, then-Councilman Larry Seabrook (DBronx) got $71,000 in public funds after swearing that he was facing a well-funded rival. He put his brother on his campaign payroll and made thousands of dollars of non-campaign-related purchases — some a day prior to the election.

The CFB uncovered the scheme — and fined Seabrook’s campaign all of $500.

This system doesn’t lift up the powerless; it rewards the powerful. It needs major reform — or total repeal.