Testimony of Amy Loprest, Executive Director and Frederick Schaffer, Chair New York City Campaign Finance Board to the New York City Council Committee on Governmental Operations

11/29/2021

Thank you, Chair Cabrera and members of the New York City Council Committee on Governmental Operations for the opportunity to testify on four bills being considered by the committee today: Int. No. 1901 and Int. No. 2453 sponsored by Councilmember Lander, Int. No. 2438 sponsored by Councilmember Rosenthal and Int. No. 2429 sponsored by Councilmember Yeger.

My name is Frederick Schaffer, Chair of the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB). With me today is Executive Director Amy Loprest and Assistant Executive Director for Public Affairs Eric Friedman.

Independent Expenditures

Intros 1901 and 2453 would mitigate the impact of independent expenditures in our elections and create more rigorous disclosure requirements for spending on behalf of ballot proposals. Since voters approved a 2010 ballot measure to require disclosure of outside spending in City elections, the Council has frequently revised the independent expenditure laws and, as a result, New York City has some of the strongest requirements in the nation for disclosure of contributors to independent spenders.

While there were fewer independent expenditures in City Council races than in 2013, the mayor’s race saw nearly $31.8 million in outside spending, the most amount of money in City history. Federal laws and the Citizens United decision restrict the City’s ability to fully address the impact of independent expenditures. However, public funds, and particularly the increased matching rate, helped candidates to even out the imbalances brought by independent spenders and spread their message directly to voters.

Int No. 1901, sponsored by Councilmember Lander, would require entities that make independent expenditures related to ballot proposals to disclose the identities of their contributors and to display “paid for by” notices on their materials. Both requirements currently apply to independent spending regarding candidates but not ballot proposals. Independent spenders on ballot proposals are currently only required to disclose their contributors to the State Board of Elections, and Int. 1901 would require spenders to disclose to the CFB as well. Around $1.4 million was spent supporting or opposing ballot proposals in 2018 and 2019, and this bill would provide transparency to voters about who is ultimately funding those independent expenditures. The CFB strongly supports requiring contributor disclosure for independent spending on ballot proposals.

Int. No. 2453, also sponsored by Councilmember Lander, would provide participating candidates facing independent expenditures in their district with the ability to spend additional private funds in response. This would provide additional capacity for candidates to respond if they are being opposed by independent groups and continue to encourage public matching funds program participation.

As you know, participants in the matching funds program must limit their spending. As drafted, the bill increases the spending limit to 150% for all candidates in the race, if independent expenditures exceed 50% of the spending limit, or eliminates the spending limit if independent expenditures exceed 300% of the spending limit. This mirrors current law which provides expenditure limit relief to participating candidates when they are opposed by a high-spending non-participant.

Currently, candidates do not have the ability to spend above the limit to counter an independent spender. If a higher spending limit for all candidates is the remedy, it should be applied under limited circumstances. Using the lower threshold identified in the bill, which grants relief at 50% of the spending limit, 21 City Council districts would have had their spending limits increased in the 2021 primary, and three districts in the 2021 general election. Given that more than half of all competitive primary election Council races would have had a spending limit increase under this threshold, the Council should consider raising the lower threshold to ensure a spending limit increase occurs infrequently. The upper threshold set in the bill is appropriate and would be reached very rarely.

The CFB supports both measures to strengthen our system’s response to independent expenditures, and we look forward to working with Council staff on specific improvements to the language of both bills.

Voter Guide

The CFB is supportive of any measure that makes our democracy more accessible to a greater number of voters. Our own analysis has shown that neighborhoods with limited English proficiency and a high number of residents with disabilities often have lower voter participation compared to other neighborhoods across the New York City. Non-partisan, trustworthy voting information is more important now than ever before, given recent attacks on the credibility of elections. Our government should do everything it can to involve more New Yorkers in the political process and we believe the Voter Guide serves this purpose by providing voters with the information that they need to participate.

Councilmember Rosenthal’s bill would do several things to expand access and standardize the Voter Guide. First, it would expand access for multilingual speakers by requiring the CFB to provide video Voter Guide content in the designated citywide languages. The CFB has already made it standard practice to include ASL interpretation for all video Voter Guide profiles and to translate each video Voter Guide script into the federal Voting Rights Act languages, which this bill would also codify into law.

We must make a sound investment in language accessibility moving forward, and the CFB recommends this bill go farther and require both the print and online Voter Guides to be translated into the designated citywide languages. To ensure consistency, the law should match language coverage between all Voter Guide formats. Translating the various Voter Guide formats into six additional languages will require additional contracting and staffing, but the CFB believes it will be more than worthwhile to provide access to more voters.

Next, the bill would also standardize production of the Voter Guide in two media formats. Currently, the online Voter Guide is produced for elections with municipal, state, or federal candidates on the ballot but a printed Voter Guide is only produced for elections with municipal candidates or ballot proposals. This bill would require the production of a printed and online Voter Guide for every primary and general election, including for state and federal offices. A twice-yearly production schedule would necessitate greater spending on contracting, inclusive of design, formatting, and producing, as well as hiring additional full-time staff. We look forward to working with Council staff to implement these changes.

Int. No. 2438 would also require candidates to participate in the video Voter Guide in order to receive public matching funds. While it is essential that all voters can learn about the candidates on their ballot, in multiple formats that are accessible, we do have concerns about adding an additional hurdle for participating candidates. There is already a consequence for not participating in the video and print Voter Guide – candidates miss out on the opportunity to reach voters at no cost to their campaign. We believe this sufficiently entices candidates to provide Voter Guide profiles on time, in place of withholding public funds.

The timeline of public funds payments and Voter Guide due dates also poses a problem. We begin making payments to candidates in December the year preceding the election; typically, we ask candidates to submit their profile and script several months later, which allows candidates to make their statements relevant and responsive to changing concerns in their districts. Keeping to this timeline would present complications for candidates who receive matching funds but fail to submit a Voter Guide profile and script by the deadline.

We applaud the Council’s commitment to expanding access to the Voter Guide and look forward to further discussing how we can meet the spirit of this bill while also ensuring it does not inadvertently discourage participation in the public matching funds program.

Budgetary Independence

The CFB opposes Int. No. 2429 (Yeger), which would change the agency’s budget process. The CFB’s budget process, as provided in the City Charter, insulates the Board from external political pressure, and has allowed the Board to exercise its responsibilities in a nonpartisan, independent manner.

The Charter makes it clear that the mayor does not have authority to make unilateral changes to the CFB budget. While the stated rationale for this legislation is to increase transparency, it is the existing budget process in the Charter that ensures changes to the CFB budget are implemented with the full cooperation of the City Council in an open, transparent manner.

Currently, the CFB is required to submit its budget estimate to the mayor on March 10^th.  Section 1052(c) of the Charter requires the mayor is to include the CFB’s budget estimates unaltered in the Executive Budget transmitted to the Council.  If the mayor wishes to exercise influence over the CFB’s budget, the Charter provides an avenue to do so, allowing that the mayor may include any such recommendations as deemed proper.

Though the Charter only requires the CFB to submit its proposed budget for inclusion in the Executive Budget, in past years the CFB has provided information and testified at the Council’s preliminary budget hearings; in the future, the Board continues to be willing to participate at the Council’s request.  The CFB has appeared every year at the Council’s budget hearings.  At these hearings, Councilmembers have ample opportunity to question the CFB about the agency’s budget estimate.  Like every other part of the Executive Budget, the City Council has the authority to adopt the CFB’s budget as submitted or amend it.

These protections against political influence were put on the ballot by the 1998 Charter Revision Commission and approved by City voters, and they should remain in place. The Council may not intend to undermine the independence of the Board with this legislation. However, past experience here and in other jurisdictions suggests that this legislation may well be perceived as an attack on the Board’s independence.

In 1998, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani attempted to interfere with the CFB's operations, blocking payments to candidates and trying to move the agency to an office space inadequate to the agency’s needs. These actions were likely motivated by his opposition to implementing a City Council law increasing the public matching funds program to a $4-to-$1 matching rate.

A more recent, out-of-state example of political interference with an independent, non-partisan election and oversight body is the dissolution of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB). After the Board conducted an investigation into coordination between Gov. Scott Walker and outside groups during the 2012 recall election in Wisconsin, he signed a bill passed by the Republican-controlled legislature to disband the GAB.

The bill does not grant new powers to the Council but gives the mayor additional power to dictate the CFB’s budget. While there may not be a threat today, or in a month, or in a year, the budget protections in the Charter may be needed 10 years from now, or 25 years from now—the lessons of history suggest they will someday be necessary to preserve the matching funds program and the city’s nonpartisan voter engagement work.

New York City has made a unique commitment to fostering and supporting a healthy, inclusive democracy at the local level. It includes efforts across multiple agencies, including ours, to provide resources that help candidates run for office and include underrepresented voters more completely in our city’s civic life. City lawmakers have long valued this mission as a priority and created protections for it, to ensure that candidates and voters will have consistent access to resources and support regardless of any changes in the political landscape.

While the Charter currently provides that protection, it also makes space for oversight from the Mayor and the Council. The Charter gives both bodies the tools necessary to provide rigorous oversight, while also ensuring the CFB is not impacted by political pressure.

The CFB is grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony on the four bills being considered by this committee today. Increasing transparency and disclosure of outside spending and making elections information more accessible are essential to encouraging strong civic participation in New York City. The CFB is supportive of these overarching principles in Int. 1901, 2453, and 2438. We look forward to working with Council staff on the language of these important pieces of legislation.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We are happy to answer any questions you might have.