Testimony on Public Campaign Finance of State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Delivered to State Senate Election Committee at a Hearing on Campaign Finance Reform

June 3, 2009

Thank you Senator Addabbo and the Senate Election Committee for hosting today’s hearing on campaign finance reform. This is an important issue that must be addressed to restore confidence in our election process.

When I became comptroller in February 2007, I took over an office that was operating under a cloud of suspicion and compromise. I recognized I faced an important task: restoring public trust in the Office of the State Comptroller. 

To send a message that there was a new direction, I took the unprecedented step of refraining from accepting campaign contributions for the first 15 months I was in office. Once I set up a campaign committee, I self-imposed limits on contributions, including mandating limits to less than half the legal limit. 

But I believe addressing the campaign finance issue must go beyond what individual candidates can do on a voluntary basis.

Government is big business in New York.  Every year, the state enters into tens of thousands of contracts worth tens of billions of dollars.  These contracts are procured by state government entities and approved by the State Comptroller and the Attorney General.  Legislation appropriating billions of dollars is annually passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

Meanwhile, the public perception is that the huge campaign contributions allowable under New York State law can buy influence and negatively affect the public interest.

It’s time to change that equation. The best way to restore public trust in state government is through the public financing of election campaigns.

With public financing, candidates and, ultimately, elected officials would be able to make decisions without even the appearance of undue influence from large campaign contributions. 

We need to take the perception of pay-to-play off of the table by drastically limiting what private donors can contribute.

And think of the benefits our citizens will gain if elected officials had more time to focus on public policy and less need to divert valuable time to fundraising.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states offer public funds to political candidates. In each case, the public financing programs are voluntary, and public funds are only given to candidates who pledge to limit their campaign spending. 

In most states, public funds make up part of a participating candidate’s expenditures, and candidates continue to raise and spend funds from private sources within the limits stipulated by law.

New Jersey offers public financing for gubernatorial candidates. To qualify for public financing, a candidate for governor must first raise 300,000 dollars in private contributions. The state then matches the private contributions on a two-to-one basis. For each 3,000 dollars raised from a private source, the maximum allowed, the state gives the candidate 6,000 dollars. Matching funds are not given for the first 84,000 dollars in contributions.

In the 2005 gubernatorial race, New Jersey matched private contributions up to 2.7 million dollars for the primary election and 6.4 million dollars for the general election. Participating candidates were limited to spending no more than 4.4 million dollars in the primary election and 9.6 million dollars in the general election.

New York City has had public campaign financing for more than 20 years. Its program gives six dollars to each candidate for each dollar raised, up to a maximum of 1,050 dollars in public funds per contributor. Like in other jurisdictions, candidates for city office agree to abide by spending limits, but can go beyond those limits if a non-participating opposing candidate spends a certain amount, a rescue trigger, if you will, that further equalizes the playing field.  

In a few states, such as Arizona, Maine and Vermont, the campaigns of candidates who choose to participate in public financing programs are financed solely with public funds.  This version of public financing is commonly called "Clean Elections" financing. Arizona, Maine and Vermont have each operated this type of program since 2000.

These public campaign financing models that I have just discussed give us a number of different examples that we could choose to adopt.

Currently, individuals in New York can contribute a total of 55,900 dollars to cover the primary and general election campaigns of statewide candidates; a total of 15,500 dollars to state Senate candidates and 7,600 dollars to Assembly candidates.

These limits aren’t really limits at all. The median household income in New York State is 53,448 dollars.  How can New Yorkers believe in a system that lets statewide candidates accept contributions larger than the average family’s household income?   

New York needs campaign reform at every level, and the best, most fundamental reform to start with would be public financing of state elections. 

Given the concerns we all have about spending these days, I recommend your consideration of a phased-in approach.  With the issues that have surrounded the Comptroller’s office stemming from the investigation of my predecessor’s tenure, the 2010 State Comptroller's race would be an opportune place to start, followed by the 2012 legislative elections and the full slate of statewide races in 2014.  Let my office be the test case so we can lean from our experience in advance of a full implementation.

Candidates for other statewide offices would not have to re-align their fund raising strategies until 2014; they would have four years to end their reliance on the huge campaign donations allowable under current New York State law and to gauge the success of public financing during the 2010 State Comptroller election.

Last year, several campaign finance bills were submitted for the Legislature’s consideration. Among those proposals was Assembly Bill Number 8864 which was introduced at my request. This session, I have again submitted this proposal for introduction.  My proposal would provide candidates for the nomination of, or election to, the Office of State Comptroller the option of receiving publicly funded matching campaign contributions in return for agreeing to caps on spending; limits on contributions; participating in public debates; and strict monitoring and auditing of campaign expenditures.

My proposal would cap spending in the State Comptroller’s race at 5 million dollars per candidate for the primary election and 7.5 million dollars per candidate for the general election.

There are other approaches that are contained in other Senate and Assembly proposals, and in proposals advanced by advocacy groups. However these different approaches are to be reconciled we should not miss this opportunity to enact some version of public financing.

I know we are in difficult fiscal times as a state and the temptation may be to put this issue off for another day. But I would argue that we can’t afford not to take action. Especially in this time of challenge, elected officials’ full attention should be given to moving our state forward.

Our state would get real value from public campaign financing.

Eliminating or severely restricting private campaign dollars frees officials up to do the people’s work without the burdensome distractions of raising funds. Government decisions would be made without the influence of campaign dollars. Better decision making would provide better results. I believe this would save more than the costs public campaign financing would entail. 

A sure way to restore government to everyday New Yorkers is to reduce the reliance on financing campaigns for public offices with private dollars. 

It’s time for New York State to build a new foundation of public trust by enacting public campaign finance reform.

Thank you.