OK, now we get it: Truly equitable campaign-finance reform in New York City is just too darned heavy a lift for Mayor Mike and the City Council.
Funny. First Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn claim their bill will “establish New York City as the national leader in taking on pay-to-play campaign contributions.” But just days later, they change their tune, saying they want more, but this bill was “the best deal we could negotiate.”
What happened to all of that boasting? Seems Bloomberg & Co. just couldn’t keep their bill on such a high pedestal once folks noticed that it not only preserved the name brand in “pay-to-play” contributions – i.e., Big Labor – but actually strengthened it.
Even as it seriously disadvantages businesses – the golden goose that actually produces Gotham’s riches.
Indeed, these “reforms” would hit the commercial real-estate industry especially hard. To address the industry’s supposedly “undue” influence over city politics, the bill would ban those seeking land-use and zoning changes from giving more than $250 to City Council candidates (down from $2,750 under current law) and face similarly small caps for other offices.
When folks “hear about lobbyists, developers and others who are making big campaign contributions at the same time as they are trying to win big contracts . . . they inevitably grow cynical,” Bloomberg says.
In other words, when weighing zoning and land-use changes, the council’s judgment is susceptible to influence from interested parties.
Normally, this is called participatory democracy. To Bloomberg, Quinn & Co., these opinions are “special interests” that must be muzzled.
Unless, that is, the special interest in question is organized labor – which would get yet another exemption from this latest campaign-finance clampdown.
The city defends the carve-out by arguing that unions don’t get awarded contracts, but reach them through negotiation.
Big deal. Contributions can affect contract talks, too – as well as a host of laws and policies that govern municipal labor relations.
Not to mention the public fisc.
By contrast, the city expects to collect $9.6 billion this year in commercial real-estate tax revenue – more than a quarter of the entire city-funded budget. Add the take from corporations in general (already banned from political giving), and the council would soon silence 35 percent of its tax base.
And no wonder they pay so much: According to last week’s study from the Citizens Budget Commission, New York City’s local business taxes are “dramatically higher than comparable taxes for key competitors.”
Gotham’s business taxes are nearly double those of next-door Westchester County and more than 70 percent higher than Los Angeles – hardly low-tax havens, either. Indeed, no other large city comes close to the city’s 8.85 percent corporate income-tax rate.
So where, exactly, are the huge breaks that “Big Business” is supposedly getting by way of the city’s corrupt “pay to play” political culture?
As John Doyle, vice president for governmental affairs at the Real Estate Board of New York, told The Post: “To the extent there is a pay-to-play element to this political culture, it comes from the aggressive campaigning of political candidates for contributions.”
That is, the corrupting influence isn’t businesses that must live with the consequences of government’s actions – but pols who can use that club to raise cash.
(By the way, isn’t there something a bit strange about campaign laws that supposedly level the playing field coming from, well . . . Mike Bloomberg – he of the $80 million-plus campaigns?)
Bottom line: This “reform” reeks of a wrong-headed animus toward business – discriminating against commercial interests while strengthening Big Labor’s voice. Surely Mayor Mike & Co. can do better than that.