NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD 5
NewYork City Campaign Finance Board
NewYork City Campaign Finance Board
Campaignpractices are characterized by aspirants meeting potential voters indifferent regions and informing them about their manifestos regardingthe services the public will enjoy upon their election and thatinvolve huge expenditures. Vast sums of money is spent to financethese campaign, and it is claimed that part of these funds isobtained through fraudulent means, and that triggered the formationof bodies that control the use of the money during the campaign(Menzel, 2012). This paper attempts to analyze various electivepositions in New York and how money was spent to finance theircampaign as well as the efforts put in place by the board to controlthe spending.
NewYork City, Case Analysis
First,the survey conducted on SuperPACs during the presidential election in2012 in New York showed a trend reminiscent of the wild west-like19th century during which campaign spending was not monitored andregulated. It was a tradition to spend lots of cash sponsoring thecandidates and the fact that these were public funds meant for aregulated use was disregarded, and that ended up in fundmisappropriations (Goldfeder, 2012). Due to such malpractice,numerous bodies have been formed with the primary objective ofsupervising and regulating presidential and congressional candidates,an example of such an organization is the Federal Election Commission(FEC). Among the duties, FEC is mandated to oversee during theelection are the federal PACs together with other politicalcommittees whereby their contributors are identified, and theinformation are posted on the internet for everyone to see (Menzel,2012).
Secondly,a new system known as the public matching fund program was formulatedand implemented in New York and adopted in the year, it specific thenumber of contributions candidates received from their recognizedconstituents (Menzel, 2012). Hence, it was the duty of CampaignFinance Board (CFB) to ensure that they monitor and maintain a veryrigorous disclosure and enforcement programs and the money receivedby the candidates were harmonized they received taxpayer’s moneyat a ratio of 6:1 for every dollar raised (Menzel, 2012). In additionto that, CFB has been given powers and authority to certify thatcampaigns that are utilizing public funds are in total compliancewith the campaign finance law. Due to extravagant spending during thecampaign by the candidates, CFB has taken its duties with a lot ofinterest and auditing is the primary responsibility which is takenseriously by everyone within the board (Menzel, 2012). The board isvery strict that the candidates in New York find it constraining tocontest for an individual elective position within the state thedirectory that every campaign must maintain a clear record related tocontribution and expenditure is challenging aspirants. Similarly,there are officials who are sent to investigate the candidate’sheadquarters with or without notice to keep track how volunteers andstaff are conducting the campaign. From such visits, the CFB canverify some form of malpractices within the office, and the actionthat they take is to refer the matter to the district attorney or theUS attorney for the probe after which legal charges are pressed ifthe results confirm financial fraud (Menzel, 2012).
Thirdly,another regulation that has been in practice in New York to curb orcontrol money used during campaigns is known as the reportableexpenditures these constitute funds utilized by an individual orentity to either support or oppose a candidate who is contesting apublic office or ballot initiative (Menzel, 2012). Expenditures thatare planned by the campaign are regarded as the contributions and inmost cases there is a limitation that is imposed on them concerningCampaign Finance law the candidate’s campaign and independentspending are required to submit a disclosure report with the CFB forover 20 years. There are two major types of independent expendituresnamely the express advocacy communication and the electioneeringcommunication express advocacy refers to communications that containphrases such as “reject” or “re-elect” and they areconsidered to have no reasonable meaning rather they advocate for anelection. On the other hand, the electioneering communication isprecise as it refers to a particular candidate that is made within atime-frame of 30 days before the primary election, hence the chancesof malpractices such as those of fund fraud is reduced (Menzel,2012).
Inessence, during campaigns, there are a lot of funds that are wastedand their sources remain unknown organization such as CFB play acritical role in establishing the sources of those monies and howthey are spent. Similarly, monitoring and regulating campaign fundsis very significant as it helps to establish ethical norms among thecandidates who are vying for various elective posts within the stateof New York. Additionally, there is need to improve existingregulations such as reportable expenditures to seal any possibleloophole that can be used by candidates to misuse funds allocated tothem for campaign purposes.
Goldfeder,J.H. (2012). BigSpenders Beware: Is Watching.NewYork Law Jopurnal,247(83), 1230-1231
Menzel,D. C. (2012). Ethicsmanagement for public administrators: Leading and building organizations of integrity.New York: ME Sharpe.