Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Michael Bloomberg and the Legacy of Self-Financed Candidates


That Michael Bloomberg, publisher, businessman, billionaire, is planning to run in the New York City mayoral race has stirred interest and controversy among pundits and pols alike for several reasons.

For one, he is running as a Republican in this city dominated by Democratic politics. Most speculation attributes this sudden change of heart (Bloomberg is a recent convert to the Republican Party) to the dearth of candidates in the Republican field, compared to the crowded Democratic primary.

The major reason that Michael Bloomberg is stirring up so much attention, however, has nothing to do with his political affiliations. He is the only candidate with the ability to self-finance, and that makes his candidacy very interesting indeed.

Self-financed candidacies are nothing new, of course. In 1992, Ross Perot's presidential campaign highlighted both the possibilities and the inherent risks of a candidate-funded race. Since then, we've seen several examples, some of them close to home. And the results are mixed. Last year in New Jersey, Jon Corzine went from quirky to U.S. Senate in under twelve months. Of course, the price tag was over $50 million.

But money doesn't guarantee victory. Betsy Ross, after being dropped as Governor Pataki's running mate in 1998, switched parties and used her new husband's fortune to wage a campaign for governor as a Democrat. After a lackluster primary campaign, she failed to secure the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Money is essential to running a campaign. Without some source of funding, it is virtually (although not completely) impossible to win. Some money is a necessity. How much money it takes to be competitive is still the source of significant debate.

That debate has resulted locally in the new campaign finance laws. Candidates for citywide office, once they establish certain benchmarks of support, are eligible for matching funds in the ratio of four public funding dollars to every dollar raised by the candidate. That ratio should allow the four major candidates on the Democratic side to be fully funded for this year's race.

Which is why Bloomberg's candidacy, and his money, are coming at such an interesting time. Having all the money you need, all the money you want, all the money you know what to do with is an advantage, of course; but it may not be as big an advantage as first thought.

Spending millions of dollars in a state like New Jersey is a measurable advantage. New Jersey is a state with a large population, spread out over a moderately large geographic area. The media markets are New York City and Philadelphia, the first and fourth most expensive markets in the country, respectively. The more money you have, the more media time you can buy, the more people you can reach. There's a direct correlation between money spent and the ability to communicate with voters.

New York City, however, in its politics as in so very many things, is different. Sure, New Yorkers watch television. But New York is also one of the last vestiges of old-school organizational politics. Relationships matter. Alliances matter. Endorsements really matter. Marching in parades and speaking to political clubs and meeting with editorial boards, these things do matter. They aren't just photo ops or symbolic gestures. They are the lifeblood of New York City campaigns. And what's more, they don't cost a thing.

And so if the most important aspect of New York City campaigning is less about money and more about retail, door-to-door, hand-to-hand politicking, maybe all the money in the world won't make that big of a difference.

But that will ultimately be up to the voters. At this date, it seems a safe bet that Bloomberg will be on the ballot this November, alongside the Democratic nominee and a scattering of minor party candidates. Whether the voters go with organization and experience, or advertising and image, will be at least a preliminary answer to the question. The question isn't, "Does money matter?" but "How much?"

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.

Public Participation in Science and Technology Policy


This month, Mayor Giuliani announced four winners of the annual Mayor's Awards for Excellence in Science and Technology and an additional four Young Investigator awards. The awards recognize the contributions of the scientists and engineers in improving our lives, opening up new areas of knowledge and fostering economic development particularly in New York's key areas of biomedical and high tech research.

In our daily lives, we rarely stop to think about the complexity of science and technology policy decisions that affect everything we do. From the genetically modified vegetables that we pick up at our local Korean corner grocery to the air we breathe to what we do with our garbage, New Yorkers confront science and technology decisions everyday. But, getting involved in shaping the future of science and technology, and insuring that it is being used to benefit our social goals, is more difficult.

This month I spoke with several policy experts to find out what individuals can do to make a difference in this area. I found out that participating in science and technology can be as easy as going birdwatching, joining your community board or helping to clean up New York City parks.

As Michael Crow, executive vice provost and professor of science policy at Columbia University, wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education, "What we must begin to do-and what our current science policy fails to even consider-is to search for and follow the most socially beneficial paths." Developing policy that will benefit society requires the education, input and participation of the public involved.

One of the key organizations involved in setting science and technology policy is the New York Academy of Sciences. Current and forthcoming projects include examining the link between technology and economic development in the tri-state region, researching the effects of pollution in the New York/New Jersey Harbor and determining how digital technologies can be integrated into all aspects of society, including the education system.

David Guston, a professor of public policy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, believes that public participation can come in many forms. "I'm a birdwatcher," he told me, "and every once in a while I go on the Christmas bird counts with the Audobon Society...There are ways of incorporating things that lay people can do and there should be a greater emphasis on that." This example shows how the public can participate in the scientific process and work towards an environmental goal such as the preservation of birds.

By following our scientific interests and hobbies out into the world, we can participate in scientific processes that have formed the basis of American society. By further learning about and analyzing the scientific underpinnings of social policy like health or the environment, we can become more informed critics of political decisions about science and technology.

Guston says, "I encourage people to try to understand a social policy and an outcome that they are interested in and try to understand the role that research and development, and science and technology, have in achieving the broad social goals."

For example, if you are wondering if the vegetables that you buy at your local Korean corner grocery are genetically modified (GMOs), and they probably are, do some research to find out the current policies of the Department of Agriculture, the key industrial players in the manufacture of GMOs namely Monsanto and the role of universities (like Columbia and Cornell) in basic agriculture research. GMOs achieve a wide variety of social goals such as decreasing the price of fruits and vegetables, protecting crops from insects and disease, and altering the shape and color of food so that it is less likely to get crushed in shipment and looks more appealing at the market. However, there may be health risks to GMOs that we still don't know about and therefore many people may prefer to buy organic vegetables.

This example can be extended to a wide variety of issues that have an impact on our everyday lives in New York. In New York, the biomedical, biotechnology and new media industries are extremely important to the city's economic development. In fact, the mayor even has a Task Force on Biomedical Research and Development. Thus, fostering strong relationships between universities, private firms, hospitals and government are a key to the city's success. Recently, human cloning has surfaced as a major ethical issue in the United States and it is possible that New York City could be a key player in this area depending on the science and technology decisions that are made in the near future. In Italy, one doctor has already begun the cloning of a human.

These issues that affect all of our lives underscore the importance of public involvement. Guston cites "citizen panels," forums organized to get input from a wide cross-section of society, as examples of public participation in science and technology. These panels have demonstrated that average citizens can learn about technologically complex issues. Increased public participation will allow us to broaden the dialogue about science and technology policy and build a society that reflects the input of the citizens and not only that of scientists, engineers and politicians.

This attitude about the involvement of citizens in the development of science and technology and their applications is a fairly new one and it is still developing. In the past, the relationship between science and society was one of "scientists discover and society benefits" without much discussion of what society wanted. Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development Vannevar Bush's 1945 report to President Truman, "Science: The Endless Frontier," proposed a model of government funding for the sciences controlled only by scientists themselves.

In the last twenty years, this model, called the "social contract" has diminished in favor of more collaborative processes, perhaps as a result of the end of the Cold War. "In all sorts of segments of American society, there is a greater emphasis on working together across different kinds of boundaries. People no longer view these boundaries as impermeable, therefore science and politics should have more intimate connections," said Guston.

Unfortunately, the scientific and policy community has often excluded citizens on that basis that they are scientifically illiterate. "The rationale is usually that because [the public] doesn't know anything, they can't participate and this is not a productive dynamic," according to Guston. Thus, knowledge dissemination to the public through education and the media should be a priority in the future if we aim to produce citizens that are able to participate in science and technology decisions.

This year, science journalist John Noble Wilford, a Pulitzer Prize winner and founder of the New York Times Science Times section, won a Mayor's Award for his role in increasing public understanding of science and technology.

In New York, this new relationship between science, technology and society should be fostered among government, the private sector, universities and citizens. According to Crow, "...science policy must broaden its view," referring to the new industries, skills, institutions, social implications, and partnerships that should be incorporated into science and technology policy.

Thus, it is possible for the public to go from birdwatchers to Bushwatchers without becoming scientists, engineers or spending seven years in graduate school. Citizens with an interest in how science and technology shapes social outcomes now have more opportunities to make important contributions. So, get out your binoculars and raise your voice. You can shape the future of how science and technology impacts all of our lives.

Watch My Interview with Professor David Guston (requires video technology!)

In Other News:
Faced with a shortage of employees with high tech skills in New York, the City's Private Industry Council (PIC) is teaming up with the City University of New York and the New York Software Industry Association to train several hundred people in HTML, Dreamweaver and database administration over the next two years and place them in jobs at all levels. The partnership is offering a free 15-week course to those seeking to improve their tech skills. Please contact Shelton Jones at 212-742-1000 X 270 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you are interested.

Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

Right for All the Wrong Reasons


Some servants of the public trust seem to be having a little trouble, well, letting go. Instead of making plans for farewell dinners, penning gracious speeches including phrases about passing of torches, or booking long-neglected vacation plans, 22 members of the City Council introduced a bill which would make term limits simply go away.

Millions of New York City voters approved term-limit referendums that limit all New York City elected officials to a maximum of two terms. Since the two-term limit first became effective eight years ago, that means the time is up for not only Mayor Giuliani, but most council members, many of whom have held their seats for many, many more than two terms.

It is not a simple thing, to overturn a ballot initiative, particularly one that passed twice, in 1993 and again in 1996. And then there is the question of time. To be meaningful (at least in the eyes of the City Council members), the new bill would have to allow current officeholders to run for re-election this year, creating a seamless transition

But apparently it is entirely legal and proper, statutorily speaking. The City Council has the legislative authority to pass a law which would put an end to term limits before they began.

Politically speaking, it is entirely another matter. Voters don't usually appreciate it when elected officials ignore their wishes. Then-House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Washington) found that out in 1994. He attempted to overturn his home state's term limit laws to his peril. He became the first sitting U.S. House of Representative Speaker to lose re-election in 100 years, and provided a chilling morality tale to others who might be reluctant to relinquish power.

Term limits are often heralded as a means of voting reform. And certainly, term limits will ensure that elected officials look different by this time next year. But term limits are something of a cop-out. They allow voters to rest assured that things won't get too far out of line without having to pay too much attention to the process.

The absence of term limits doesn't mean you can't get rid of a long-time incumbent. He or she can still be voted out of office the old-fashioned way. The presence of term limits does ensure that popular, well-respected, deserving officials can't be voted back into office, no matter how the voters feel. This is often felt the most in communities with little or no political clout. These communities rely on representatives building up seniority in order to be an effective advocate.

There is the additional matter of institutional knowledge within the City Council. This would be a fond memory once no City Council member had been in office for more than two years. And it could happen as soon as 2003, when the members who are not forced out this time around would be compelled to leave the City Council.

The term-limits question, then, goes beyond simply the legislative clout of the City Council versus the will of the voters. However questionable the timing or the motives of the City Council members, they may in fact be promoting a far more democratic alternative in seeking to abolish term limits.

The City Council may find itself in the unusual and unenviable position of being right for all the wrong reasons.

Term Limits ARE Foolish; Campaign Finance Is Wise

By Katie Allison

This is one issue in which we largely agree. Term limits are a foolish tool that will make our governments run less effectively. But more foolish, and possibly harmful, is to try to overturn the wishes of the voters.

The American public has expressed continuing dissatisfaction with its elected officials. They don't think their congressmen get anything done. Their city officials are corrupt, partisan, lazy. The country's elected officials have gotten comfortable with their power.

There is a natural solution. The best term limit a citizen has is their vote. If the voters don't want someone in office, they can vote for his or her opponent. They can vote to get the 'old bum' out of office. Seems easy enough. But lately it's not the politicians who are lazy; it's the people. Voter turnout is abysmally low. And since the voters have become too lazy to do their civic duty, they want to change the rules. If they don't act, if they sit around, it will still be taken care of for them. Term limits will insure that no one a voter dislikes will be around too long. (The officials a voter likes won't be around long either, but hey, nothing's perfect).

Do we distrust ourselves as voters so much that we can't decide who should and shouldn't be in office anymore?

This year 35 City Council seats are going to be vacated and numerous city officials will either be forced to leave office or run for a different position because of term limits. When the voters of New York City voted for this in 1993 and 1996, did they really want entirely new groups of officials to come into office at once? With most of these new officials not knowing exactly how the system works, not knowing how a bill is passed, getting lost inside City Hall? And by the time the newly elected have gotten it figured out, by the time they understand how to get things accomplished for their community, they're out on the street.

Twice the voters of New York have asked for term limits, and they should get what they asked for. The members of the City Council who are asking to overturn the law, whether for upstanding civic or sad selfish reasons, are in the wrong here (and frankly, are embarrassing themselves). This law should be overturned -- not by the people who face unemployment, but by the voters. Those of us who oppose term limits need to do a better job of explaining the pitfalls of the limits. Possibly the most effective message to those voters will be the chaos that city government will experience next year with so many new elected officials.

The country's campaign finance system remains one reason why many eligible voters express disappointment with our political system. Which brings me to someone else who is embarrassing himself -- Rudy (he's good at this). His "Capital of the World" also happens to be a leader in campaign finance reform. People across the nation are talking about this issue, and New York City has actually done something about it.

Corporate contributions have been banned, and with the 4-1 campaign finance match that the city provides, candidates can spend less time on bended knee pleading with rich donors and more time talking to real voters about what they might do to improve our city. Rudy himself complained in 1999 about making fundraising calls: "I just don't like it. I don't like doing it. It's part of the stuff that's wrong with American politics right now."

A veteran of a few campaigns himself, the mayor must know that ending this match right now in the middle of the campaign cycle will only reek havoc on those running. Is he annoyed that, since at this point there is no major GOP candidate in the mayoral race, a lot of the money is going to Democrats?

Is he frustrated that since he is term limited he's not going to get to use any of the money (at least not this time around)? As the New York Public Interest Group noted, "no individual has received more public matching funds in city history than Rudolph Giuliani--$4.1 million in three election bids."

Or is this just the latest in his continuing feud with campaign finance in general, ever since his fine from the Campaign Finance Board for violations in 1997?

What would your old buddy Senator McCain think, Mr. Mayor?

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years