New York State is about to start providing money to run political campaigns.  How will that work in practice?

One of the most difficult and awkward chores in a political campaign is about to get easier for some candidates in New York.  If they are eligible and can decipher the complexities of a new system, some state legislative candidates are going to be able to fatten up their campaign treasuries with public dollars.

The state Legislature in 2020 approved a system for public campaign financing and created a new bureaucracy to administer the program.  The Public Campaign Financing Board (PCFB) has published procedures and has been conducting training sessions with candidates and campaign committee treasurers.  The first checks will be going out in March.

A candidate wishing to participate in public financing must according to the PCFB rules:

  • Be a candidate in a primary/general/special election for statewide or state legislative district offices
  • Be opposed by another candidate who is not a write-in
  • Not make expenditures from personal funds (including spouse or unemancipated child) in excess of 3 times contribution limits for an individual
  • Meet threshold requirements for the number of matchable contributions received and the total monetary contributions received
  • Receive training before receiving public matching funds
  • Adhere to all program requirements (disclosure, contribution limits, etc.)

The deadline to register and apply for the program is February 26. 

Contributions must be from a “natural person” residing in the district of the candidate and be in the range of five to two-hundred-fifty dollars.  Payment of the public funds will work as follows:  “twelve dollars of public matching funds for each of the first fifty dollars of matchable contributions; nine dollars of public matching funds for each of the next one hundred dollars of public matchable contributions; and eight dollars for the each of the next one hundred dollars of public matchable contributions.”

A Senate candidate participating in the program can receive up to $375,000 in both a primary and general election if they otherwise meet the program requirements.  The maximum public matching funds for an Assembly candidate is $175,000 in both a primary and general election.

As of February 12 there were 225 applicants for public financing.  State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli is one of them.  Statewide candidate matching funds will be available in 2026.  The 224 legislative candidates who have signed up are running in at least 88 different Assembly districts and 44 Senate districts throughout the state.

To date there are no Western New York Democratic applicants.  Republicans include:

  • Senator George Borello (57th district)
  • Senator Pat Gallivan (60th district)
  • Assemblyman Stephan Hawley (139th district)
  • Assemblyman Michael Norris (144th district; Norris had no opponent in 2022)
  • Assemblyman Angelo Morinello (145th district)
  • Candidate Mitch Martin (147th district, opposing incumbent David DiPietro)
  • Candidate Marc Priore (142nd district, presently represented by Democrat Pat Burke)
  • Candidate Pat Chludzinski (143rd district, presently represented by Democrat Monica Wallace)
  • Joe Flatley, who announced a run for the 142nd district but subsequently dropped out – after conducting a fundraiser

Applying to participate in the program provides no assurance that a candidate will ever receive any state money.  As an example of how the new program might work we can take a look at the recent campaign financial filing of Mitch Martin, a Republican candidate in the 147th district.

In his first filing as a candidate in January Martin reported raising $18,178.  That money came from 78 donations but not all of them would qualify for matching public funds.  Here’s how things would break down:

  • 3  of the donations were for amounts in excess of $250, making them ineligible for matching funds
  • 7 were from businesses or organizations that are not “natural persons,” a requirement of the law
  • 42 were from donors whose listed address is outside of the 147th district, also a requirement of the law

With the exclusions applied, just 26 of the donations appear to qualify for public matching funds.  The law requires a minimum of 75 in-district donors, so Martin falls short of that number. The amount those donors gave was $3,790 but the law requires at least $6,000 in eligible donations.  In addition, for donors who gave $100 or more the campaign must provide information about the donor’s occupation and business address.  An analysis of the financial reports of other participants in the program would likely show similar results concerning which donations are matchable.

Candidates who are participating in the state program are required to file financial statements with the PCFB on March 15th reporting on every donation, loan, and expenditure.  Candidates like Martin will have the opportunity to continue raising money to get them up to the required level of donors and the dollar amount those donors contributed.

To show the potential value of the eligible contributions already received by Martin, if all the “t’s” are crossed and the “i’s” dotted, the eligible contributions already collected would produce $33,910 in state matching funds.

Issues

Public campaign financing comes with a variety of potential problems.  The requirements concerning residency, dollar amount, and employment information of donors need to be checked.

Recently there have been indictments in New York City’s public campaign financing program where an alleged straw donor scheme was being employed to increase access to public money by donors trying to spread their cash to others who were making what appeared on the surface to be eligible donations.  Wikipedia explains a straw donor as follows:  “a straw donor may contribute to a political campaign before being reimbursed by another, who is using that person as a conduit to exceed the limits on campaign contributions under the laws of a jurisdiction.”

Experiments in democracy don’t always come off as planned.  We are about to watch one such experiment in real time.  It should be very interesting.

X/Twitter @kenkruly

Threads   kenkruly

Related articles

LIVE: MAGA gets UNCOVERED as ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE

On today’s UNCOVERED Ron and Anthony discuss...

‘An illegal war’: Democratic 2028ers scold Trump on Venezuela

Most would-be Democratic White House hopefuls piled on the president — while his possible Republican successors quickly voiced their support.

Stroke survivor can’t access benefits as Social Security engulfed in ‘turmoil’ under Trump



An in-depth report published by the Washington Post on Tuesday offers new details about the damage being done to the Social Security Administration during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The Post, citing both internal documents and interviews with insiders, reported that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is “in turmoil” one year into Trump’s second term, resulting in a customer service system that has “deteriorated.”

The chaos at the SSA started in February when the Trump administration announced plans to lay off 7,000 SSA employees, or roughly 12% of the total workforce.

This set off a cascade of events that the Post writes has left the agency with “record backlogs that have delayed basic services to millions of customers,” as the remaining SSA workforce has “struggled to respond to up to 6 million pending cases in its processing centers and 12 million transactions in its field offices.”

The most immediate consequence of the staffing cuts was that call wait times for Social Security beneficiaries surged to an average of roughly two-and-a-half hours, which forced the agency to pull workers employed in other divisions in the department off their jobs.

However, the Post‘s sources said these employees “were thrown in with minimal training... and found themselves unable to answer much beyond basic questions.”

One longtime SSA employee told the Post that management at the agency “offered minimal training and basically threw [transferred employees] in to sink or swim.”

Although the administration has succeeded in getting call hold times down from their peaks, shuffling so many employees out of their original positions has damaged the SSA in other areas, the Post revealed.

Jordan Harwell, a Montana field office employee who is president of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 4012, said that workers in his office no longer have the same time they used to have to process pay stubs, disability claims, and appointment requests because they are constantly manning the phones.

An anonymous employee in an Indiana field office told the Post that she has similarly had to let other work pile up as the administration has emphasized answering phones over everything else.

Among other things, reported the Post, she now has less time to handle “calls from people asking about decisions in their cases, claims filed online, and anyone who tries to submit forms to Social Security—like proof of marriage—through snail mail.”

Also hampering the SSA’s work have been new regulations put in place by Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency that bar beneficiaries from making changes to their direct deposit information over the phone, instead requiring them to either appear in person at a field office or go online.

The Indiana SSA worker told the Post of a recent case involving a 75-year-old man who recently suffered a major stroke that left him unable to drive to the local field office to verify information needed to change his banking information. The man also said he did not have access to a computer to help him change the information online.

“I had to sit there on the phone and tell this guy, ‘You have to find someone to come in... or, do you have a relative with a computer who can help you or something like that?’” the employee said. “He was just like, ‘No, no, no.’”

Social Security was a regular target for Musk during his tenure working for the Trump administration, and he repeatedly made baseless claims that the entire program was riddled with fraud, even referring to it as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”