Public Campaign Financing Program funds may play a role in legislative elections; justice delayed

New York State’s new Public Campaign Finance Program (PCFP) kicked into high gear this year.  Total disbursements from the program are approaching $20 million, with far more to come.

Three hundred twenty-nine legislative candidates originally applied to participate in the program.  Through the end of June most of the dispersed funds went to candidates who were involved in competitive primaries.  Now the focus through the remainder of the year will be on general election candidates who are in competitive races.

Candidates are required to document contributions to their committees in amounts ranging from five to two-hundred-and fifty dollars.  Donors must be individuals residing in the legislative district.  Donated dollars are matched on a declining scale ranging from twelve dollars per dollar contributed for the first $50 of a contribution; nine dollars per dollar contributed for the next $100 of a contribution; and eight dollars per dollar donated for the next $100.  All donations must be documented with information concerning the contributors’ addresses and places of employment.

The intent of the program is to level the playing field for candidates who are new and/or do not have access to large contributions.  It appears that in looking at some legislative races in Western New York this year, the program could have an impact in some races.

Local candidates who have thus far received state funds include the following:

  • Marc Priore, the Republican candidate in the 142nd Assembly District, has received $69,175.
  • Patrick Chludzinski, the Republican candidate in the 143rd Assembly District, has received $110,317.
  • Republican Assemblyman Michael Norris (144th District) received the maximum amount, $175,000.
  • Darci Cramer, the Democratic candidate for Assembly in the 147th District, has received $66,678.
  • Joseph Sempolinski, the Republican candidate in the 148th Assembly District, has received $123,642.
  • Mitch Martin, who challenged and lost to incumbent David DiPietro in the Republican primary in the 147th Assembly District, received $91,172.  Martin spent more than $130,000 in the primary.

The value of the state funds can be viewed in conjunction with funds that campaigns have directly raised thus far based on mid-July financial filings.  Here is where it gets interesting:

  • The incumbent Democratic Assemblyman in the 142nd District, Pat Burke, reported $27,469 in his treasury in July.  His Republican opponent, Marc Priore, reported $10,482, but now has added $69,175 in state funds to that amount, putting his campaign account at nearly three times that of Burke’s.  Priore can continue to draw additional state funds based on his own fundraising activities.
  • The Democratic incumbent in the 143rd Assembly District, Monica Wallace, reported a campaign balance of $164,626 in mid-July.  Her Republican opponent, Patrick Chludzinski, reported a balance of $10,065.  But Chludzinski’s receipt of $110,317 in state funds, with more potentially to come, has brought him into a more competitive financial position with Wallace.
  • Incumbent 147th District Assemblyman DiPietro reported having a balance of $16,388 after having spent $138,838 in his successful primary.  His Democratic opponent, Darci Cramer, showed a balance of $10,641 besides recently adding $66,678 in state funds to that amount.  That leaves Cramer at the moment with nearly five times the cash on hand that DiPietro has reported.

For candidates participating in the PCFP, there are continuing opportunities to receive more public funding as they directly raise their own cash.  On the other hand, the Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee as of mid-July had nearly $5.8 million cash on hand that can be used to help the accounts of candidates such as Burke and Wallace.  The Republican Assembly Campaign Committee reported less than $900,000 in July, but they can choose to supplement the accounts of candidates who they view as competitive. 

There are still three months to go in Election 2024.  Multiple factors, including party enrollment and the enthusiasm impact that the presidential candidates might have on voter turnout, will play important roles in determining how state legislative elections turn out.  It appears that public campaign financing in New York State could also be a factor affecting the outcomes.

A new federal judgeship in WNY

The Buffalo News this past weekend reported on the possible creation of an additional federal district judgeship for the Western District of New York (WDNY).  Legislation was approved by the Senate and awaits action in the House of Representatives.  In announcing the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer noted that the WDNY “has long sought a 5th full time federal district judge to address its severe case backlogs, which have ranked among the worst in the nation.”

All well and good except that the proposed legislation creating the 66 new judgeships provides that the action will stretch over the next eleven years.  The new judgeship for the WDNY will not come online until January 2031, about six- and one-half years from now.

Public interest in politics and government reporting

A recent survey by Pew Research reported:

“Americans want information about local government and politics. Most say they are at least somewhat interested in news about local laws and policies and local elections. And about two-thirds say they often or sometimes get local political news – higher than the shares who get news on several other local topics, including the economy and sports.

But among Americans who get news on local politics, only a quarter are highly satisfied with the quality of the news they get, according to a new Pew Research Center survey…

Americans also do not widely see it as easy to find the news and information they need to take part in the local political process. Fewer than half of U.S. adults (45%) say it is very or somewhat easy to find the information they need to make voting decisions in local elections…

“There is virtually no difference between Democrats and Republicans (including independents who lean toward each party) in the shares who say it is easy to find the information they need to vote locally. But younger adults are less likely than those ages 50 and older to say it is easy to be an informed local voter.”

X/Twitter  @kenkruly

Threads   kenkruly

Related articles

Charting the work of Black women writers and choreographers

Nicole Morris Johnson’s new book examines various frameworks and why...

Venezuela Regime Change and the Theater of the Absurd

On Saturday, a friend and I were comparing notes on the events following the U.S. raid on Venezuela. Setting apart...

This Trumpist threat proved itself a danger — now it’s forming again



By Alexander Lowie, Postdoctoral associate in Classical and Civic Education, University of Florida

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, announced in November 2025 that he will relaunch the group after it disbanded following his prison sentence in 2023.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes committed during the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump granted clemency to the over 1,500 defendants convicted of crimes connected to the storming of the Capitol.

Trump did not pardon Rhodes — or some others found guilty of the most serious crimes on Jan. 6. He instead commuted Rhodes’ sentence to time served. Commutation only reduces the punishment for a crime, whereas a full pardon erases a conviction.

As a political anthropologist I study the Patriot movement, a collection of anti-government right-wing groups that include the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Moms for Liberty. I specialize in alt-right beliefs, and I have interviewed people active in groups that participated in the Capitol riot.

Rhodes’ plans to relaunch the Oath Keepers, largely composed of current and former military veterans and law enforcement officers, is important because it will serve as an outlet for those who have felt lost since his imprisonment. The group claimed it had more than 40,000 dues-paying members at the height of its membership during Barack Obama’s presidency. I believe that many of these people will return to the group, empowered by the lack of any substantial punishment resulting from the pardons for crimes committed on Jan. 6.

In my interviews, I’ve found that military veterans are treated as privileged members of the Patriot movement. They are honored for their service and military training. And that’s why I believe many former Oath Keepers will rejoin the group – they are considered integral members.

Their oaths to serving the Constitution and the people of the United States are treated as sacred, binding members to an ideology that leads to action. This action includes supporting people in conflicts against federal agencies, organizing citizen-led disaster relief efforts, and protesting election results like on Jan. 6. The members’ strength results from their shared oath and the reverence they feel toward keeping it.

Who are the Oath Keepers?

Rhodes joined the Army after high school and served for three years before being honorably discharged after a parachuting accident in 1986. He then attended the University of Nevada and later graduated from Yale Law School in 2004. He founded the Oath Keepers in 2009.

Oath Keepers takes its name from the U.S military Oath of Enlistment, which states:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States …”

Informed by his law background, Rhodes places a particular emphasis on the part of the oath that states they will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He developed a legal theory that justifies ignoring what he refers to as “unlawful orders” after witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Following the natural disaster, local law enforcement was assigned the task of confiscating guns, many of which officers say were stolen or found in abandoned homes.

Rhodes was alarmed, believing that the Second Amendment rights of citizens were being violated. Because of this, he argued that people who had military or law enforcement backgrounds had a legal duty to refuse what the group considers unlawful orders, including any that violated constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to bear arms.

In the Oath Keepers’ philosophy, anyone who violates these rights are domestic enemies to the Constitution. And if you follow the orders, you’ve violated your oath.

Explaining the origin of the group on the right-wing website The Gateway Pundit in November 2025, Rhodes said: “We were attacked out of the gate, labeled anti-government, which is absurd because we’re defending the Constitution that established the federal government. We were labeled anti-government extremists, all kinds of nonsense because the elites want blind obedience in the police and military.”

Rebuilding and restructuring

In 2022, the nonprofit whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets leaked more than 38,000 names on the Oath Keepers’ membership list.

The Anti-Defamation League estimated that nearly 400 were active law enforcement officers, and that more than 100 were serving in the military. Some of these members were investigated by their workplaces but never disciplined for their involvement with the group.

Some members who were not military or law enforcement did lose their jobs over their affiliation. But they held government-related positions, such as a Wisconsin alderman who resigned after he was identified as a member.

This breach of privacy, paired with the dissolution of the organization after Rhodes’ sentencing, will help shape the group going forward.

In his interview with The Gateway Pundit, where he announced the group’s relaunch, Rhodes said: “I want to make it clear, like I said, my goal would be to make it more cancel-proof than before. We’ll have resilient, redundant IT that makes it really difficult to take down … And I want to make sure I get – put people in charge and leadership everywhere in the country so that, you know, down the road, if I’m taken out again, that it can still live on under good leadership without me being there.”

There was a similar shift in organizational structure with the Proud Boys in 2018. That’s when their founder, Gavin McInnes, stepped away from the organization. His departure came after a group of Proud Boys members were involved in a fight with anti-fascists in New York.

Prosecutors wanted to try the group as a gang. McInnes, therefore, distanced himself to support their defense that they weren’t in a gang or criminal organization. Ultimately, two of the members were sentenced to four years in prison for attempted gang assault charges.

Some Proud Boys members have told me they have since focused on creating local chapters, with in-person recruitment, that communicate on private messaging apps. They aim to protect themselves from legal classification as a gang. It also makes it harder for investigators or activist journalists to monitor them.

This is referred to as a cell style of organization, which is popular with insurgency groups. These groups are organized to rebel against authority and overthrow government structures. The cell organizational style does not have a robust hierarchy but instead produces smaller groups. They all adhere to the same ideology but may not be directly associated.

They may have a leader, but it’s often acknowledged that they are merely a figurehead, not someone giving direct orders. For the Proud Boys, this would be former leader Enrique Tarrio. Proud Boys members I’ve spoken to have referred to him as a “mascot” and not their leader.

Looking ahead

So what does the Rhodes interview indicate about the future of Oath Keepers?

Members will continue supporting Trump while also recruiting more retired military and law enforcement officers. They will create an organizational structure designed to outlive Rhodes. And based on my interactions with the far-right, I believe it’s likely they will create an organizational structure similar to that of the cell style for organizing.

Beyond that, they are going to try to own their IT, which includes hosting their websites and also using trusted online revenue generators.

This will likely provide added security, protecting their membership rolls while making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate them in the future.