N.Y. launches public financing for state races

By MAURY THOMPSON
Contributing writer

 

Next year’s candidates for New York state Senate and Assembly will have the option of participating, for the first time, in a new public campaign finance program that will match small-dollar donations raised within the candidate’s district.

The new program is a victory for government-reform advocates who contend that, by using public funds to match the donations of candidates’ local, grassroots supporters, the state will reduce the influence of the wealthy and corporate interests that have long been the main source of contributions to the state’s political campaigns.

“This program will really strengthen the voice of small donors,” said Erica Smitka, deputy director of The League of Women Voters of New York State.

Supporters also contend the new system will make it easier for candidates to compete even if they don’t attract significant support from major political donors.

“Candidates with significant grassroots support deserve to have a fighting chance of winning elective office,” said Keesha Gaskins-Nathan, a commissioner of the state’s new Public Campaign Finance Board.

But many conservatives oppose the use of public funds to support political campaigns, and other political observers say it’s far from clear whether the new program will work as its supporters intend.

Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist in New York City, said the system actually could prompt some candidates to seek out more mega-donor contributions in an effort to stay ahead of publicly funded opponents.

“The issue is: Who will find the loopholes?” he said.

 

Small vs. large donors
In the 2022 election cycle, the 200 largest donors to state legislative races combined contributed almost $16 million to campaigns. That amounted to more than the total contributed by the 206,000 people who donated $250 or less, according to The Brennan Center for Justice, a government reform group based at New York University Law School.

Contributions of $250 or less accounted for just 11 percent of total contributions in 2022 races.
An analysis by the Brennan Center and Open Secrets, a national nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finances, found that public campaign matching dollars would have increased that 11 percent share to a combined 53 percent of all campaign funds, based on 2022 statistics.
The analysis estimated that small-dollar donations combined with public matching funds in 2024 could reach as much as 67 percent of total contributions by spurring new small-dollar donors to participate in the financing of political campaigns.

“Matching funds will provide candidates with a strong incentive to campaign for new smaller donors in their communities — much as they do for votes,” the Brennan Center suggested.

 

Countering Citizens United
New York’s new public campaign finance program was developed as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations and other interest groups to spend unlimited amounts, through political action committees, on political campaigns.
Critics of the court decision have argued that it gives deep-pocketed donors too much sway over elections — and that public financing will help to give individual small donors more influence.
But opponents of public financing say it is wrong to use public money in elections.

“New Yorkers pay some of the highest taxes in America,” state Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar said. “It’s an outrage that they’ll have to pay for political campaigns now, too.”
The new program is funded jointly by a voluntary check-off donation on state income tax returns, other private donations, the state abandoned property fund and the state general fund.
Supporters say it is necessary to make elections more democratic.

“The program will weaken the mega-donors’ grip on Albany,” said Joanna Zdanys, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center. “It will make it easier for candidates to run constituent-powered campaigns.”

The Legislature approved a new law in 2020 to establish a public campaign finance program and directed the new Public Campaign Finance Board, a bipartisan panel of seven commissioners appointed in November 2022, to administer the system.

The state budget adopted in early May allocated $39 million to implement the new system. Of that sum, $25 million is available for matching contributions and $14 million for administration.
Amid the protracted negotiations over this year’s state budget, there had been discussion of delaying implementation of the new system for two years, until the 2026 election cycle. In the end, state leaders agreed to move forward with public financing for legislative elections in 2024 and for statewide offices in 2026.

 

Candidates signing up
Smitka, of the League of Women Voters, said candidates are already showing interest in the system.

“We’re already seeing candidates opt in to the program,” she said.
As of May 18, 32 candidates had registered to participate in the program, including state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who registered for the 2026 election cycle, according to the state Board of Elections.

The other 31 candidates who registered were incumbents or challengers running in 2024 state legislative races. Locally, state Sen. Michelle Hinchey, D-Saugerties, and Assemblywoman Mary Beth Walsh, R-Ballston Spa, both signed up to participate.

The program is voluntary, and candidates must register and meet certain criteria to receive public matching funds.

“This can make all the difference in the world,” said Joe Seeman, a political activist from Ballston Spa who has been organizing local forums on the new system for political committees and advocacy organizations.

Seeman cited his own unsuccessful run for state Assembly in 2020 as a primer on the importance of campaign finance reform. Running on the Democratic and Working Families party lines, he lost to Walsh, the Republican incumbent in the 112th Assembly District, which covers parts of Saratoga, Schenectady and Fulton counties.

He said way too much of his time was spent contacting people on national donor lists to try to raise enough money to be competitive.

“You have to spend 30 to 40 hours a week dialing for dollars,” Seeman said. “If you wanted to be a serious candidate, it’s what you had to do.”

Now, he added, candidates will be able to spend more time speaking with voters in their districts.
Public financing also gives candidates a new incentive to appeal to local donors, Seeman said.
In 2020, he said, if he asked someone to contribute $5 to his campaign, the person usually would laugh and say that such a small amount would not make a difference.

“But if I tell them that your $5 is going to bring in $60, that makes a difference,” he said.

Sliding scale of matching funds
Under the new system, individual contributions of $5 to $250 from within the district will be matched, with the first $50 of the contribution matched $12 for every $1 contributed, the next $110 matched $9 for every $1, and the last $100 matched $8 for every $1.

The system sets minimum fund-raising thresholds at which campaigns become eligible for matching funds, however.

Most Senate candidates must raise at least $12,000 and have at least 150 small-dollar contributions from within the district to qualify to receive matching funds. Senate candidates in districts where the average median income is less than the national average must raise at least $8,000 and have at least 100 small-dollar contributions from within the district.

Most Assembly candidates must raise at least $6,000 and have at least 75 small-dollar contributions from within the district to qualify. Assembly candidates in districts where the average median income is less than the national average must raise at least $4,000 and have at least 50 small-dollar contributions from within the district.

Contributions of more than $250 do not qualify for matching funds. And candidates running unopposed also are not eligible for matching funds.

There is no limit on how much candidates can raise, but there is a limit on the matching funds they can receive.

Most Senate candidates with opponents can receive up to $375,000 in matching funds for a primary election and up to $375,000 for the general election.

Most Assembly candidates, whose districts are smaller, can receive up to $175,000 in matching funds for a primary and $175,000 for the general election.

In both the Senate and Assembly, the maximum is less for candidates who do not face “competitive” opponents, as determined by a complex formula.

 

Predicting the fallout
Local political leaders aren’t uniformly enthusiastic about the new program.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” Warren County Democratic Chairwoman Lynne Boecher said.
“Hypothetically, yes, it would certainly seem fairer” in a general election, she said. “It definitely takes a lot of money to run.”

But the new system also makes it easier to challenge an incumbent in a primary, she added.
Boecher said she would prefer that the state establish term limits as a means of making elections more competitive.

“Pragmatically, there is never a panacea in campaigning,” she said.
Kassar, the state Conservative chairman, predicted the public campaign finance system primarily will benefit entrenched incumbents.

“Public financing breeds corruption, especially in noncompetitive districts where incumbents will accept tax dollars for races that are effectively coronations,” he said.

Sheinkopf, the Democratic campaign strategist, said the implementation of public campaign financing in next year’s legislative races could have a domino effect on New York’s congressional races, several of which are expected to be among the most competitive House races in the nation.

If state Senate and Assembly races, as expected, become more competitive, it will attract more voters to the polls, who also will vote in congressional races, he explained.

“Each of these races, they very much have an impact on the congressional outcome,” he said.
Matt Funiciello, a Green Party activist who ran for Congress in 2014 and 2016, said a public campaign finance system is “completely meaningless” unless it prohibits all private contributions to candidates and political action committees.

“We need publicly funded elections, and nothing else,” he said.
But Seeman, a member of the state Working Families Committee, said the state’s new public campaign finance program is not perfect but is still a “real meaningful” election reform.

Seeman added that he would ideally like to see candidates be required to participate in debates and disclose additional information to qualify for matching funds.

Under New York’s new system, statewide candidates will be required to participate in at least one debate to qualify for matching funds, but there is no debate requirement for Senate and Assembly races.

Nationwide, at least 15 states and 21 municipalities, including New York City, have some form of public campaign financing, according to the Brennan Center, which said New York’s new system is the most extensive in the nation.

Elsewhere in the region, Vermont has a public financing system for statewide offices that has only been used once, said Josh Wronski, executive director of the Vermont Progressive Party.
A successful lawsuit against a lieutenant governor candidate in 2014 made the case that an e-mail blast the state Democratic Party sent out on the candidate’s behalf constituted an “in-kind” contribution and therefore violated a provision in the law that candidates could not receive contributions from political parties.

“It’s only been used once, and it’s so restrictive that it will never be used again,” he said.
Wronski said the Progressive Party continues to advocate for the public campaign finance system law to be simplified and to be extended to state legislative races.

Massachusetts has a public campaign finance program for governor and lieutenant governor, but not for legislative races, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.