The New York Times may be the paper of record and they certainly have the right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't call them out when the Op-Ed board starts to sound ridiculous. The Times has always been a strong supporter of abolishing term limits and made that clear as they endorsed the idea of allowing Bloomberg to run for a third term at the end of September. Then when it has passed, to come around and cry out for the Mayor to adhere to spending limits is so laughable I almost want to cry. Not tears of joy however but those that lament the erosion of democracy in our city.
From The NY Times:
And that last sentence is at the essence of this whole debacle. Bloomberg does not believe in playing fair."Fair" is only what suits his goals for the moment. If it sounds like giving him a chance to run again for a third term gives New Yorkers more choice, so be it. It is "fair" for him to spend a bajillion dollars when his competition must grovel and scream from the tops of skyscrapers in order to raise a tenth of what he is about to spend. And it is "fair" to arm-twist and cajole certain members of the City Council to vote for 845A so that he gets what he wants.After two elections in which he campaigned with more than $150 million of his own money, this time he should comply with New York City’s excellent campaign finance system, which would limit the amount he could spend on his third campaign.
Mr. Bloomberg has often argued that by using his own money, he does not owe anybody anything. But that does not stop the billionaire mayor from choosing to support the city’s campaign finance system by abiding by its rules. He could still use his own money — just not as much of it, certainly not the $100 million that some inside City Hall have predicted he could spend next year. Like other candidates in the system, the mayor would be limited to spending $6.1 million for a contested primary and another $6.1 million for the general election.
If the mayor does not respect the limits, he will trigger what is called the Daddy Warbucks provision, which makes the whole election more expensive for everyone. When one candidate spends unlimited private resources, the other candidates no longer have limits on their own campaign spending. And the matching funds, provided by the public, increase substantially as well.
Ever since Mr. Bloomberg began running for mayor in 2001, we have lamented the way he used his oversized checkbook to get his message across. Back then, at least, he was an unknown. Some of the $75 million that Mr. Bloomberg spent in 2001 helped him introduce himself to most New Yorkers.
After two terms, Mr. Bloomberg is an established political name, not only in New York City but in most of the country. He is an incumbent, which gives him a head start since he will be heavily covered by news organizations. But most fundamentally, because his main argument is that he is giving voters more choice by running once more, that choice should be as fair as possible.
No, dear opinionists of the Times, there is no such thing as fair when Michael Bloomberg enters the equation. Abolishing term limits is fair for all of us in theory, but the reality and brutality of New York City politics is a far cry from the classrooms that teach Political Science 101. This diary on DailyKos explains what really went down here in Gotham over the last few months, culminating in the atrocious behavior of a self-interested City Council's vote and last week's signing of the bill by Bloomberg. He could have put this to a vote for the people to decide months ago, but that simply would not have been "fair."
|