Credit: Getty Images.iQoncept/Getty Images

The state Public Campaign Finance Board’s decision to deny matching funds to Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Blakeman and five other candidates was one of the most reprehensible partisan stunts we’ve seen in New York government in years.

The blame falls squarely on the Democrats who control the board, and by extension on Democratic leaders who have the power to pressure their appointees on the panel to reverse their decision. We’re looking squarely at you, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and you, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and you, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie.

Article continues below this ad

This nakedly self-serving move can only harm the public’s perception of a program that was intended to help level the playing field in a corrupt system long driven by big-money interests. Now it’s looking like a corrupt system driven by Democrats.

The issue here is the board’s party-line 4-3 vote on Tuesday to deny eligibility for matching funds to the six campaigns because of paperwork errors. All six failed to meet a requirement that their applications be signed by both the candidates for governor and their respective running mates for lieutenant governor.

Democrats say the board was powerless to waive the requirement and argue that someone aspiring to run state government ought to be aware of the requirements of running for the office. They also noted that without signatures of both candidates, one of them could break the fundraising restrictions of the public finance system while their running mate enjoys its taxpayer-funded benefits unfairly. And they say they don’t want to set a precedent.

Make the Times Union a Preferred Source on Google to see more of our journalism when you search.

Add Preferred Source

Some of those arguments have merit, but the problem is that the board failed to meet its own obligations on this specific point. The requirement to include both candidates’ signatures on the application was only recently added, but the board never updated its handbook or training materials. It didn’t create a form for candidates to apply for certification jointly. It never notified candidates of the new requirement. In some cases, candidates were even told they were certified only to have that assurance clawed back. And the board didn’t alert candidates to the errors on their applications and give them a chance to rectify them.

Article continues below this ad

Had it done even some of those things, and had the various campaigns complied with the requirements, our concerns would be moot.

Notably, this is the first year statewide races are eligible for public financing. Between that and the board’s own failures, it’s understandable that candidates would make mistakes, and it would be entirely reasonable for the board to make some accommodations for errors and misunderstandings. That doesn’t set a precedent; it acknowledges the special circumstances of a new program.

We suspect Democrats would have done just that if Ms. Hochul had been among those with flawed paperwork. But with more than $20 million in the bank, she has opted to bypass the matching funds program.

Mr. Blakeman, on the other hand, reported just $1.6 million in the bank in his most recent filing with the state Board of Elections. 

Article continues below this ad

This isn’t the first time Democrats have tinkered with the public financing system. Initially, only donations from individual donors of up to $250 over an entire election cycle qualified for matching funds. Last year, over much criticism, the Democratic-controlled Legislature set a limit of $1,050 for the primary and general election separately, effectively allowing donations of up to $2,100.

Though only the first $250 in each race is still eligible for matching funds, the change leaves less incentive for candidates to pursue more small donations, a change that goes against the whole point of the program – to give small donors a more meaningful role in the process.

This is not about Mr. Blakeman or the other third-party contenders who have been denied access to public funds. This is about the fairness, integrity and legitimacy of a program that was intended to bring a measure of influence in politics to people of modest means, to open our political system to more candidates without access to big donors, and ultimately to create a government made up of people with a greater obligation to work in the public interest, not just the interests of a relatively few wealthy donors.

Article continues below this ad

Self-serving political maneuvers like this leave the public to wonder if Democrats running the state really believe in those high-minded goals at all.