Much has been written by more knowledgeable writers about the efforts of the Working Families Party to game the campaign finance laws for fun and profit, in an effort to win friends and influence people and policy.
As I’ve noted previously, the WFP’s shenanagins, whether barely legal, or transgressive of the applicable statutes, assault the intent of campaign finance laws in at least three distinct ways. They allow candidates to elude both the contribution and spending limits embodied in the law; they transform any attempt at transparency into an unventilated hookah bar; and they potentially abuse taxpayer dollars by perhaps allowing candidates to undeservedly access matching funds.
Less is written about the Party’s efforts to game the system at the other end.
Earlier this year, a somewhat hysterical post appeared on Room 8 concerning the Party’s efforts in the area of land use. Nonetheless, the post contained several important grains of truth.
As I reported last fall, in advance of this year’s City elections, the Working Families Party asked public-advocate, borough president and city council hopefuls vying for its endorsement to agree to consult with the party before deals are cut on land use. The WFP asked for a commitment from the four public advocate hopefuls in its candidate questionnaire, in which it notes that the public advocate has a City Planning Commission appointee, and asked if they would "commit" to having that person "consult with the WFP and its affiliates on development before deals with the developers are struck."
Similar, a questionnaire sent out by the Party to prospective candidates for Brooklyn Borough President included a section on “Land Use”. The section also noted that “Borough Presidents appoint representatives to local community boards and the City Planning commission, which vote on land use and zoning actions under the NYC Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.”
It then asked if the candidate would “pledge to”:
“A. Consider the advice” of the party “regarding your appointments”.
“B. Commit to consulting with” the party “on development before deals with the developer are struck”.
Council candidates were asked to make similar pledges.
This was already a significant effort at a power grab for a political party. But WFP was not merely interested in using this power to increase its influence and increase its leverage.
Through ACORN, a group with which it shares offices and officers, in the same sort of transparent manner which it employs in campaign finance, WFP was, itself, in cases like Atlantic Yards, an actual beneficiary of some of the deals over which it now seeks power. And, it essentially was seeking first dibs on consultation about of all development projects, and more importantly, it sought first dibs in the selection of who would decide the status of those projects.
Let me make this clear. In theory, I have no problem with communities and other groups organizing to make demands of developers in order to make their projects more community-friendly, or to ensure that such projects contain some elements of affordable housing and/or community amenities.
In fact, even though imbeciles like Council candidate Ken Diamondstone condemn developers for offering to build underserved communities a new school, it seems to me that (whatever the merits of the project in question) this is a good thing.
It is only right-wing fanatics, idiots like Diamondstone and a few snooty goo-goos who object to such thing in concept.
I do have some problems with how such efforts actually work in practice. A shining example is Atlantic Yards, where after extracting her thirty pieces of silver from Bruce Ratner, ACORN/WFP leader Bertha Lewis proceeded to race bait all of Brownstone Brooklyn.
But my real problems is not with WFP/ACORN trying to game developers; if they’d learn to mind their manners when dealing with people sincerely concerned about the quality of life in their communities, I’d say “more power to them.”
My problems is that they not only want to game the developers, they want to game those who are supposed to evaluate such projects according to empirical criteria.
They want to put their thumbs on the scales.
A victory by WFP in a significant number of races sends a message not only to those so elected, but to other electeds and prospective candidates throughout the city. Such a result could bring us closer to institutionalization of a new pay to play system, with one-stop shopping consolidated at a conglomerate on Nevins Street.
Next they will demand clearance over members of the City Campaign Finance Board.
Even though I am not reflexively anti-development, and have been abused in print by DDDB and other conclaves of lunacy for holding such a position, as a resident of a community which developers look upon in much the way a rat looks at a hunk of cheese, I find this concept alarming.
As such, I am declaring a modified general anathema towards Working Families Party endorsed candidates throughout the City.
I say modified, because there are really two classes of such candidates; those WFP really cares about, and those (like John Liu), whose endorsements are basically pro forma. I see far less reason to issue a fatwa against the second class of WFP endorsees, although in some cases (like John Liu) there may be other reasons to vote against them.
In fact, I’m not even sure I want every one of WFP’s real candidates to lose. Some are in races against egregious incumbents (although there may in some cases be better available opposition) and some appear to be the best in their field. However, in general, I think that the public is best served by, whenever possible, defeat of the WFP’s core candidates.