QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT "REAL" FINANCE REFORM Q. Why…

             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT "REAL" FINANCE REFORM

Q. Why do we propose a bill, and why now?

A. Voters of this state overwhelmingly voted for reform in 2006, but almost no reform has
come. It is long past time for state leaders to keep their promises instead of posturing. We offer
a bill to set a standard of real reform and prod leaders to finally enact a real reform law. We do
so now while there's still time to reach agreement before adjournment, and so voters will know
heading into 2008 elections where their leaders stand on real reform.

Q. Why is an independent Office of Campaign Finance Enforcement necessary?

A. Real reform means ending the partisan Board of Elections' blind-eye culture that almost never
investigates or penalizes campaign finance violations. For that reason, the Board of Elections
must have no role in enforcing campaign finance law. Instead, an Office of Campaign Finance
Enforcement -- staffed in much the same nonpartisan way that Court of Appeals judges are
selected, and empowered to investigate and enforce without Board of Elections control -- can
shelter enforcement from outside taint. Only that way can voters be confident that campaign laws
are fairly and rigorously enforced.

Q. Why are backup Attorney General powers and cooperation with the Commission on Public
Integrity necessary?

A. Albany's shameful enforcement record shows that a system with only one enforcement
agency can invite failure. To ensure rigorous and fair enforcement, the Attorney General needs
concurrent power to investigate violations and backup power to prosecute campaign finance
crimes if the Office of Campaign Finance Enforcement fails to do so. Drawing on the lesson of
Project Sunlight, cooperation between Office and the Commission on Public Integrity is essential
to create, for the first time, a no-loophole web of lobbying, ethics and elections enforcement

Q. Why is automatic collection of civil penalties necessary?

A. The best enforcement system deters violations before they occur. Current law instead invites
violations by giving no incentive to follow the laws: late filings and other key "omissions" can be
cured without penalty, and penalties can be assessed only by burdensome court action that
almost never happens. The Commission on Public Integrity (former Lobbying Commission)
offers a better model: automatic fines for civil violations, with penalties rising with the
experience of the filer and the severity of the offense. That way, the law would help enforce
itself, fairly for all, and violations would be less likely to occur.

Q. Why are random compliance audits necessary?

A. The best enforcement system deters violation. That's why the the Commission on Public
Integrity randomly audits lobbyist filings, with a blind-selection system overseen by outside
auditors to ensure fairness. Candidates and campaign committees need the same system as
lobbyists who contribute to them.
Q. Why tie contribution rules to federal law?

A. New York's contribution caps are a joke: they are far higher than U.S. Senate and presidential
candidates can accept. If New York's U.S. senators can campaign on $2,300 contribution caps,
with LLC and corporate contributions banned, then so can New York's state-level candidates.
Nothing less than the fair, objective and reasonable standard of federal law would be real reform
for New York.

Q. Why create felony crimes for serious violations?

A. Substantial and intentional violations of campaign finance law are offenses against the public
trust and corrupt our democracy. As such, persons convicted of these crimes should be stripped
from public office, lose law licenses and be denied other public privileges for which their
conduct disqualifies them.

Q. Why automatically disclose violations on the Internet?

A. Sunlight is the best antiseptic. Prompt publicity would deter violations and, when they occur,
voters have a right to know about them immediately so that voters can consider compliance
when they cast their ballots.

Q. Why ban anonymous political ads?

A. Political advertising is a core First Amendment right and vital to robust public debate, but
voters should have a right to consider not only the content of ads but also their source.
Anonymous ads entice secret evasion of contribution caps and false smears: they are bad for
democracy and must be banned, just as Congress has done for federal elections.