Never underestimate the ability of political candidates to devise new and innovative ways to use yourmoney to get them reelected — especially if the self-appointed nannies who try to limit honest campaign contributions keep clamping down on access to money.
In New York, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who is a Democratic mayoral candidate, has created city council-operated web sites to promote his positions on issues that are central to the race.
If Miller were not running for mayor, the web sites — one opposing a West Side stadium, another touting Miller’s “17 Seats” initiative to cut class size in New York City public schools — would fall under the legal practice of franking, the long-standing privilege where elected officials burn through taxpayers’ dollars to keep constituents updated through the mail about legislative issues they probably care little or nothing about (but that’s a topic for another day).
But now that he’s running for mayor, the New York Times is reporting that Miller is taking criticism for his city council web sites.
The issues he’s highlighting on the web sites happen to be the ones where he and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a possible opponent in the race, hold differing opinions. Miller has made things worse for himself by mailing glossy color brochures that highlight his issues to 100,000 people, not all of them in his district.
Manhattan borough president C. Virginia Fields has asked the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board to look into the mailing that she believes is “a blatant attempt to use his public office for private gain.” Put another way: Miller is using taxpayer money, both by running political web sites and abusing his franking privilege, to further his mayoral ambitions.
We’re all for him disseminating information to the electorate. But if it plays into an election, he needs to do it with his own money — or the money he has convinced voters to voluntarily part with.