Blakeman v. the New York Public Campaign Finance Board: Lessons on How to Properly Navigate the Complexities of the Public Matching Funds Program
By: Joseph T. Burns
After being rejected for participation in New York State’s public campaign finance program, gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman and his running mate Todd Hood filed a lawsuit challenging this decision by the Public Campaign Finance Board (PCFB). While the legal fight over the ticket’s ability to receive public matching funds is likely only beginning, current and future candidates can learn valuable lessons from the experience of the Blakeman-Hood team.
The dispute stems from the PCFB’s recent rejection – by a party-line, 4-3 vote – of the GOP ticket’s participation in the program. In their petition to the court, Blakeman and Hood advance a number of arguments. They argue that the PCFB had previously indicated to Blakeman, prior to Hood’s selection as the GOP candidate for Lt. Governor, that he had been accepted into the program. The running mates also argue that the form the PCFB majority found had not been filed by the ticket was never in fact created – as required by PCFB regulations – by the PCFB; because it didn’t exist, the allegedly missing form could have never been filed with the PCFB. Finally, the Republican candidates raise a number of constitutional arguments, including arguments that the PCFB has denied them their free speech and due process rights under the New York State Constitution.
The PCFB majority has not yet responded, and the merits will ultimately be up to the courts to decide. But candidates and other sophisticated political actors should already be making notes about what can be learned from this consequential legal and political fight.
First, smart political players should recognize that the public campaign finance program is more than just a unique funding source for otherwise underfunded campaigns. It is a complicated regulatory system administered by a politically appointed body with hyper technical rules and significant consequences for noncompliance.
Second, campaigns and candidates that treat compliance as an afterthought – or as something that can be handled casually by volunteers, general consultants, or inexperienced operatives – do so at their peril.
The PCFB is composed of commissioners appointed by New York State government’s leading political leaders. While this structure does not mean any particular PCFB decision is made for solely partisan purposes, it does mean that campaigns and candidates would be naïve to assume that the PCFB operates in a space divorced from the world of partisan politics and political considerations.
When millions in public matching funds are at stake (the Blakeman/Hood ticket could lose up to $3.5 million in matching funds if the PCFB decision isn’t reversed), errors that appear minor or technical can have a major impact on a campaign’s viability. Campaigns seeking public matching funds, particularly those running against the existing Albany power structure, should expect to receive rigorous scrutiny and ought to prepare early for adverse interpretations of often ambiguous statutes and regulations.
The Blakeman-PCFB dispute centers around a disagreement over the proper and timely filing of program registration and certification documents. This controversy highlights a recurring problem in political campaigns: candidates often spend heavily on media, polling, and consultants while underinvesting in competent compliance and legal infrastructure. When generous public matching funds are at stake, that can be a costly and catastrophic mistake.
In modern campaigns (and, in particular, those in New York’s public matching funds program), avoidable compliance errors can be just as damaging as poor fundraising, weak messaging, or a difficult political climate. At the same time, a campaign may have momentum, donors, and a compelling candidate, yet still find itself sidelined by preventable paperwork failures, missed deadlines, sloppy recordkeeping, or misunderstandings of how election officials interpret their own rules. Serious campaigns must take their compliance and legal needs seriously.
Too often, campaigns assemble teams built for rallies and social media influence while neglecting the professionals who keep the enterprise legally sound. When that happens, campaigns can end up looking disorganized, incompetent, and surprised by rules already known by the broader political world.
Future candidates considering entering the public campaign finance program can draw a number of lessons from the PCFB decision to block the Blakeman-Hood ticket’s ability to participate in the program:
- Registering and certifying the campaign as well as meeting all other PCFB compliance requirements should be the highest priority of the campaign from day one and not something to be addressed only when the PCFB alerts the campaign of an error;
- If necessary, seek an advisory opinion from the PCFB or, at a minimum, attempt to obtain PCFB guidance in writing from PCFB staff; and
- Ensure that those advising the campaign and interacting with the PCFB on the campaign’s behalf are experienced professionals with an extensive background in the nuances of the New York State Election Law and not simply well-meaning political operatives.
The Blakeman-Hood case isn’t likely to be over soon. An attorney for the Blakeman-Hood ticket even predicted that the case will likely go all the way to New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
And GOP allies of Blakeman and Hood in the state legislature are even proposing a novel solution to the campaign’s predicament: pass a bill amending the Election Law to allow the ticket to have access to matching funds. While the bill’s proponents are Republican state legislators and the GOP is in the minority in both the State Assembly and Senate, it will be interesting to see if the proposal gains support among some of the left-of-center, pro-public campaign finance groups that criticized the PCFB’s decision to reject the Blakeman-Hood ticket’s entry into the program.
As the Blakeman-Hood case winds its way through the state courts, those candidates currently in the program should use this episode as an opportunity to take a look at their compliance operation as well as their campaign’s future needs. With two months to go before the primary election and seven months before Election Day, now is the time for smart, savvy campaigns to bring on the necessary talent to ensure all the campaign’s compliance needs are met.
