Mike Bloomberg Denies New Yorkers an Honest Election

So Bloomberg has convinced the New York City Council to vote to overturn the City's term limits law. Even Christine Quinn, the Speaker of the Council, voted to throw out the law that New Yorkers approved in a referendum both in 1993 and again in 1996. I thought Quinn had a bright future in New York politics. Who can say what this vote will do to her career. (Is she the Colin Powell of the New York City Council?) The New York Times reported that Bloomberg's political operatives even leaned on charitable organizations that are beneficiaries of his philanthropy, asking them to support Bloomberg's plan.

Term limits have served as a poor substitute for campaign finance reform in this country. Since the Buckley v. Valeo decision was rushed through the Supreme Court in time for the 1976 Presidential election, courts have essentially ruled that cash is speech. Therefore, those with the most cash speak loudest. Who has more cash than Bloomberg, who spent $160 million of his own money on races in 2001 and 2005?

This vote leaves me wondering a few things. One is that supporters of Bloomberg's move argue that New York is in crisis and only Bloomberg, with his business acumen and experience in office, can serve effectively as mayor now. Do they suggest that Bloomberg would withhold his insights and assistance on behalf of New Yorkers unless the law is changed? Negate the will of the voters or Bloomberg won't play ball? What kind of public servant says that?

Also, New York is not Toledo. The bench is deep. Eight million people living in this city and only one can serve as mayor? New Yorkers need to get to know some of the other good people working in the five boroughs, some of them perhaps not wealthy enough to spend $160 million of their own money for a PR makeover, but who nonetheless might make an effective public servant. The mechanism by which they could do that is called an honest election, something that Bloomberg and his lackeys in the Council believe New Yorkers neither need nor want.

Comments

[kells1001]

New Yorkers may accept and respect this decison, but the rest of the world will only remember it as typical American Diplomacy and Democracy when they choose to change or break the rules.

[bioluminescence]

Again, Mr. Baldwin makes a valid observation: is the American political system built upon important principles or does it float on a sea of pragmatism and expedience. If the expressed will of the majority is still a rock-solid fundamental then it trumps any call for an extended term for the incumbent mayor, however pragmatic that may seem to some.

The subversion of principle appears rampant these days. Federal legislation enacted by the current Administration in the name of the so-called war on terror bestows war making powers on the Executive Office. This action is in total contradiction to the principle of checks and balances enshrined in the American Constitution.

In a complicated and dangerous world, some would say we need to be more pragmatic about the power and authority we grant our elected officials. Common sense suggests the exact opposite.

[MorgansRifles]

Alec:

I have to agree with you on this one. Bloomberg is showing his hypocrisy for the system.

Michael

[Rachel36]

For someone who was a proponent of "congestion" pricing Bloomberg sure found a way to jam up New Yorkers. I heard one New Yorker say it best "Let Bloomberg buy his own island and become Mayor of that!"

[sugarbaby gal]

I moved to South Florida from NYC in 1989, so I am not feeling greatly impacted by this decision made by the NYC Council at the moment. However, I do plan on moving back to NYC - Manhattan is in my sights.

I feel that term limits were designed for a reason - to protect citizens. It is a way to regulate the electoral process. And we all know what happens when processes go unregulated...things go belly-up and collapse. We can never rely on human beings to self-regulate. Human nature is designed to look for loopholes and to screw each other over.

If Bloomberg is perceived to have had success in NYC it is, in part, due to what Guiliani accomplished financially for NYC, as well as Bloomberg's own abilities in the position.

You are correct by stating that there isnt only one person for the job. Just because Bloomberg is running doesnt mean he is going to win.

My questions: 1) If the people of NY voted to keep term limits then why are elected officials not listening to their constituents? 2) Is the NYC Council reacting to the trail of disasters left behind by GW by permitting Bloomberg to run for Mayor again? Is fear driving this decision?

[aedelbert]

(Part 2)

I believe you support Senator Obama and, by extension, the very idea of the Office of the President of the United States, an executive office answerable to over three hundred million people. If you're going to criticize a man vested with executive power in a city of eight million, you might start by laying out a withering attack on the far more egregious offense of the president first. It would just be smart. And I'd support that"I think devolution is the best solution. The smaller the electorate, the more democratic the society. Splitting the country up would be great, but we can't even get northern and southern California separated.

Yes, term limits are a poor substitute for campaign reform. The solution? Enact campaign reform. Don't blame another mechanism of government simply because you can't get a law passed. Hell, the reason most good legislation never gets passed is because specious arguments like yours distract them from directing their ire where it should land.

Look, I'm as concerned about the concentration of power in incumbency as anyone, but this time the power"s actually landed"shock"in the hands of someone who actually knows what the hell he's doing. And you've seen the polls. You're pissing in the wind: 89% of voters don't like how Bloomberg is getting his third term, but 59% would vote him in anyway if he's on the ballot.

So come up with a reasonable argument and a palatable candidate, or I vote Bloomberg.

[aedelbert]

All my friends, like you, are moaning about the mayor's "power grab," but after reading your article, I'm still waiting to be convinced.

Arguing against the council vote is a completely separate issue. If you don't like the the law allowing this vote, then change the law or mount a legal challenge. Don't whine when politicians take whatever advantage the law allows.

I'm a radically liberal voter who happens to support Bloomberg, not because he's the only one who can solve the city's economic crisis (which, to my knowledge, even Bloomberg doesn't argue), but because neither you nor any of my friends has provided a reasonable alternative. Glaringly absent from your polemic"and it's a bit shrill in places"is the name of your candidate. Care to share?

To claim that anyone is suggesting Bloomberg would not aid the city as a private citizen is nothing but playground hysteria. As a private citizen, however, he does not have the authority to make the changes a mayor would have. Why must anyone go to the trouble of actually explaining something so obvious?

As to what kind of public servant he is, he made it clear that, had to council voted against him, he would not have mounted a legal challenge. However mountainous your sarcastic response to that, I believe him. And I don't believe the vote was the done deal you clearly imply.

(to be continued " see Part 2)

[inthelandoftheblind]

Term limits do protect us from retaliation, when powerful bullies use unethical tactics to stay slopping at the trough. Where's the "greed" here, though, as Bloomberg's been serving as mayor unpaid, hasn't he?This is not to say there aren't many benefits he gets with the job. Is it power that motivates him, or a sense of duty? Did he actually pressure or threaten anyone?

It's so easy to shade things carelessly, by implication, and have others rabidly come to believe the false characterizations - case in point - Obama. It seems we've become a society driven by bias, & quite a bit of deliberately twisting candidate's words.When these distortions have been thrown out to the team players, they are gobbled up, while few look into the facts of a situation. They don't even know how they are being used!

Some statements are then debated from that twisted point - rather than from the actual statement! Often the defenders don't even seem to distinguish the error, so the distortion, rather than the intended message lives on.

New York needs the best management possible to survive the coming onslaught...whomever that is. Hopefully that candidate will be elected.Lets look at facts, in all matters, & not allow ourselves to be swayed by mere rhetoric, & false issues, & to be used in this way.

[GatoPreto]

If Bloomberg put $160 million of his own cash to get there, one can only wonder how much it really pays.

[djny10003]

Personally, I'm opposed to term limits, and voted against them in the referenda of 1993 and '96. Even so, term limits are the clear will of the people, and Bloomberg and Quinn have made a big mistake in thinking they can just override the voters. Bloomberg has been an OK mayor, but he's not the saviour of NYC. For one thing, I was delighted when his plan for the West Side Stadium failed. I anticipate voting against him next year; it would be delicious irony if he were to be voted out after all this.

[Rachel36]

Agreed. New Yorkers best voice and best choice would be to vote Bloomberg, Quinn and the other moneychangers out of offce. New Yorkers are a tough breed - we don't like be taken for granted or for fools.

[minniebee]

Regarding campaign finance reform, you hit the nail on the head, Alec. I would welcome a political system based on candidates' leadership qualities, ideas, and, yes, experience as it relates to their past performance, instead of a system that first asks"how much is in your wallet?" Our political system is based on the same consumer-based, free market philosophy that is currently flushing our economy down the toilet (as well as teaching our children that greed and selfishness are virtues.) This system discourages intelligent, educated people with good ideas, but shallow pockets, from running for office, while encouraging unintelligent people with no ideas, but deep pockets, to run for office. I believe that we need some regulation, such as campaign finance reform, to level the playing field, and open it up to a fresh crop of leaders.

[emilyringstrom]

We're on a dangerous path. It doesn't matter whether he's done a good job or not. Having term limits is a way of protecting democracy. Period.

[qwr]

Two things stand out in B's tenure as mayor: his demonizing of the MTA workers when they went on strike, and his desperate attempt to build an uptown stadium for the Jets, essentially a handout to an already very rich man. B is a mayor for the rich. This latest power grab is worse than Giuliani's (9/11 was actually a crisis). I think Quinn and the council members who were bullied should pay. There should be an information campaign to tell the voters just who folded on this issue.

[rbtr8or]

I couldn't agree more, Alec. He waited long enough so that he can proclaim there's no time for a referendum. If his insights are so invaluable, why not act as unpaid consultant to the next administration? I've been a Bloomberg supporter all along... but he doesn't get my vote again... not this way. I hope all New Yorkers send him a message. We don't like being bullied.

[seasun]

Bloomberg has been the best Mayor in over two decades. Why not give New Yorkers the opportunity to re-elact him if we so desire?

The man is doing his job without collecting a salary so, greed is out of the equation. Power...? well, I don't think he needs to be mayor of New York City to feel powerful. In fact, he has the option of running for Governor if that were the case.

Bloomberg has my vote. I feel confident having him pull the City through this crisis rather than have a new Mayor ply hit and miss while he learns the ropes.

And by the way, it's not the same dispensing advise as being the big cajuna who makes the final decisions.

[qwr]

Why do you think Bloomberg has been the best mayor? What policies can you point to?

[dct1999]

Bloomberg has partially privatized the parks, increased property taxes, tried to force stadiums on the people, and done nothing to help the middle class. His congestion pricing plan was an additional tax on working class NYers, I'm glad it failed. He has done nothing to earn another term. He is a self-serving egomaniac who cannot let go of political power.

A billionaire not collecting a salary is like an average person refusing to stoop down to pick up a penny. It is meaningless.