Taking A Stand

Blog by Attorney Charlie King, Acting Executive Director, NAN

As I stated last week, both the National Action Network and Reverend Al Sharpton are currently neutral on the issue of whether or not to overturn term limits as currently in effect. As I mentioned then, there are a number of meritorious arguments on both sides of the issue.

Reverend Sharpton further stated at National Action Network's weekly rally this past Saturday October 11th that "We should be concerned about the best interests of the people, and that should guide our decision-making."


Not withstanding the meritorious arguments on both sides, one flawed argument raised by opponents of changing term limits is the idea that such an action constitutes the hijacking of democracy and thwarts the will of the people. The reason I oppose such strong language is because if term limits are in fact overturned, I would not want good elected officials seeking a third term to run under a cloud that they are somehow running against the will of the people, or that their candidacies are antithetical to democracy.

Proponents of this argument --some who may subsequently run again-- do not understand the danger of its premise. Those who support a change of term limits do so with the understanding that it will be applied to anyone seeking a third term. Therefore, if the law is changed allowing third terms, I think it is good for democracy and the people if Charles Barron, John Liu, Christine Quinn and others get to serve for a third term. So too for William Thompson, Adolfo Carrion and others if they decide to deviate from their current plans and seek re-election

So let the debate continue but let's not hurt the interests of the people in the long term no matter what the outcome on term limits.

By Attorney Charlie King, Acting Executive Director, NAN


A Real Affront to Democracy
By Kirsten John Foy;
Democratic Strategist

We haven’t finished selecting a President yet the war for City Hall has begun. In, the interest of full disclosure I am a democratic strategist, life long community activist and lifetime member of the National Action Network. I am not currently working for anyone seeking elected office. Having made that perfectly clear let me first speak as a voter and a life long New Yorker.

I am in full support of the referendum which I voted for, which now stands as the guiding rule in New York City election law. That Law states that term limits are to be set at two full terms of four years…unless; the city council amends the law. When I voted for this referendum I was fluent in English. When I voted for this referendum I was legally eligible to vote. When I voted for this referendum I was fully aware that there was an escape clause. I was completely sober and clear headed. I was also fully aware of why the referendum was worded in such a way as to empower the city council to amend the law.

There are times in every society where crises of staggering proportions enthrall us in turmoil. The American Revolution, The Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Great Depression, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Cold War, The Civil and Equal Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran Contra-gate, September 1th and now the Bush Economic Implosion. Throughout those periods of turmoil America has always responded by expanding our democracy not contracting it (with the obvious exception of Bush’s policy and legislative response to 9/11)!

The opponents of the Mayor want you to believe that he is somehow circumventing the rule of law, the will of the people, or the spirit of democracy. I say “That is Ridiculous”! What the mayor’s legislation would do is activate that section of the referendum, which is now law, where the people empower the legislature and the mayor, to act in the best interest of the city, by restoring the option to vote for or against the incumbents on a November ballot. What gives certain individuals the right to decide for me who I can or can’t vote for in November? What is the harm in allowing the city to vote for or against Mr. Bloomberg, for a third time? The harm is in politicians who have a vested interest in removing as many barriers to their own political ascension, as possible and doing so at our expense. That violates the very meaning of democracy! That is a real affront to democracy!

What do we face, as New Yorkers, which is insurmountable? NOTHING! However, as a practical matter we are facing the largest deficit in New York’s history, and not as a result of mismanagement or the incompetence of our City’s leaders. We are facing a contracting housing market and commercial real estate market and the steepest declines in stock market generated revenues…ever! New York’s economy is overwhelmingly dominated by three sectors; these are collectively are known as F.I.R.E.: Financials, Insurance, and Real Estate. All three of these sectors are in deep contraction and are in a credit, capital or liquidity crisis…AT THE SAME TIME! We have not seen these conditions in our lifetime, nor have many of our parents!

The big secret that the opponents of the term limits extension are not telling is that many of their campaigns have been financed by our tax dollars. Through the Campaign Finance Board, or the CFB candidates may receive if they qualify, a four to one campaign contribution match. That is to say the taxpayers will cut a check for four times the amount that a candidate raises, up to a certain point. Again, as a practical matter Mike Bloomberg’s campaign would inject hundreds of millions of dollars into New York’s economy. The campaigns of others would cost the city tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed four to one dollar matched, publicly financed campaigns. First, they want to tell me who I can and can not vote for, then they want me to pay for their personal and political ambitions with my over stretched and collected tax dollars. So in essence, these elected officials are trying to sell a life long “Nu Yorka” a bridge?! Better yet they want us to play their shell game. Follow the shell that says Bloomberg when the quarter is under the shell that says publicly financed campaigns. That is a real affront to democracy!

Now, let me speak as a life long community activist and a democratic strategist. If New Yorkers are interested in why all the political uproar and hoopla; here it is. Most of the major opponents of the term limit extension are elected officials. At first thought, you might ask yourself why an elected official would act to limit their own job security, but alas they would not.

Let us examine some specific instances where the most vocal critics of the term limits extension would benefit, and in most cases advance in their political careers. First, let us examine, Council member Latisha James. Ms. James is undoubtedly a fine public servant, a brilliant attorney and fierce advocate, but Ms. James would be one of a hand full of council members likely to remain after the 2009 city council gutting (should the extension plan fail). It is a, well known, fact that Ms. James wants to be the speaker of the city council. The most likely route to achieving that goal is by eliminating all of the otherwise, equally or more experienced council members. Should the extension plan succeed, Ms. James would have far greater opposition to her ascension to speaker. Most of that opposition would, assuredly, come from Christine Quinn.

Let us now examine Council member Bill DiBlasio. Anyone who knows Mr. DiBlasio knows of his passion, his commitment, his intellect and his drive to achieve a more just and equitable society. He fights those good fights, but not simply out of an abstract loyalty to progressive political philosophy. He believes in these causes deep within his core. But, Mr. DiBlasio wishes to become Brooklyn’s next Borough President. For my money Mr. DiBlasio would make an excellent Borough President and Brooklyn would be the better for it! But, Mr. DiBlasio would like to become Brooklyn’s next Borough President without having to defeat current BP Marty Markowitz. Should Mr. DiBlasio have to face Mr. Markowitz in a democratic primary his chances at success are severely impaired, albeit not necessarily eliminated. Mr. Markowitz is currently serving his last of two terms, again, should the extension plan fail.

Here, we come to the most artful of the bunch Mr. Anthony Weiner. Mr. Weiner is a congressman from Brooklyn/Queens. He is, according to many, the protégé of Senator Chuck Schumer. His legislative and deal making acumen is highly regarded, both amongst his constituents as well as his peers. His district has seen no loss in leadership or competency since he succeeded Mr. Schumer. Unlike the other elected officials standing firm against the mayor, and what appears to be the majority of the current city council, Mr. Weiner’s position does not appear to be born, exclusively, out of a need to rid the field of an incumbent but is arrived at by a more nuanced political calculus. Mr. Weiner is elected every two years, those being the even calendar years. All local elections for municipal positions are held in “off years” or odd calendar years. Mr. Weiner wishes to succeed Mike Bloomberg as Mayor of the City of New York. He does not jeopardize his current position by seeking a municipal office, as the local elected officials do not enjoy that luxury. If you are a municipal elected official then you must choose between your current position and running for another position; as one cannot file petitions to be elected to two separate municipal positions in the same year.

Mr. Weiner’s position is congruent to that of Ms. James and Mr. DiBlasio, in this regard; he does not want to have to challenge incumbent mayor Mr. Bloomberg, in order to become mayor. The council members do not want to have to challenge their respective opponents as incumbents either. The nuance exists in the political benefit of being the outsider staking a strong position against the “Billionaire Mayor”. Mr. Weiner has a very successful career ahead of him in the democrat controlled congress and would have nothing, politically, to lose even if he loses an election for mayor. In a very Machiavellian way Mr. Weiner is hoping that the mayor is successful, as to eliminate his competition in the democratic primary, mainly New York City Comptroller William Thompson. Mr. Thompson, by the way has been an overachieving and distinctly successful comptroller! Speaker Quinn is also likely not to run. Mr. Weiner needs Mr. Bloomberg to “clear the democratic field;” of his opponents. If Mr. Bloomberg can “clear the field” of Mr. Weiner’s democrat opposition, Mr. Weiner gets to look like the Democrat Superhero that fought the big bad billionaire and lost. He returns to congress, for two terms, a hero in the New York delegation, a greater fundraising powerhouse and the de facto leader of the NYC Democratic Party….and then next time…..

The most potent and powerful argument against the mayor was leveled by one of the city’s most respected clergyman; Rev. Dr. Clinton Miller of Brown Memorial Baptist Church, in Brooklyn’s Clinton Hills neighborhood. Rev. Miller contends that Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign pledge, of 2001, to build 65,000 units of affordable housing, was in point of fact, broken. The administration’s claim is that the markets did not have the will to provide the required financing. That the mayor, with his vast and undeniable expertise, was unable to correct this problem, speaks to the mayor’s primary impetus for desiring a third term…that he is uniquely equipped to lead us through this particular period of turmoil. Mayor Bloomberg must address this “Achilles’ Heal” of his mayoralty, should he wish to win a third term and win with a mandate. This argument is largely a political argument that is both valid but premature. However, Mr. Bloomberg must deal with this issue effectively, honestly and quickly, or this political paradox could fester into a huge political quandary. The mayor will need to maintain his relatively good approval ratings to shepherd this term limits extension bill through the council and ultimately win a third term.

I ask…Is the judgment of New Yorkers who empowered the legislature and the executive to act in times of both prosperity and uncertainty, being called into question? Is our intelligence being questioned, how about our ability to properly discern our interests? Or is the issue really that the politicians think that “we got had,” the last referendum we voted for; by the other guy! I guess this time round they want their shot at “getting the schmucks”. “Another referendum?” Now that would be a REAL AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY!