Panem et Circenses

The Feiner campaign’s Hail Mary pass – a play designed to end  all this election nonsense once and for all - fell well short of the goal line, but did gain the Feiner team some yardage.   Enthusiastic friends of Paul (I don’t know if anyone officially on the campaign payroll was involved) raised objections to the Board of Elections about the validity of the signatures on Bernstein’s ballot petitions and also questioned the validity of those petitions for using the name “Bob” instead of “Robert.”  The Bernstein campaign announced that after a couple of days of court time the presiding judge rejected the Feiner team's the challenges, allowing the primary to proceed with two names on the ballot, instead of the single “choice” that has appeared  in the last two Greenburgh Supervisor primaries. 

It can be reasonably assumed that this scheme to remove Bernstein from the ballot was coordinated with the Feiner campaign.   Feiner, of course, has used this tactic to eliminate previous challengers before voters could be given a chance to participate.  According to this Journal News article from 2009 (http://www.lohud.com/article/20090731/NEWS02/907310335/Elections-Board-investigates-challenge-Weems-Greenburgh-supervisor-race), Richard J. Garfunkel submitted the petition challenges that knocked Pat Weems off the ballot in that year.  Garfunkel had previously appeared on Feiner campaign financial disclosure reports as a payee reimbursed by the Feiner campaign for various expenses.  Some will remember that during the Feiner-Greenawalt campaign of 2007, Garfunkel assumed the role of a sort of quasi-official Feiner spokesman on various blogs.   

According to the Bernstein campaign, Feiner’s challenge was litigated by experienced election law attorney Alan Goldston.  (In the continual small-world ironies that repeatedly arise, Goldston co-chaired an election law seminar with Bill Greenawalt last year).  I’ld be curious to know who retained Goldston.   It’s always interesting to find out where one’s campaign contributions end up.   

This sort of gamesmanship is encouraged by New York state’s arcane and archaic ballot petition rules which heavily favor well-funded incumbents who can afford the litigation that ensues from petition challenges.   This is nasty, Tammany Hall politics, but it is par for the course in New York.  Who can blame Feiner’s campaign advisors for engaging in such tactics?  After all, elections require spending, which in turn requires fundraising.   During the last competitive supervisor’s race, Feiner’s campaign raised $70,000 and spend $110,000.   We can surely expect the same  levels this year.  Isn’t this time-consuming democratic process  really just an expensive, time-consuming annoyance that diverts focus from problem solving?    Even though this year the Feiner campaign failed in its main goal of stopping the primary before it reached the voters, the tactic was effective in that it did serve to distract the Bernstein campaign during these crucial weeks before the great August vacation season.  As I’ve pointed out, there really isn’t much campaigning time left when voters can be expected to be accessible and engaged.  In addition, the litigation certainly cost Bernstein’s campaign thousands of dollars.   Starting with a $140,000 lead in funding, the Feiner campaign – if it is indeed paying for Goldston’s services – can easily absorb this sort of financial tab.   Petition challenges are the definition of low risk/high return.   And they are entertaining!