Bloomberg as Oligarch

The voters of New York City have twice voted by referendum to limit local elected officials to two four-year terms. But now Mayor Michael Bloomberg is attempting to circumvent the voice of the people and pass legislation that would award himself and the City Council a third term in office.

Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party (WFP) – a key member of the opposition fighting the legislation – deftly characterized Mayor Bloomberg's anti-democratic power grab when he said, "We've had two citywide elections on this very topic. Even Hugo Chavez had a referendum and abided by the results. Mayor Bloomberg should do the same."

The key issue here isn't term limits – whether one is for or against them – but whether we are a democracy. This is a case study of one man – our own version of an oligarch – trying to rig the rules of the game for his own benefit. He has decided that he's indispensable in these times of financial crisis, said that a referendum is too "distracting and time consuming," and moved to ram through "a plan that was hatched with a handful of fellow billionaires and business moguls."

And it's gotten quite ugly.

There are allegations that Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn have threatened undecided council members, suggesting that committee chairmanships could be lost and funding for districts cut as a consequence of votes against the Bloomberg plan. And the New York Post wrote, "Mayor Bloomberg showered cash [from his slush fund] on key City Council members with the power to kill a term-limits extension bill in the last year."

The Mayor has also contacted non-profit groups that are dependent on his largesse and city contracts to testify and lobby in support of his plan. One official at a social service group told the New York Times on condition of anonymity, "It's pretty hard to say no. They can take away a lot of resources." It might not be buying silence, but it sure makes for some serious reticence in taking on the billionaire mayor/philanthropist.

The Times also reported that leaders of five organizations relying on Mayor Bloomberg's philanthropic support testified on his behalf last week but none disclosed the mayor's financial support of their groups.

In addition, both Common Cause and the New York Public Interest Group have filed complaints with the city's Conflicts of Interest Board, saying that Mayor Bloomberg gave longtime term-limit crusader and billionaire Ronald Lauder a charter revision commission appointment in exchange for his support for the Mayor's three-term plan. Two council members also filed complaints, saying that the council's giving itself a third term violates "a city law that prohibits elected officials from using their positions for private or personal advantage."

The legislation needs 26 (out of 51) votes on the City Council in order to be approved. Currently, the WFP has the count at: 16 "For Ignoring the Voters and Letting Politicians Decide"; 20 "For Letting the Voters Decide"; and 16 "Unknown/No Public Position". Joined by community, labor, civic and political groups, the WFP has organized ItsOurDecision.org to petition, plaster neighborhoods with posters, run ads, mobilize citizens to contact the Council and demand that this issue be addressed through a referendum if the Mayor wants to change the law. The campaign has created what the Times described as "an unanticipated backlash" but a vote could as early as tomorrow, Thursday, October 22.

If term limits are going to be changed it should be done by the people and for the people, not through the rule of one man who is self-dealing with a city council that has a vested interest in this issue. People should matter, their voices should matter. If the last eight years in this country have taught us anything, it is that the rule of law matters.

Comments (19)

1. Obama got Bloomberg's number at the Al Smith dinner. And Mike was clearly humorless.

   But discouraged? Nah. Bloomberg's fortune has grown by several billions while he's been mayor. He bought himself the office with a few hundred million spread around in the right places, never having run for any public office before.

   So why shouldn't he feel confident about buying himself a 3rd term? His billions, his conceit, his disregard for law ... it all adds up to victory.

   Unless enough good people stand up & shout: NO.

   Let those city council members know there will be no 3rd term for them if they pocket Bloomberg's bribes.

   Posted by sloper at 10/22/2008 @ 12:05pm

2. We all know that the wealthy are above the law. The worst part of this situation is there isn't much that regular folks can do about it. Sure, we can call our city councilor -- good luck getting in touch -- but at the same time, Mr Mayor and his cronies on the council are able to coerce them with money, committees, favors, etc. Billionaires do tend to have the advantage, even in a pretend democracy.

   Anyway, thanks to The Nation for keeping an eye on this very important issue.

   Posted by Citizen54 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:22pm

3. Ms vanden Heuvel...

   wouldn't Bloomberg still have to stand for re-election to the mayoralty?

   So....uh....couldn't New Yorkers NOT vote for him and "depose his oligarchy"?

   (IOW, hyperbolic as usual, Ms vH)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/22/2008 @ 12:24pm

4. bloomberg for prime minister!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 12:45pm

5. (IOW, hyperbolic as usual, Ms vH)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/22/2008 @ 12:24pm

   i disagree.

   the voter is the least important player in this game we like to fool ourselves into calling democracy.

   imagine if reagan had done the same thing......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 12:52pm

6. That's right Kat: The Rule of Law Not Social Justice The Rule of Law

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/22/2008 @ 1:53pm

7. Ms KVH-I bet you're one of them darn Marxists.They're everywhere.Found one under my bed just this morning.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:37pm

8. I bet you're one of them darn Marxists.They're everywhere.Found one under my bed just this morning. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:37pm

   Did you kill him? I mean they are the anti-Christ.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:31pm

9. Ccc-The little runt out ran me,but my dog bit him on the butt.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 3:34pm

10. Mayor Bloomberg is a not-so-friendly Fascist.

    Posted by boing007 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:37pm

11. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 12:52pm

    FROSTY, even if there were no term limits...

    Bloomberg would STILL have to run for re-election and face the possibility of defeat.

    So?....where's the "oligarchy" (as normally defined)?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/22/2008 @ 3:54pm

12. The fact is that many liberals and leftists are not fans of term limits, whose adoption around the country was driven by the right during the 90's. Rather than arbitrarily kicking all elected officials out after a couple of terms, we tend to argue "Let the people decide!" on a case by case basis.

    However, the point of this fight, Mask, is that whether we agree with term limits or not, the Mayor of New York is attempting to subvert the very clearly and democratically expressed opinion of the people by pulling an end run around them and buying or bullying the City Council into adding a third term onto the current two-term limit. It is an insult to the public - again, whether us leftists or my liberal friends agree with term limits or not - a colossal and corrupt waste of time, energy and resources, and an example of the rich and the powerful trying to get their way, and screw what the average citizen has to say about the matter. To use an old-fashioned expression, it's the prinicple of the thing.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/22/2008 @ 4:07pm

13. >>>The Times also reported that leaders of five organizations relying on Mayor Bloomberg's philanthropic support testified on his behalf last week but none disclosed the mayor's financial support of their groups. <<<

    For all of Bloomberg's supposed strengths, this third-term stunt shows his true colors as a petty dictator who wants to ram his own ideas down the throat of New Yorkers.

    If Bloomberg cannot play on a (d)emocratic stage where governing is by consent of those so-governed, then he should GET OFF THE STAGE!

    Why is Bloomberg afraid of a vote by the people of NYC? Does he think he will lose?

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/22/2008 @ 4:57pm

14. As a resident of NYC who voted against term limits, I am offended that Mayor Bloomberg feels he can just get the law changed for his own purpose with out putting it to a vote by the residents of the city. Luckily my councilman Eric Gioia is against it. Bloomberge had plenty of time to get it on the ballot for this Nov. but chose to announce changing the law AFTER the deadline to have it on this years ballot for NYer's to vote on. He knew that if it was on the ballot it most likely would not be changed. As far as I am concerned, he is only concerned about his rich friends, especially those who are developers. In the eight years that he has been Mayor, my neighborhood has had a total of at least 20 new buildings built and others renovated to create LUXURY apartments and/or condos/co-ops. But the current infrastructure has not been thought about. This the same fo rmost of the city. It has been build, build, build. I would still vote against term limits given the chance which is my right as a resident. It is not the Mayors or the city councils to decide, but mine and I should be given that opportunity. That is DEMOCRACY.

    Posted by becca at 10/22/2008 @ 5:23pm

15. Ccc-The little runt out ran me,but my dog bit him on the butt. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 3:34pm

    Good. Make sure your dog isn't infected with Marxism now though.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 9:17pm

16. Ccc-He has had his anti Marxist shots.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 10:28pm

17. To paraphrase Karl Marx in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: law does nothing, people do. The rule of law is irrelevant in and of itself. More important is whose law is on point and how it is applied. Several examples illuminates this point. Slavery was law, but was it just. The financial services and modernation acts of our own day were law, but did they protect the American people from theft of public capital. The Voter Help Act -- give me a break! -- is law, but does it move us closer to protecting the vote of US citizens. Bloomberg is not the first despot to believe that he is above the law, no matter what that might be. There is a class war and progressives must declare it so or nothing will change.

    Posted by afrothetics at 10/23/2008 @ 07:18am

18. Bloomberg is not the first despot to believe that he is above the law, no matter what that might be. There is a class war and progressives must declare it so or nothing will change. Posted by afrothetics at 10/23/2008 @ 07:18am

    Absolutely!

    Bloomberg has been waging class war in NYC & it's no secret who's side he's always on.

    Enough.

    Soon time to go.

    Posted by sloper at 10/23/2008 @ 11:47am

19. More Katrina vanden Heuvel hysterics.

    She writes: "The key issue here isn't term limits – whether one is for or against them – but whether we are a democracy."

    Really?According to her, democracy is attacked when the mayor asks that a matter be deliberated and voted on for a third time. There are now not just term limits but vote limits. Does KVH also holds to that for other issues and in other legislative venues, as, for example, gun control, drug laws and capital punishment?

    And Katrina adds demagogy to ridiculousness by brandishing anonymous "allegations [of threats against] undecided council members." When did carrot and sticks trading stop being part of the legislative pr0cess?

    Furthermore, what does the financial standing of Bloomberg or of his friends have to do with a third term? It is either a good or a bad idea. It is either beneficial to have him continue as head of the city, or not. What is the point of injecting the matter of his wealth, except as an emotional twist, i.e., more KVH demagogy.

    Because clearly Bloomberg, a dollar a year man, is not enhancing his personal fortune, or that of his friends, by serving the city. To the contrary, having to delegate his business affairs to other is probably costing him plenty.

    What we have here is lefty spite, lefty envy, lefty malice, with a solid sprinkling of stupidity, i.e., sheer KVH, as against competence and common sense.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/24/2008 @ 12:24am