Source: http://yourvotecountsnyc.net/law/advisory-opinions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:07:10+00:00

Document:
Each Advisory Opinion is based on the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions in effect at the time the Advisory Opinion was adopted. The New York City Campaign Finance Act and the Rules of the New York City Campaign Finance Board have been amended several times since many of the Board’s advisory opinions were issued. You should consult the most current versions of the Act and Rules to ensure that the reasoning and conclusions of an Advisory Opinion are still applicable, or contact the Board’s Legal Unit at (212) 409-1800.
To get copies of Advisory Opinions or to be placed on a mailing list for all Advisory Opinions issued by the Campaign Finance Board, please contact the Board’s Candidate Services Unit at (212) 409-1800.
You can check out the Advisory Opinion requests page here.
2013-2: Runoff in 2013 Democratic Mayoral Primary is "Reasonably Anticipated"
2013-3: Runoff primary in the Democratic Party election for public advocate is "reasonably anticipated"
On January 31, 2010, City Council Member Simcha Felder resigned. On February 1, 2010, the Mayor proclaimed a special election to be held on March 23, 2010, to fill this vacancy. The Board is issuing this advisory opinion to address the general requirements of the New York City Campaign Finance Act and the requirements for participation in the New York City Campaign Finance Program for this special election.
On March 1, 2009, Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, Jr. resigned. On March 2, 2009, the Mayor proclaimed a special election to be held on April 21, 2009, to fill this vacancy. The Board is issuing this advisory opinion to address the general requirements of the New York City Campaign Finance Act and the requirements for participation in the New York City Campaign Finance Program for this special election.
2009-5: Democratic Party Public Advocate Primary Runoff Election is "Reasonably Anticipated"
2009-6: Democratic Party Comptroller Primary Runoff Election is "Reasonably Anticipated"
2009-8: Guidance Concerning Contributions Raised by "Other Candidates"
For regularly scheduled elections held after January 1, 2008, a maximum of $175 of each matchable contribution may be counted towards the dollar amount threshold requirement, regardless of the date the contribution was originally received.
2008-5: Clarification of Factors to Determine Whether a Runoff Election is "Reasonably Anticipated"
New York City Charter (“Charter”) § 1136.1(2)(b) prohibits public servants from using government resources to distribute mass mailings within ninety days of an election for any elective office, subject to certain exceptions. Charter § 1136.1(2)(b) applies to City Council members who choose to run for party district leader, because the office of party district leader is an “elective office” pursuant to Charter § 1136.1(1)(d).
2005-2: Runoff Election in 2005 Democratic Mayoral Primary is "Reasonably Anticipated"
Based on the information now available, the Board has determined that a Democratic mayoral runoff election is “reasonably anticipated.” Candidates seeking nomination for election in the 2005 Democratic mayoral primary may therefore accept contributions for a runoff election to be deposited in a separate runoff account. Allowance for accepting contributions for a runoff is not open-ended. Once it is no longer reasonable to anticipate a runoff, the Board may so determine.
A candidate participating in the Program is liable for the repayment obligations of the candidate's principal committee, and a participating candidate's obligation to repay public funds from a previous election precludes payments to that candidate's principal committee for a subsequent election.
The expenditure limit applicable to City Council candidates in the 2003 elections contained in Campaign Finance Board Rule 1-08(j) is applicable to the period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, although expenditures made prior to January 12, 2002 by candidates in the 2001 elections will be presumed to be made in furtherance of the candidate’s 2001 campaign. The Board will consider whether it needs to address the expenditure limits for the 2005 City Council elections.
2001-1: Runoff Election in 2001 Democratic Mayoral Primary is "Reasonably Anticipated"
Based on the information now available, the Board has determined that a Democratic mayoral runoff election is “reasonably anticipated.” Candidates participating in the Program and in the Democratic mayoral primary may therefore accept contributions for a runoff election to be deposited in a separate runoff account. Allowance for accepting contributions for a runoff is not open-ended. Once it is no longer reasonable to anticipate a runoff, the Board may so determine.
2001-3: Runoff Election in 2001 Democratic Public Advocate Primary Not "Reasonably Anticipated"
Based on the information currently available to the Campaign Finance Board, a Democratic Public Advocate runoff election is not reasonably anticipated at this time, under Rule 1-04(q).
Taxes paid on income earned on contributions to a participant’s campaign are not exempt expenditures within the meaning of Campaign Finance Act § 3-706(4).
2001-6: Separate Limited Liability Companies or Separate Limited Partnership, Together With Common Managing Member or General Partner, Considered "Single Source"
Separate limited liability companies or separate limited partnerships, together with a common managing member or general partner, will be considered a single source pursuant to Rule 1-04(h) for the purposes of calculating contribution limits, unless the specific operating agreement or partnership agreement limits the authority of the managing member or general partner to make such contributions.
The transfer of receipts between a committee’s primary and/or general election account and its runoff account, pursuant to Rule 2-06(c)(2), would violate the Campaign Finance Act if the transfer results in contributions which exceed the applicable contribution limits for any election. The Campaign Finance Board will apply a “reverse chronological order” methodology to determine whether the transfer includes over-the-limit contributions.
Matchable contribution claims that have been invalidated by the Board may not be counted towards a candidate’s threshold requirement for public financing. According to the plain language of the Campaign Finance Act (the “Act”), only “matchable contributions” can be used to meet threshold. Invalidated matchable contribution claims are not “matchable contributions” within the meaning of the Act and therefore cannot be used to meet the threshold requirement.
2001-10: Runoff Election in 2001 Democratic Public Advocate Primary is "Reasonably Anticipated"
Based on the information currently available to the Campaign Finance Board, a Democratic Party Public Advocate primary runoff election is reasonably anticipated at this time, under Rule 1-04(q).
2000-3: Guidelines for Checks Drawn By a Non-Contributor as "Matchable Contributions"
Any unspent funds that remain in an account held by a Transition and Inaugural entity after that entity has paid all liabilities associated with inaugural and transition activities must be returned to one or more of the Transition and Inaugural entity’s donors.
The Board has no authority to waive the Campaign Finance Act’s $6,500 contribution limit applicable in the 1993 mayoral elections. Thus, a 1993 candidate may not raise contributions in excess of this limit for the purpose of retiring outstanding liabilities from the 1993 elections.
Candidates participating in the Campaign Finance Program may accept contributions from limited liability companies.
Certifications to join the Campaign Finance Program for the upcoming primary and general elections in Council District 4 must be filed no later than July 8, 1999, the seventh day after the Mayor proclaimed the election to fill this vacancy.
In general, participating candidates unopposed on the ballot in a primary election held because of an opportunity to ballot petition may not receive public funds for that election. This opinion overrules Advisory Opinion No. 1997-11 (October 9, 1999) and is codified in new Campaign Finance Board Rule 5-01(q), adopted today.
A “political action committee” or “PAC” authorized by a candidate participating in the New York City Campaign Finance Program is subject to the contribution and expenditure limits, and other requirements, of the New York City Campaign Finance Act.
Under the new debate law, an organization that makes an endorsement in a primary election for a City-wide office remains eligible to sponsor a general election debate among candidates for that same office, as long as that organization does not make an endorsement for the general election before its debate is held.
1997-2: Application of Spending Limit to Television Commercials When a Runoff Primary Is "Reasonably Anticipated"
A candidate participating in the Campaign Finance Program may receive public funds after the candidate’s sole opponent is removed from the ballot, provided that the candidate otherwise demonstrates qualification for public funds payments under the Campaign Finance Act and Board rules.
A primary election debate is not required pursuant to the debate law when only one candidate in the primary election is participating in the Campaign Finance Program.
Under the debate law, an alternative non-partisan voter education program for the second general election debate will take place even if only one candidate for city-wide office participating in the Campaign Finance Program is required to appear. The sponsoring organization has wide discretion to determine the nature and timing of this alternative program.
A candidate participating in the Campaign the Campaign Finance Program, who appears as the only candidate on the ballot in a primary election when an opportunity to ballot has been filed, may receive public matching funds for the primary election should the candidate otherwise meet all Program requirements.
A campaign may not pay for costs associated with a party for the purpose of thanking contributors, volunteers, and others who assisted with the election in advance of the required repayment of public funds. Such an activity is not considered a post-election wind-up cost, as the cost is not nominal, the activity is not routine, and the invitation to contributors would circumvent the Board’s rules.
In the special election to be held in City Council district five on January 16, 1996, the Campaign Finance Board disclosure statement due on January 16 will be considered timely if filed by close of business on January 17. In addition, the requirements for daily disclosures in the week before the election will not be in effect for this election.
A participating candidate who demonstrates to the Board a reasonable basis for anticipating a primary election in any party for the office the candidate seeks may attribute expenditures to the primary election expenditure limit, whether or not the candidate is seeking the nomination of that party.
All expenditures made by a participating candidate once that candidate no longer reasonably anticipates a primary election are subject to the general election expenditure limit. The candidate may not make additional expenditures attributable to the primary election limit, even if the candidate’s total expenditures subject to the primary limit are less than the primary election expenditures made by that candidate’s general election opponent.
If a private entity pays for advertisements featuring an elected official who is a candidate participating in the New York City Campaign Finance Program, the Board will consider whether the payment for the candidate’s appearance was made in connection with the election. If so, the payment would be an in-kind contribution to and an expenditure by the candidate, subject to the limits of the Act.
When a bona fide broadcaster makes a non-partisan judgment to stage a debate between two mayoral candidates, and not to invite other mayoral candidates to appear at the debate, the costs incurred by the broadcaster in staging the debate will not be a contribution to, or expenditure by, the two candidates who were invited to or who appear at the debate.
Filing deadlines and other requirements for February 26, 1991 special election in City Council district twenty-nine.
Compensation paid to non-legal staff for overseeing and coordinating a participating candidate’s petitioning efforts is exempt from the spending limits.
Contributions made to play games at a political fundraiser may be matchable contributions if the event is clearly identified as a political fundraiser and the low cost household items given to the winners do not have intrinsic and enduring value, and are not valuable.
Characterization of public matching funds paid on the basis of the sixth periodic disclosure statement, due to be filed on September 23, 1991, as relating to either the preceding primary or subsequent general election. On the basis of this statement, an eligible candidate in both elections will receive a primary election payment. If, however, total primary payments have reached one of the applicable legal caps, that candidate (if otherwise eligible) will receive a general election payment.
Legal requirements applicable to participating candidates in the “re-run” Democratic primary election in the 14th, 30th and 40th Council districts, or any other such Council primary election that may be held this year pursuant to a court order.
By law, participating candidates who were in court ordered re-run primary elections received an additional $1,500 contribution limit (for a total limit of $4,500 for all 1991 Council elections). In districts where re-run primaries were canceled, if a participant demonstrates that the portion of a contribution between $3,000 and $4,500 was used to pay expenses in the canceled re-run election, that contribution will not be treated as a violation of the Campaign Finance Act’s contribution limit.
Whether contributions issued on personal checks and received for advertisements promoting businesses owned by the contributors in a fundraising journal published by the candidate’s authorized committee may qualify as threshold or matchable contributions.
Filing deadlines and contribution limits for the special election on May 15, 1990 to fill the vacancy in City Council, district one.
Restrictions on loans made by participating candidates to their own campaigns and the penalties applicable to a campaign with an outstanding loan balance on election day in excess of the applicable contribution limit.
Filing deadlines and other requirements for primary and general elections to be held in 1990 for City Council, district one.
Whether a bank makes a contribution if it reduces its charges for providing photocopies because of the large volume of copies provided.
Whether a 1989 participating candidate may transfer funds from his 1989 campaign committee to a newly authorized committee in certain circumstances.
Whether the expenditure limitation apply to the expenditure of government appropriations by an office-holder for constituent services or expenses incidental to the holding of a public office.
Whether particular expenses related to incumbent office-holding, fundraising, contributions, political payments, telephone bills, polls, rental, and accountants expenditures are covered by the 1988 or 1989 expenditure limits.
Whether certain expenditures incurred in connection with a direct mail solicitation of contributions and fundraising birthday dinner are subject to the 1988 or 1989 expenditure limits.
Administrative Code §3-706(5) (b) supersedes those aspects of Advisory Opinion No. 1989-2, dated January 3, 1989, which relate to fundraising.
Whether a participating candidate may accept checks drawn on the account of one individual which represent contributions from that individual, his or her spouse, and his or her unemancipated children.
Whether the costs associated with a fundraising event which are paid for by the persons who attend the event are considered to be expenditures made by a candidate subject to the expenditure limits.
Whether interest earned on accounts into which contributions are deposited is considered to be a contribution.
Whether certain services performed for a candidate by law firm partners and associates are subject to the expenditure limits.
Whether certain expenditures made by a prospective candidate are subject to the expenditure limits.
Whether a candidate’s use of his or her home and home telephone for campaign purposes constitute a contribution and expenditure subject to contribution and expenditure limits.
The treatment of invitations, food, and services voluntarily provided by an individual or his or her residential premises for campaign-related activities as contributions or expenditures.
Whether participating candidates may use public funds for certain purposes including rental and purchase of various items and payment of expenses.
1989-14: Certain Expenditures as Expenses Made "In Connection With the Solicitation of Funds"
1989-15: Certain Expenditures as "Expenditures for Professional Services"
The information which must be disclosed about a threshold or matchable contribution; items of negligible value need not be deducted from threshold/matchable amount.
Whether matchable and threshold contributions may be claimed on Board of Elections forms.
Whether particular activities (luncheons) are contributions or expenditures.
Whether candidates may file pre-effective date reports without identifying the particular committee which accepted a contribution or made an expenditure.
Whether donations of art and the proceeds of an art auction held by a campaign committee to raise funds are contributions.
Whether a candidate is subject to a separate expenditure limit for an anticipated primary election, if ultimately that primary election is not held.
Whether a candidate in a primary election may make expenditures for the general election before the date of the primary and attribute those expenditures to the general election fundraising allowance.
Whether public funds may be used to pay for educational literature distributed at fundraising events and for vehicles used for various purposes.
Whether a candidate in a contested primary, who receives the nomination of another party without opposition, may make expenditures subject to the general election expenditure limit before the date of the primary election.
Whether a loan of equipment is an in-kind contribution to and expenditure by the campaign and whether the identity of the lender of the equipment impacts the treatment of the equipment loan.
Whether certain activities undertaken by a political action committee are independent of the candidate supported by that committee.
Whether a campaign committee reimbursement of a borough president’s use of a City car to make a political endorsement is a campaign expenditure.
Whether payments made by a campaign committee to compensate a mayoral advisor are campaign expenditures.
Whether public funds may be used for certain purposes.
Whether the cost or rental attributed to the portion of a campaign headquarters used for a fundraising operation may be attributed to the fundraising allowance.
The standards which apply to the collection and disclosure of information about contributions.
Whether certain items have a negligible value, such that they need not be deducted from threshold/matchable amount.
The range of activities covered by the exemption from the expenditure limits for compliance activities.
Whether payments for certain events by an organization are contributions to or expenditures by candidates appearing at the events.
Whether certain joint expenditures for literature by two candidates participating in the Campaign Finance Program are considered in-kind contributions to or expenditures by each candidate.
Whether certain payments made by an organization are contributions to or expenditures by a candidate who appears at an event sponsored by the organization.
Whether certain contributions are treated as having been made by a single entity for purposes of the contribution limits.
Whether a loan may be “converted” into a contribution that qualifies as a threshold or matchable contribution.
Whether the cost of meals and travel expenses of volunteers working on a challenge to the validity of designating petition is exempt from the expenditure limits.
Whether loans made by a candidate’s authorized committee to a political party are exempt from the expenditure limits.
Whether the portion of a loan which is not paid by the date of the election is a contribution in certain circumstances.
Whether a candidate may make contributions to his or her own campaign which qualify as threshold or matchable contributions.
The contribution and expenditure limits and public financing requirements applicable in a write-in primary election.
The manner in which the Board determines that a participating candidate is eligible for two-to-one matching public fund payments and the removal of expenditure limits based on funds received or expended by a non-participating opponent in the general election.
The use of contributions accepted by a participating candidate for a runoff election which is not held or for a general election in which the candidate is not entered.
Whether the principal committee treasurer of a candidate who is defeated in a primary election and is not otherwise a candidate in the general election is required to file campaign finance disclosure reports thirty-two, eleven, and four days before, and twenty-seven days after, the general election.
Whether a campaign committee of a defeated primary election candidate may accept post-election loans from individuals who previously made primary election contributions equal to the maximum amount permitted under the contribution limit of Administrative Code §3-703(1) (f).
Whether a candidate is eligible to receive public funds in a general election in which the official ballot does not contain the name of an opposing candidate.
Whether a candidate in the general election may use contributions accepted for the primary election to pay for certain “winding down” expenses incurred after the date of the general election.
Whether contributions made by a corporation and two individuals who each “own” fifty percent of the corporation are treated as having been made by a single entity for purposes of the contribution limits.
Whether the Campaign Finance Act restricts a political committee authorized by a candidate from expending contributions for the purpose of advocating a position on a ballot proposal.
Whether taxes paid under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and the New York State’s unemployment insurance law are subject to the expenditure limits of the Act.
Whether contributions used for transition and inaugural expenses are subject to the contribution and expenditure limits of the Act; whether contributions may be used for transition and inaugural expenses prior to making repayment to the public fund pursuant to Administrative Code§3-710(2) (c).
Whether contributions accepted for the 1989 election may be used to pay for holiday cards to be mailed in December 1989.
The return of undeposited contributions; whether segregated monies may be used for transition and inaugural expenses; whether a political committee raising and spending funds solely for transition and inaugural expenses is subject to the jurisdiction of the Campaign Finance Board.
Whether 1988 expenditures for a 1989 election, covered by the 1988 expenditure limit, are also subject to the 1989 expenditure limits.
Whether particular campaign expenditures for paper supplies, equipment, literature, polls and mailing labels are covered by the 1988 or 1989 expenditure limits.
Deadlines for filing certification to participate in program, triggered by filing of “sworn verified statement” under N.Y. Election Law §14-112.
Whether a participating candidate may make expenditures in an amount up to the expenditure limitation for a primary election if that candidate is not opposed or not entered in a primary election.
Whether a participating candidate may receive public funds, even if that candidate has raised monies in excess of expenditure limitation applicable to the primary or general election.
Whether a participating candidate may carry over, for expenditure in the general election, the unspent portion of a primary election contribution.

References: § 1136
 § 1136
 § 1136
 § 3
 §3
 §3
 §14