New York State’s pathbreaking public campaign financing program made its debut in the 2024 election. It was a clear success, with broad participation among candidates from both parties who relied significantly more on small donors from their districts instead of big money and special interests compared with previous election cycles. Despite those results, some critics have raised the concern that candidates will use the system to fraudulently obtain public funds they don’t deserve, as illustrated by a recent post on the Federalist Society blog. As with any system, there have been isolated allegations of wrongdoing — but there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The state’s public financing program has multiple safeguards in place to protect against the rare attempts to defraud the system and punish perpetrators, and those guardrails are continuously being improved.
New York’s program is already transforming the campaign finance landscape for the better. Compared to the prior election, legislative candidates’ reliance on small donors in their districts shot up from 5 to 45 percent, and the share of money from big donors, corporations, and other entities dropped from 72 to 38 percent. Participation by small donors doubled, with more than 50,000 giving to candidates seeking to represent them in the legislature. These numbers show New York bucked a national trend that saw increased reliance on big donors in unprecedented ways. Among many other civic benefits, bolstering candidates’ ability to rely on small donors instead of a small pool of large funders helps protect against corruption in politics, as the 2013 state anticorruption commission that originally recommended the new system found.
To fully realize the benefits of public financing and maintain public trust, it is critical to protect matching funds from abuse throughout an election cycle. New York’s system contains multiple mechanisms to do so. The Public Campaign Finance Board reviews rigorous disclosures from candidates for eligibility and compliance with rules before releasing any public funds. The board has the power to request more information and initiate an investigation during the election. In addition to this real-time scrutiny, participating campaigns are subject to more detailed review in a post-election audit. The board audits all participating statewide candidates, all candidates who earn $500,000 or more in public funds, and a randomly selected one-third of all other participants. Commentary suggesting that the random assignment of audits is a “more relaxed approach” to oversight ignores the fact that post-election audits are just one of the board’s enforcement tools — and every participating candidate runs knowing they could be selected for an audit.
These compliance measures are backed by a strict enforcement regime. Violations are subject to fines up to $15,000. Knowingly submitting false information to the board is a crime subject to prosecution by the attorney general. Any fraudulently obtained public funds must be returned.
To be sure, no system is perfect. The board has already taken steps to make improvements. Case in point: Last year’s cycle saw an investigation into one assembly candidate over serious allegations of fraud ahead of the primary. The board responded by promptly tightening oversight controls before the general election. The new rule requires candidates to submit a contributor’s phone number or email alongside a physical address for each claim, making it harder for candidates to submit fraudulent claims. Going forward, the agency must continue to evaluate its rules to ensure the program’s integrity — a recommendation we’ve offered other public financing systems that have evolved over time.
Should we take seriously attempts to abuse the system? Absolutely. Protecting public funds is essential. But suggesting that any instance of alleged misconduct discredits an entire system diverges from reality. With the Public Campaign Finance Board’s ongoing work to maintain strong safeguards and lawmakers’ continued investment in the program itself, New York’s system can keep delivering the more responsive and accountable government all constituents deserve.
