Public financing for elections, a mismatch between candidates and (funds/personnel for) journalism, and one possible solution

So, we just had a (yet unresolved) primary election with a lot of candidates for Mayor/Borough President/City Council/etc., many who persevered though, after a certain point, they were clearly not serious contenders. 

It's not easy to run for office, so in one sense they deserve kudos---- and the mayoral candidates, for example, had to develop sophisticated policy platforms.

Then again, some candidates may be running not to win, but, depending on the office, to position themselves for a run at a later date, or to get a job in a new administration. 

And the public spent nearly $110 million on it. As Daily News columnist Harry Siegel put it, the "generous public matching funds [made] each campaign its own little patronage operation."

Was it worth it?

This is two months worth of police overtime in the City. Spending on the institutions of representative democracy - elected representative and their staff, election infrastructure, matching funds - remains one the best and most efficient uses of taxpayers money. https://t.co/jMXUKfUkqV

— Moses Gates (@MosesNYC) June 22, 2021

I see the logic in both sentiments. 

While the public spending may seem excessive--and one critic suggested that the funding match be reduced to 6-to-1 from 8-to-1--we spent money on lots of things, not just police but also shelters for homeless people that cost far more than, well, housing. (Yes, some need just housing. Others need more.)

But the money wasn't simply spent on the "institutions of representative democracy," at least not unless we count consultants and advertising.

More $ for campaigns, less for journalism

I also see a huge imbalance between the amount of money spent on candidacies--a good amount fueled by matching funds--and the amount spent on public-service journalism. 

So voters got a lot of mail, and those campaign fliers deserved journalistic dissection and analysis, but largely escaped such scrutiny. As I wrote, nearly all the fliers for Brooklyn Borough President I received avoided the actual powers of the office.

Also, the campaign season--at least for the few Council races (and BP race) in Brooklyn I tried to follow--was dominated by "forums" where candidates got brief equal time to introduce themselves or weigh in on a question, but there were few real debates or opportunities for tough, follow-up questions.

Even as the daily newspapers continue to shrink their non-mayoral coverage, the smaller, more focused outlets--The City, City & State, Gotham Gazette--could only do so much, though they do good work. And the New York Times's withdrawal of Council endorsements left another gap.

Much of this comes down to money and personnel. There are too few reporters and too few publications for the volume of potential news.

After I wrote about the 35th Council District race, framing it--as had most other news coverage--as a contest between the two candidates with the most money and most endorsements, I was chastised for leaving out rival candidates.

That criticism wasn't unfair, and I did add their names, but didn't give their platforms attention. Why not? I was only writing once, without (typically small) payment for freelance work, and it was already late in the campaign.

But that race deserved incremental, episodic coverage, from journalists funded to pay sustained attention, or to produce one long wrap-up article. 

So too did many other races, some of which got even less attention. And though the mayoral race sucked up most of the journalistic attention, too much of it regarded the campaign volleys of the day, rather than an analysis of policy.

More journalism, please

What's the solution? As "news deserts" proliferate across the country, various proposals have surfaced. Here's one. As Steven Waldman wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times:

These strategies [tax changes, antitrust] would be more likely to work if Congress also took a few steps to help local news more generally. A bipartisan bill called the Local Journalism Sustainability Act provides tax credits for consumers to either buy a news subscription or donate to a local news nonprofit. It also provides a tax credit for small businesses to advertise in local newspapers.
This measure has support from both political parties because consumers and businesses choose which newsrooms to subsidize, not someone at a federal government agency. In addition, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has proposed including assistance for local news in the infrastructure bill. Local news is the infrastructure of democracy, and it is crumbling.

 As Waldman points out, that's not a partisan issue. More on the proposed legislation:

A non-refundable tax credit for consumers of up to $250 annually to incentivize individual subscriptions to local news organizations. The credit can cover 80 percent of subscription costs in the first year and 50 percent of subscription costs in the subsequent four years.
A refundable tax credit for local newspapers of up to $25,000 in the first year for each employee or independent contractor who is a qualified journalist, and up to $15,000 in the subsequent four years. If the tax credit is greater than taxes owed, the difference will be refunded to the news organization.
A non-refundable tax credit for small- to medium-sized businesses to advertise with local newspapers, as well as local radio and television stations. The credit can cover up to $5,000 of advertising costs in the first year and $2,500 in the subsequent four years.

There are numerous other models, including the philanthropy model that funds some worthy publications, like The City.

One reason the Local Journalism Sustainability Act sounds tempting at this moment is that it seems a potential parallel to matching funds. If we the public can robustly fund city (though not state) campaigns, can't we figure out a way to robustly fund journalism?

A NYC initiative and some caveats

In a New York Times guest essay 5/20/21 headlined How New York City Is Saving Its Local News Outlets, Sarah Bartlett, dean of the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, and Julie Sandorf, the president of the Charles H. Revson Foundation, wrote:

At a time when newsrooms nationwide are laying off reporters and some are closing down, a program begun by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration has been helping to sustain small, independent media outlets in every corner of the city.

In May 2019 he signed an executive order requiring city agencies to direct at least half their budgets for digital and print advertising to community newspapers and websites. These media outlets are often their communities’ most trusted sources of information. They publish in more than 30 languages throughout the five boroughs, serving immigrants, ethnic and religious groups and communities of color.

It has been a resounding success.

More than 220 of these news organizations received ads from 51 city agencies and departments totaling nearly $10 million in the program’s first year, according to a report from the Center for Community Media at CUNY’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. 

Here's a list of the very varied news organizations, which surprisingly--to me--includes publications like Brooklyn Paper and Brownstoner, owned by the ever-growing Schneps Media.

The authors' success story is the Brooklyn-based Haitian Times, which offered original reporting on the Haitian community during the COVID-19 crisis (and is run by a respected former New York Times reporter). 

My quick look at the publication's web site showed both endorsements and some news coverage of the campaigns. 

But the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, for example, gets NYC advertising and published a disingenous planted essay attributed to "staff."

So surely there's an argument for spending $10 million to bolster local publications. It certainly may help them inform their readership, in certain ways. But it doesn't guarantee robust coverage of campaigns.