MARTIN E.

CONNOR
Counselor at Law 61 Pierrepont Street, #71 Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: 718-875-1010 Fax : 718-875-6044 e-mail: sendem1@aol.com

By Hand Delivery July 31, 2013 Ms. Peri Horowitz Director of Campaign Finance Administration New York City Campaign Finance Board 40 Rector Street New York, New York 10006 Re: John Liu 2013 Campaign (the Campaign) Dear Ms. Horowitz: I am writing in response to your letter of Friday, July 19, 2013 which was delivered to my office very late that afternoon and was accompanied by 1,751 Invalid Matching Claims Reports covering the period from December 2010 through July 15, 2013 (Statement Numbers 2 through 8) as well as the 105 page Report of Thacher Associates (Thacher Report) with exhibits thereto. Frankly, it is more than unfair that you gave the Campaign a mere eight business days to respond to such a voluminous amount of documentation. This is especially so when every other campaign was given Invalid Matching Claims after every Statement as provided in the Rules of the New York City Campaign Finance Board (the CFB). Thus, the other campaigns were afforded periods totaling 32 months to reply to Invalid Matching Claims Reports and correct information respecting the matching claims. That the Campaign has been given only eight business days to do so must be taken as evidence of the CFB staffs intent to deny the Campaign a fair opportunity to make its case for matching funds to the Board. You have referenced your letter of May 20, 2013. The peremptory nature of that letter as well as the fact that you told me in our telephone conversation on May 29 that you had other negative information about the Campaign that you could not reveal left me with nothing to which I could fairly reply. The fact that the Campaign had not received Matching Claims Reports for two and a half years was further reason not to write. It is impossible to defend against information that is being kept secret.

SUMMARY OF THE CAMPAIGN The Campaign has received funds from 6,339 contributors, 6,259 of whom are individuals as opposed to labor organizations or PACs. The Campaign has no funds whatsoever from people doing business with the City or people seeking to do business with the Comptrollers Office. The average contribution is $535. The Campaign has the largest percentage of small donors among all the candidates for Mayor. Thus, the Campaign best exemplifies the policy of the NYC public financing program of empowering small donors and creating ethnic and geographic diversity in the pool of contributors to New York political campaigns. Straw donors The arrest of Xing Wu Oliver Pan, testimony in the trial of Pan and former treasurer Jia Jenny Hou, and the Thacher Report interviews revealed a total of 35 donors reimbursed by someone else, all of whose contributions were refunded immediately upon the Campaign learning about those circumstances.. In all the trial testimony and the admissions made to the Thacher investigators, not a single word was ever spoken suggesting that the candidate or anyone working for the Campaign as staff or full-time volunteer ever knew of any of these straw donors. Indeed, those who testified at the trial said they took great care to hide their reimbursements from the Campaign.

YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CAMPAIGN STAFF In your letter you cite as one of the reasons for your recommendation that matching funds be denied to the Campaign the fact that the Campaign employs Mei Hua Ru, Chung Seto and Sharon Lee. Such a blanket condemnation of these individuals is totally unwarranted. Mei Hua Ru There is no doubt that Mei Hua Ru played a significant role in fundraising for the campaign from the beginning of the effort for 2013. Her status was as a full time volunteer since she spent in excess of 35 hours a week on the campaign. Of course, as a fulltime volunteer she was not an intermediary for any contributions solicited or received by her. More recently, she became a paid staff member of the campaign. Not a single statement or document has been produced that even suggests that Ms. Ru was involved with, or aware of, any violation of law or existence of straw donors. Neither the testimony at the trial of Mr. Pan and Ms. Hou nor the Thacher Report contains any assertion that anyone ever made Ms. Ru aware of any contributor being reimbursed for his/her contribution. The fact that Ms. Ru was acquainted with Mr. Pan and met with the FBI undercover agent is not evidence of any wrongdoing on her part. Indeed, (i) the fact that she was recorded by the undercover agent and (ii) the publicly known fact that her telephone was tapped by the FBI

for eighteen months, and yet no charges have ever been made against her, demonstrates that she did not engage in any wrongdoing. Frankly, your citing her continuing work for the campaign as somehow worthy of denying the campaign of matching funds is an outrageous example of using guilt by association that is unworthy of a public officer and a public agency.

Chung Seto Your letter also singles out Chung Setos ongoing role in the campaign due to her role as an intermediary for several problematic contributions discussed in the Thacher Report. The fact is that Ms. Seto had no contact whatsoever with anyone at [a law firm]. For fundraising events Ms. Seto helped organize, she used her own fax number on the invitation. The invitations and contribution forms were widely distributed by the hosts of events, other people and campaign staff. A number of contributors submitted credit card contributions by faxing the forms to the number listed thereon. Ms. Seto then delivered these contributions to the treasurer. Since during that time period Ms. Seto was not retained by the campaign as a consultant, by virtue of such delivery she became an intermediary for a number of contributions (including those by the [law firm] people by operation of CFB Rules. This was notwithstanding the fact that she neither solicited the contributions nor knew the contributors. Apart from the [law firm] situation, discussed further infra, there is no basis whatsoever for your assertion that Ms. Setos role in the campaign justifies the negative inference you are drawing. Sharon Lee Ms. Lee was a part-time volunteer for the campaign in 2011 and 2012. Her role in the Campaigns fundraising operations in 2011 primarily consisted of assisting the then-treasurer, Ms. Hou, with data entry. In her testimony at the federal trial earlier this year, Ms. Lee stated that she had called several family and friends in 2011 and asked them to contribute to the Campaign. She acknowledged offering to reimburse some of them. They all lived outside the State of New York. According to news reports, Ms. Lee testified that she did not know how bad it was to make the offer in lieu of actually reimbursing any contribution. Her mother did contribute. However, she was not reimbursed. Of course, the contribution was not matchable since it was from a California resident. Based on her contrition for this one mistaken idea that never materialized as well as her competency and experience, Ms. Lee was hired by the campaign on April 1, 2013 to handle press relations and related matters.

INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL A newspaper story in October 2011 pointed out problems with respect to a number of contributors who had listed incorrect addresses or employment information on their contribution cards. This led to a level of scrutiny of the Campaign to which no other citywide campaign had ever been subjected prior to an election. It quickly became known that the FBI had been investigating the Campaign for two years prior. Eventually, the public learned that the FBI had been wiretapping the telephones of the candidate and his two principal volunteers in fundraising efforts for a period of 18 months. Lost in the press frenzy this fueled is the fact that not a single bit of evidence of wrongdoing by the candidate or anyone involved in the Campaign was adduced from the monitoring of the telephone conversations. Shortly thereafter a person who had volunteered to put together a fundraiser for the Campaign, Oliver Pan, was arrested for carrying out a straw donor scheme initiated by an FBI undercover agent. The media decided that Mr. Pan was a top fundraiser for the Campaign. In reality he was a community member who volunteered to organize a small fundraiser. Not a single bit of evidence was ever produced to indicate that the candidate or anyone employed by the Campaign, either as staff or full-time volunteers, had any knowledge of Mr. Pans scheme. Immediately following Mr. Pans arrest the Campaign refunded every contribution connected with him. There has been no recognition of the fact that the Campaign was the victim of Pans scheme, was politically damaged by it, and in no way benefitted from it financially. Meanwhile, the Campaign was struggling to comply with substantial demands for producing documents and records for both the CFB and the federal government. At the same time, the Campaign was insuring compliance regarding ongoing fundraising and was also working to file an accurate report of intermediaries. (Totally lost to anyones attention was the fact that rival campaigns were also playing catch-up and filing intermediaries months after their reports.) Later, the Campaigns then-treasurer, Ms. Hou, was charged with conspiring with Mr. Pan to commit wire fraud to get matching funds, attempted wire fraud involving a former boyfriend and two counts of obstruction of justice. Testimony by three business owners indicated their motivation in inducing their employees to attend a fundraiser was keeping a promise that they had made to a wealthy man from whom much of their work was derived. Jeffrey Wu, a powerful and respected businessman who was hiring for a multi-million dollar construction renovation project in Flushing, Queens, had asked these business owners, who wanted contracts for that work, to commit to finding a number of contributors to the Campaign. These businessmen testified that most of the contributors they recruited donated their own money and were not reimbursed. However, each of them admitted to reimbursing some

contributors. They further testified that they did not tell Mr. Wu or anyone connected with the Campaign that they had reimbursed contributors. They also lied as the campaign made attempts to have them send in corrected donor forms. The 14 contributions that they admitted to reimbursing were refunded by the Campaign. Ms. Hou was found Not Guilty of the conspiracy involving Mr. Pan and straw donors. She was convicted of attempted wire fraud for asking a former boyfriend for his credit card number in order to contribute to the Campaign and offering to reimburse him. However, she abandoned her plan to use his credit card and he never did contribute to the Campaign. If the contribution had been made, it would not have been matchable since he lived in New Jersey. She was also convicted of the two obstruction charges. THE THACHER ASSOCIATES REPORT The Executive Summary to the Thacher Report totally mischaracterizes the results of the trial in the Southern District of New York. First, it describes both defendants as having been found guilty of the charges against them, which is not true, since Ms. Hou was actually found Not Guilty of the charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in order to get City matching funds. In addition, the Thacher Report imputes to the Campaign the actions of various individuals who did, in fact, recruit straw donors, when the testimony at trial clearly demonstrates that those individuals went to great lengths to hide what they were doing from the Campaign. The Thacher Reports conclusion that some contributors did not live at the addresses they gave is totally unsubstantiated by the facts asserted as a matter of law. The New York State Election Law specifies a definition of residence that the courts have held is the equivalence of domicile. There are literally hundreds of residence cases. In sum, the cases hold, among other things, that a person may claim as their residence (i) their childhood home even if they and their spouse and children stay at a different place; (ii) a place where they stay only once every few years and receive mail; (iii) a summer home where they stay but a few weekends a year; (iv) numerous other variations of occasional occupancy. Furthermore, the New York State Constitution has provisions providing for continuity of residence at a place a person may be away from for years or decades. For example, the Constitution states that a person shall not lose a residence because he/she is away in military service, imprisoned or engaged in studying at an educational institution. Legitimate residences can be a vacant lot for a career military person if there was a house there that was her family home when the person left New York. The person can continue to vote there for decades. The point is that defining a persons residence is a complex legal matter that involves more than someone saying a person only stays here a few days a week. As such it is beyond the competence of Thacher Associates, or the CFB, to make such a determination on a visit or chat with a neighbor.

The pure ignorance of the CFB Rules by Thacher Associates is exemplified by their setting forth in the Executive Summary a section finding that the fact that some contributors did not know their intermediaries as evidence of unlawful activity. The CFB Rules compel, for example, that for an event with multiple hosts only one host be designated for all contributors at the event. Thus, your agency compels people to be named as the intermediary for contributors they do not know and who are not known to the contributors. Similarly, a person who delivers contributions is an intermediary for the contributions she delivers. The Campaign has no way of knowing for sure from whom the intermediary received the checks. One would expect the CFB would correct such misrepresentations of its own Rules by an agency it employs, unless the CFB staff is anxious to create the appearance of wrongdoing to bolster a decision it has already made. Concluding that some contributors are in low income jobs and therefore could not have made their contributions is highly presumptuous, unjustified and effectively discriminatory when based on nothing more than one reported job title. It ignores multiple factors that could apply to the contributor. Lottery and gaming winnings, a spouse with a higher income, a high rate of savings, inheritances and rental income are just a few possibilities. Raising this issue in the context of a campaign supported largely by Asian-Americans is inappropriate and offensive. The CFB claims to administer its public financing program in order to help level the playing field and empower ordinary people of any income level to participate in the political process by contributing. The CFB ought not be putting forth an assertion like this to justify denying matching the contributions of large numbers of working New Yorkers, many of whom are first time donors. The rest of the Executive Summary is more than scurrilous. The assertion that some of the people Thacher attempted to interview, but did not interview, contributed after Ms. Hou resigned as treasurer is meaningless. The Summary speculates that they might find more things and makes a guilt by association argument concerning people who attended events involved in other persons wrongdoing. These conclusions have no basis in any relevant facts discovered in Thachers investigation. [Company 1] The interviews conducted with this companys employers demonstrated in all respects that nothing improper occurred with respect to the contributions. [An individual intermediary] He was identified as having solicited and delivered four contributions, one of which was from his son. Accordingly, as the Thacher Report notes, who was correctly reported to be the intermediary for the three contributions that were not from a family member.

With respect to Dr. [name] being described as self-employed for his initial contribution, it is certainly not remarkable that a physician should so regard himself. Physicians routinely maintain private practices as well as affiliation arrangements with hospitals. Finally, it should be noted that the initial contribution listing Dr. [name] as self-employed was in 2010 and the later two were in the middle of 2012. Is it any of the campaigns (or the CFBs) business to demand a physician disclose how his hospital affiliation relationship may have changed in 18 months? In any event, the Thacher Report fails to mention that the Campaign has updated Dr. [name] employer information for the first contribution. The contributions by the five other employees made in connection with the December 7, 2010 fundraiser were not reported as intermediated by Dr. [name] because they were not intermediated by anyone according to CFB Rules. The event was a campaign-sponsored event, paid for by the campaign. Thus, the co-hosts were not intermediaries according to the law. The initials [initials] on the contribution cards merely indicate who attended with and sat with Dr. [name] at the event. Thats the simplest explanation which is usually the correct one. With respect to the difference in dates between the contribution cards and the receipt and processing of the credit card payments later there is also a simple explanation. Namely, the contributors obtained the contribution cards at the December 7 event and used that date on the card. They did not pay until December 27, perhaps after receiving a follow-up call from the Campaign. Is it really reasonable for Thacher Associates to infer that these licensed physicians all violated the law somehow? Despite the slanting in that direction by the Report, there is no evidence of wrongdoing here by the contributors or the campaign. [Company 2 and name of intermediary] The treasurer attended a birthday party for [name] on July 6, 2011. She received some checks directly from the contributors who were at the party and Mr. [name] delivered some to her from other contributors. Since the people at the party were all friends of Mr. [name] attending his birthday party, the treasurer assumed Mr. [name] had solicited their contributions. Accordingly, Mr. [name] was reported as the intermediary for both every contribution made at the party and those delivered to the treasurer by Mr. [name] from people who were not at the party. The Thacher Report did not disclose any negative information about any of these contributions. [Company 3 and name of intermediary] This is a large company with many employees. [name] was reported as an intermediary for those contributions she solicited and/or delivered. The fact that other employees of a large business with five locations may have contributed various amounts (including some small donations) is neither remarkable nor indicative of any role by [name] in their contributions. The 7

many employees of this company have a life beyond their jobs. They belong to community and social organizations and attend fundraisers on their own. The only person interviewed confirmed her husbands contribution and even volunteered the source of the funds from her employment. No problems were identified with this group of contributions. [Company 4] The only contributors interviewed stated that they had made the contributions themselves and were not reimbursed by anyone. The December 7, 2010 fundraiser was a large campaign-sponsored event with many cohosts and was paid for by the campaign. Thus, none of the hosts were intermediaries. [name] initials were on the contribution cards of those he invited and with whom he was seated at the event. All of the information elicited clearly demonstrates no unlawful activity with respect to this contributor. [An individual contributor] [name] (misspelled as [middle name off by one letter] in 2009 records) and [same first and last name, middle name different] are brothers. At one time they owned and managed a store together. This accounts for the fact that they were, at one time, both managers of the same store. [name] (also known as [American name]) now manages a restaurant, [name of restaurant]. The Campaign imported address and old employment data by mistake since the CSMART software does not deal efficiently with the many similar Chinese names from whom the campaign receives contributions. The Campaign also has different addresses for these men at various times moving back and forth from [Queens] to the [Manhattan address] and the [other Manhattan address] addresses. So the Campaign may have mixed up information for the two brothers ---just like the professionals at Thacher Associates have done. Certainly, that is no wrongdoing on the part of the Campaign. Frankly, the Thacher Associates analysis of public housing income limits and rental data is offensive and possibly racist. Certainly, no agency of New York City government ought to draw the inferences being suggested. Thankfully, there are federal remedies for discrimination by a local governmental agency based on considerations such as put forth in this section of the Report.

Both brothers have managed, and are managing, businesses and are past contributors. To suggest they could not possibly afford their contributions demonstrates incredible bias toward people from an immigrant community. Finally, neither the Thacher Associates nor the staff of the CFB are qualified to analyze handwriting, much less so that of Chinese-Americans who are haltingly signing a transliterated version of their real names. Any qualified forensic handwriting expert will attest to the fact that a comparison of a signature with multiple exemplars is necessary to draw a conclusion about whether signatures are signed by the same person. Furthermore, the same experts will agree that the physical circumstances of the signer will affect his/her signature. Thus, a signature placed on a check written while at home seated at a desk or table may look different from a signature by the same person affixed to a contribution card while the person is standing at the sign-in table at a fundraiser. In sum, there is nothing to this section of the Report except understandable confusion of two brothers names and some very offensive innuendo.

[An individual intermediary] All contributors stated that they had made their contributions and had not been reimbursed. The fact that the contributors did not know [name of intermediary] is not relevant. The only knowledge the Campaign had was that the contributions were delivered to the campaign by [name of intermediary]. Therefore, she was appropriately reported as the intermediary. [Company 5] Three employees who contributed said they had contributed their own money and were not reimbursed. [Company 6] The one contributor acknowledged her contribution and said it was her own money and that she was not reimbursed by anyone. She similarly vouched for her brothers contribution. Her statement that her niece contributed but it was really the nieces mothers money does not necessarily mean there was a reimbursement involved. Many children are supported by their parents in whole or in part well into adulthood. The niece is a full time student. It is thus quite likely that the niece receives an allowance from her mother. In that case when she receives the money from her mother it becomes her own money. Another possibility is that her mother is deceased and what the woman interviewed meant was that the niece was spending her mothers money that the daughter had inherited. Unfortunately, the professionals from Thacher Associates did not pursue the matter in the interview. It appears they had the gotcha thing they were sent out to get and didnt want to spoil it with a thorough exploration of the facts. 9

[Company 7] The only contributor actually interviewed stated that she had contributed her own money, was not reimbursed by anyone and, according to the Report, identified her signature on the contribution card and check. (It should be noted that throughout this Report the professionals from Thacher Associates talk of showing contributors donor cards and checks. However, that is impossible. They are in fact showing copies of copies of such documents). The rest of this section of the Report discusses the suspicious fact that contributors all attended the May 9, 2011 fundraising event. It was in connection with that event that the businessmen who testified at the trial reimbursed some contributors. The fact is the May 9 event was a very large one attended by many people. The attempt to infer that contributions from employees of [Company 7] are somehow illegal because they attended the fundraiser is nothing more than an ugly assertion of guilt by association. Furthermore, the lengthy analysis of the similarities in name and timing of contributions from [contributor] and [another contributor with same last name], is almost too ridiculous to address. The obvious answer is that they are spouses or otherwise related. So what? [Company 8] Two employees of this company were interviewed. They both said they contributed their own money and were not reimbursed. One contributor, [name], said he was reimbursed by [another name not from Company 8]. [name of contributor] is an employee of [different company]. [name of a third person] was reported as an intermediary for contributions he delivered to the Campaign. There is no way the Campaign could have known the [name of contributor] contribution even passed through [another name as above] hands to [name of third person], the person who delivered the checks to the Campaign. The [name of contributor] contribution has been refunded by the Campaign. The rest of this section of the Report is a pointless discussion of similarities between three contributors named [same last name] with such startling revelations such as the fact that they have the same address. [A law firm] The explanation has already been made herein as to how Chung Seto came to be the intermediary for the seven contributions connected to this firm. Any inference that she knew these people or was involved with soliciting contributions from them is totally unwarranted. These contributors were given the credit card contribution forms by someone unknown to the Campaign. They faxed their contributions to Ms. Setos number.

10

Later, at the urging of a paralegal named [name], three of the contributors demanded refunds (disputed their credit card charges) because [paralegal name] decided the entire Campaign was a scam. The basis for this was that she conducted her own research and discovered the fax number was in Chinatown (Ms. Setos address) and the credit card account was listed at a residential address in Queens (treasurer Jenny Hous apartment which was then doubling as the Campaigns office.) The treasurer backed up the credit card transactions. This resulted in the contributions being recorded as received on [date] 2011 and refunded on the same date. It is important to note that this refund had nothing to do with any allegation of illegality. The sole reason was the conclusion of the contributors, urged on by [paralegal], that a campaign office in a residence three years before an election must be a scam. The interview conducted by Thacher Associates with Ms. [paralegal] is absurd for the obvious falsehoods she told. She said there were stories about problems with John Lius fundraising and Jenny Hou being investigated in May 2011. It is shameful that Thacher merely repeated her charges without pointing out their falsity and compounded it by attaching as an exhibit her e-mail, dated January 19, 2012, that repeats her imaginings about the campaign. Thacher had an obligation to note the clearly false charges [paralegal] was making. The first mention of any questioning of the Campaigns fundraising was in October 2011 in a newspaper story which Thacher has attached as Exhibit 1 to its Report. Jenny Hou was never mentioned in any media account until after October 2011. For Thacher to report [paralegals] false assertions as if they were credible is certainly questionable and exemplifies the mission they were sent on by the CFB staff. The troubling revelation concerning this law firm is the statement by a former employee that [name], an attorney, promised employees that the firm would reimburse them for their contributions. This Report is certainly the first time the Campaign has heard of this. Certainly, the fact that contributions were recalled because someone thought a campaign office could not possibly be in a residential building in no way could alert the Campaign of a potential straw donor situation. In an excess of caution the Campaign has refunded contributions made by [lawyer] and his partner [another lawyer]. They are lawyers who signed donor cards. Certainly, the Campaign was justified in relying on their statements thereon. However, the former employees statement raises questions about [first lawyers] conduct that the Campaign is in no position to resolve. As his partner, [second lawyer] may be accountable for his partners actions. The same concerns do not apply to their spouses. The Report is addressed to the CFB and has been shared with me marked Confidential. Presumably, the Report has been reviewed by attorneys on CFBs legal staff who have obligations both as attorneys and public servants when they have evidence of possible misconduct by an attorney. I leave the matter in their hands although in fairness to [first lawyer] I point out to you the disgruntled comments of the former employees interviewed.

11

[Company 9 and individual intermediary] [name of intermediary] hosted a fundraiser that was paid for by [another name]. As the principal host, [name of intermediary] was designated the intermediary for all contributions made in connection with the event as the CFB Rules mandate. Thus, there is no reason that she would know all of the contributors attached to her intermediation and no reason they would know her. [the other name] was reported as an in-kind contributor for the cost of the event. The Thacher Associates Report interviewed four employees. Three said they had contributed their own money and were not reimbursed by anyone. One person, [name], said she was reimbursed. The Campaign has refunded her contribution. The Report erroneously states that because [name of intermediary] is reported as the intermediary for [name reported earlier] who reimbursed a contributor, she has a connection to him and his activities. This is not an accurate statement since [name of intermediary] is deemed an intermediary solely by operation of CFB Rules which require the designation of one of the hosts of a non-campaign sponsored event. Thus, because of your rules it is unfair to conclude she has a connection to any of the contributors for which she is listed as an intermediary. This is especially so in the case of [name reported earlier] who is not an employee of her company. Again, it is clear that Thacher is on a mission to make things look worse than is warranted by the real facts.

INVALID MATCHING CLAIMS REPORT The greatest number of invalid matching claims concern the invalidation of virtually every cash contribution received by the Campaign. They number 801 contributions. When the treasurer questioned the CFB staff about these claims, which are labeled with an insufficient back-up code, he was told that it was because the contribution forms did not have a check-off box marked cash. Instead, the forms feature the word cash written by the contributor. Frankly, this basis for invalidating matching claims is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. The handwritten word cash placed on the card by the contributor is a far better indication of authenticity than a check mark in a boxa check mark that anyone with the right color pen could place there after the fact with no chance of discovery. By invalidating these hundreds of claims for small donors the CFB is turning its back on Asian-American contributors who gave small donations and who do not have checking accounts. Such a course constitutes racial and economic discrimination that flies in the face of the CFBs oft proclaimed mantra that the public matching funds program is designed to empower the little people. Of course, the CFB staff knew of this situation well over two years ago. Had the CFB not arbitrarily withheld Matching Claims Reports for 32 months, the Campaign could have revised the contribution forms over two years ago to add a check-off box. Thus, the CFB staff, by

12

withholding timely reports, lulled the Campaign into continuing to use the form without the box. Such entrapment is unconscionable and is nothing more than a set-up. The Matching Claims Report invalidates 794 claims because the incorrect code for them was entered in error by the Campaign. Again, this is nothing less than a set-up by the CFB evidencing the worst disparate treatment. The Campaign could have easily corrected this two and a half years ago. Instead your staff sat by watching this mistake being repeated over and over for years. Where was your responsibility to assist campaigns in compliance? The Matching Claims Report also invalidates claims for 328 web contributions for a reason that could have easily been corrected had the CFB followed its Rules and provided timely Matching Claims Reports. Similarly, 119 matchable contributions were invalidated for missing employer information. This is something the Campaign could have easily corrected had it been given more than eight business days to respond. DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY FOR MEANINGFUL ADJUDICATION Your May 20 letter, as does your July 19 letter, concludes with the statement: This letter does not constitute a recommendation on the part of the Board staff to the Board, nor does it constitute a preliminary or final determination by the Board. Obviously, this was designed to prevent meaningful adjudication before an OATH Administrative Law Judge or timely resort to the courts concerning the appropriateness of totally denying matching funds to the Campaign because of 35 nominee contributions out of a total of 6,339 contributors. There was no reason whatsoever that the CFB staff could not have presented the recommendation to the Board in May when the staff had already decided what that recommendation would be. The clear strategy of the staff is to thwart campaigns from having the time to complete meaningful administrative adjudication and Article 78 proceedings in court. The issue of total denial of matching funds and the staff recommendation to the Board to do so is quite independent of whether or not the candidate makes the ballot. The proper adjudication of this issue would not in any way preclude the Board from denying matching funds should the candidate be removed from the ballot. The CFB game is well known to the election bar. Wait until August 5 for a Board determination, the pretext being that by then ballot access will be have been determined by the Board of Elections, no matter whether the issue for Board determination of eligibility concerns ballot access. Then, your Rules require an application for a rehearing before your Board seven days later, postponing a final administrative action until August 12 or 13. Only then can the Campaign commence an Article 78 proceeding. That case is not likely to be heard and decided before August 22. Should the Campaign prevail and matching funds payments be ordered by the court, your immediate Notice of Appeal will stay that decision.

13

The Appellate Division date for election cases having passed on August 13 and 14, the appeal is not likely to be heard until August 28 or 29. If the Campaign prevails in a decision not calling for an appeal as of right, the campaign may get matching funds with 10 days to go before the election. A successful but divided Appellate Division will end the game for the Campaign since further appeal will not be heard until September. Even getting matching funds for a citywide campaign 10 days before the Primary would be of little value to the Campaign since it would be too late for a mail campaign or effective media buys. Not being able to spend the matching funds, the Campaign would have to return almost all of them to the CFB.

CONCLUSION The Campaign requests that the CFB staff reconsider its proposed recommendation to the Board. The real facts, separated from the last two years news reports, indicate that the Campaign was a victim of a handful of people who engaged in nominee donor activity for their own purposes. A complete denial of matching funds is the equivalence of imposing the death penalty for pickpocketing. The Campaign requests that the Board consider withholding of a share of matching funds that is proportional to any transgressions. Otherwise, thousands of New Yorkers who are relatively new to participation in political involvement will see that their contributions are not deemed as worthy of respect as are those of people from more established communities.

Sincerely,

Martin E. Connor Attorney for the Campaign

14