Wong asks panel about his bill's intent to label paid political messaging
Wong says his bill aims to close the gap so the public knows content like ballot proposal videos or OME door-knocking is not news, and asks Reinvent Albany about its recommendation not to move the bill; Fauss says the charter section being amended covers independent expenditure disclosures, which are a national model, and suggests the bill may need changes to regulate different activity.
A question for the panel.
We already heard from CFB that they will oversight campaign money being spent on
influencers and on pushing for an agenda while we do not see that as news.
But my question is, my bill...
Is trying to fix this when the mayor is using tax dollars to promote his agenda, rather than treating it as a piece of news,
just like the ballot proposal videos I've seen, or videos of the Office of Mass Engagement knocking door to door, telling tenants,
about the unions out there and then they could join.
That's not news.
And the public has to know about that.
And my question to you is that, well, to reinvent Albany is that you wrote here that you don't want, with the council should not move the bill.
But my spirit of the bill is to close this gap and let the public know that what they're watching is not news.
Let's get our answer.
Go ahead.
Yes, please answer that.
I think I, having listened to the CFB, I think the way they put it is right, that, you know, the part of the chapter, the charter you're amending is about the independent expenditure disclosures, which we are very, very sensitive about as
the New York City has model independent expenditure disclosure rules with the paid for by.
And I think your intent is for.
The mayor's activity while in office, not as a candidate.
And we don't want to see changes to the IE disclosures, the paid for by disclosures that affect campaigns because they are very strong in CFB as, like I said, as a national model on that.
So I think if your intent is to regulate different activity, you know, maybe the bill needs a change.
But I understand your point that the public deserves more information, and we absolutely do support paid-for-by disclosures.
As I mentioned, we think that it could be done through the contracting process.
The FTC rules are one way to look at it, but it's, I think your goals are similar to ours.
I just think the app,
application in the bill the way it's drafted is where we had some concerns.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate this, and we will go to the next panel.
Thank you.