Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. is chairman of the city’s Campaign Finance Board. He served as the city’s corporation counsel under Mayor Koch and later as chairman of the Charter Revision Commission. He spoke to New York Sun reporter Jill Gardiner on Friday, two days after the City Council passed a controversial package of bills, opposed by Mayor Bloomberg, to alter the system of campaign finance.

Q: You were appointed by Mayor Bloomberg in 2003, but have taken a very different position on matching funds. Did he know where you stood when he asked you to take the job?

A. Well, we did discuss the question of self-funded candidates and I did say that there is a plus and a minus. The plus is that a person who is self-funded is by definition free from any potential obligations that come from someone giving them money. That’s a good thing, and certainly people have a constitutional right to be self-funded. The minus is that it can un-level the playing field.

What’s your relationship with the mayor like now, and have you had any conversations with him recently?

I think he’s basically been a very good mayor for this city. We don’t have a relationship. I’m independent. That is one of the important things about the job of all five Campaign Finance Board members. No, I haven’t had any conversations with him.

The three-package bill the council passed does not include all of the CFB’s suggestions. The mayor said that the council left out CFB-proposed changes that would have saved the city $10 million. Is this true?

I’m not sure where that amount comes from, but we were disappointed that it did leave out some things we thought were quite important. One was a standard that might limit the use of city money in races where there was token opposition. We had negotiated a good change on that and at the last minute it was eliminated. … There was another change on transfers of war chests. We want a ban on war chests, and they permit some transfers.

The council says its version does, in fact, include measures to reduce the amount of public financing for candidates if their race is not competitive. Can you explain the difference between what the CFB wanted and what the council passed?

I don’t want to comment on those details. We thought that the draft that existed until the very end was far better than what ultimately passed. The council did some other good things, limiting advantages that incumbents have, like eliminating the use of public funds for mailings and other communications to constituents for 90 days prior to an election or primary, and that’s a good reform.

The mayor has called this a backroom deal and suggested you and Council Speaker Gifford Miller negotiated it in an improper way.

It was not ever a backroom deal. Never. Never. That was wrong from the beginning and it’s wrong now. … As far as the Gifford Miller thing, that’s just a non-starter. I think the mayor has not been saying those things anymore. It is simply, flatly, completely wrong. I couldn’t care less who is helped or who is hurt by the bill. …

What do you say to those who believe that too much taxpayer money is being spent on the match?

The first thing is that the match is now on $250. It used to be on $1,000. Reducing it was a great reform, because it favors the smaller, the less wealthy voter, involves more people in campaigns, and to some extent helps people who are newcomers to the process. On the increase of the match, the law already provides a 5-to-1 match. Going to 6-to-1 seemed to us to be fair if there is an awful lot of money spent by some candidate who is not in the program.

Some dissenting council members agreed with the mayor that the bill was rushed through. Why not wait to implement it?

Well, the first thing to say is that I’ve never taken a position as to whether they should be enforced this year or later. … When it should be enforced is a classical judgment that the political people, both the Legislature and the mayor’s office, ought to debate. Having said that, if you are making a change that helps the program, it’s probably a good idea.

So, to be clear, you are saying that if there is reason to support it, why not implement it sooner rather than later. Right?

Yes, unless one could find “detrimental reliance” on the system. … Another historical point to make is that there are other changes that were made reasonably close to elections.

When the campaign finance law came into effect in ’88, it was just short ly before an ’89 election, and Mayor Koch, who I was not working for then, along with Peter Vallone Sr. were really heroes of the original campaign finance law. But Mayor Koch faced a contested primary and he came out in favor of the campaign finance reform. If the old system would have been in effect, Ed Koch would have gotten piles of money he didn’t get under the change that was made just a year in front of the election.

Are you disappointed that the 8-to-1 that you originally proposed wasn’t adopted?

No, not in the slightest. The 8-to-1 I also thought was reasonable. But when I first testified on this, I said what’s now on the table should be subjected to the back and forth, which is part of a political process, where people ranging from good-government groups, to experts, to affected people, are all going to take positions, and out of that will come greater wisdom, and I think it did.

Which aspects of this package, if any, do you expect to be challenged in court?

I can’t imagine anybody challenging the big bill. One can have policy disagreements about that, but I can’t imagine there being any legal issue. The disclosure requirements and the contributions limits – those are issues that could be litigated, but, of course, somebody who wished to challenge that could only litigate as a candidate, not as a public official.

So Michael Bloomberg the candidate could challenge it, but not Michael Bloomberg the mayor?

He would have a right to challenge as a candidate being required to make disclosures. … But, of course, from the city point of view, leaving out the point of view of the individuals, they always want to be pushing for increased power for the city, because that’s relevant in all sorts of fields, it’s hardly limited to this subject. So from the institutional interests of the city, the city definitely wants to have its powers as large and as wide as possible.

Do you feel confident the rules will go into effect for the 2005 election, despite all of the political wrangling?

I’m not going to make a prediction on what’s going to happen. First we need to know, does the mayor sign the bill? Does he veto the bill? If he vetoes, is it overridden? Does someone sue? I don’t know.