Poor Excuse
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

What’s a cash-strapped underdog who’s facing the 40th richest man in the nation to do?
Follow the money. Conventional wisdom says voters don’t care if rich candidates fund their own campaigns. But Mike Bloomberg is shattering even his own records. And if voters ever do pay attention to this campaign, they might actually care.
Mr. Ferrer has been the Democratic nominee for a full month – more than half the time between the primary and November election. Precious time. Wasted time. Just look at the polls, which show the mayor’s lead widening beyond comprehension.
Without enough money to buy television commercials, Mr. Ferrer relies on the press – often called “earned media.” The “earned” part is his problem, because candidates can only earn free coverage on the evening news if they say something worthy of attention.
Mr. Bloomberg doesn’t need to earn anything. Instead of coining catchy sound bites to make the news, he’s buying commercials during the news.
Mr. Bloomberg has already spent more than $50 million, and will likely hit $100 million by Election Day. This is absurd for a local race – even in New York City at New York City prices.
At least Mr. Bloomberg had a reasonable excuse for spending $75 million in 2001. All four Democrats then running for mayor were public officials who benefited from years of taxpayer-funded publicity. Of course, Bloomberg was hardly an obscure name, thanks to the news and financial information terminal business that made Mr. Bloomberg number 40 on the Forbes 400 list.
After four years of his own taxpayer-funded public relations bonanza, it’s harder for Mr. Bloomberg to justify the spending as necessary – unless necessity is defined by intense desire to win again.
Mr. Ferrer could win some attention by taking a novel approach to the mayor’s money. There are plenty of obvious ways to do that, and some not so obvious. Here’s one: Mr. Bloomberg’s decision not to draw a salary.
Mr. Bloomberg works for $1 a year, as did his daughter and sister while they worked for the city. Dan Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for development, also receives this nominal sum.
This is wrong. City employees should be compensated for their work – and if they choose to donate their salaries to charity (or their own political campaigns) that’s their business. But they should be paid.
Mr. Bloomberg has established, perhaps inadvertently, a policy in which working for free masquerades as a job qualification.
If Mr. Ferrer does win, his daughter shouldn’t be unable to work for her father simply because her father isn’t rich. And when mayors seek deputy mayors and other aides, ability to work gratis shouldn’t be an issue.
New Yorkers don’t expect their leaders to work for free. After all, we can’t work for free. The land of the American Dream is an expensive place.
By putting the spotlight on the mayor’s money, Mr. Ferrer might be able to raise more money for his own campaign. He should gregariously and openly make fund raising part of his routine, reminding voters that he needs their small contributions because he’s the underdog facing the rich guy.
New Yorkers like an underdog because so many feel like underdogs: the homeowner worried about eminent domain; the small business worried about a big box store; the taxi driver worried about black cars; the pizza parlor worried about Pizza Hut; the doctors facing pressure from insurance companies; the hospital worker worried about a merger – the list goes on, across the economic spectrum, of New Yorkers worried about something or someone bigger and richer wielding wealth against them.
Mr. Ferrer would hardly be the first politician to employ a fund-raising strategy as part of a broader effort to seduce supporters. Campaigns typically employ fund-raisers as part of their strategic arsenal to generate support, because people who give money to a candidate are more likely to show up and vote for their candidate.
Yes, there actually is a practical downside to Mr. Bloomberg’s wealth. He can’t develop loyalty through a fund-raising network because he doesn’t have a fund-raising network.
The polls look good for Mr. Bloomberg, but his wide lead could make supporters think his victory is a done deal. If Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters stay home, Mr. Ferrer’s union-driven get-out-the-vote operation targeted at black and Hispanic voters could surprise us all.
It’s too bad Mr. Ferrer can’t raise enough money for just one good TV ad, like this: “I’m Freddy Ferrer. Forgive me for speaking so quickly, but I don’t have much time. Our billionaire mayor has bought up all the commercial time.”
At least New York City voters see television commercials for both sides in the multi-millionaires’ race for governor of New Jersey.
Mr. Goldin is a host of NY1’s “Road to City Hall,” which airs weeknights at 7 p.m. and 10:30 p.m.