There would be no way of knowing from the outside that this house is at the center of one of the biggest unfolding scandals of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 reelection-or that hundreds of thousands of dollars of the mayor's own money ended up here, in what appears to have been intentional skirting of city and state campaign-finance-disclosure laws.

The house belongs to John F. Haggerty Jr., an enigmatic Republican political consultant now facing criminal charges for allegedly stealing money from the mayor. Although it is Mr. Haggerty who may do time, the mayor's actions deserve more scrutiny than they've received so far. An extensive review of records and campaign documents by The Observer, as well as interviews with witnesses, indicate that Mr. Bloomberg funneled money to Mr. Haggerty, who claimed to be a "volunteer," sidestepping the political committee the mayor had promised to use to finance his election campaign. By deploying Mr. Haggerty and an unrelated political party, the the mayor's team avoided drawing attention to a controversial election day tactic.  But even more serious, experts say Bloomberg may have broken campaign finance laws.   

The Observer found that Mr. Haggerty's 2009 efforts for Bloomberg weren't an isolated case: similar tactics were deployed in the mayor 2005 campaign. In both races the Mayor's private funds were quietly routed to Mr. Haggerty.

Just as intriguing, as the criminal case moves forward against Mr. Haggerty, it appears that authorities are not investigating the mayor or his aides, in spite of evidence of possible legal violations.

It is one thing for a billionaire to run the most expensive private campaign in US history, spending a record $109 million. But it is something else to intentionally flout, if not break, financial disclosure laws in the process.

ON JUNE 14, Cyrus Vance, Manhattan's new district attorney, announced the five-count indictment of Mr. Haggerty. Sparked by a story in the New York Post, which noticed unusually large payments from the mayor to the scrappy New York State Independence Party, Mr. Vance argued that the Republican operative had "falsely represented to Mayor Bloomberg's agents and campaign workers that he would arrange for nearly $1.1 million to be spent on an Election Day ballot security and poll watching operation, to be run through the New York State Independence Party."

At 41 years old, John Haggerty is considered one of the city's most adroit backroom Republican fixers. Officially, though, he was only an unpaid "volunteer" during Bloomberg's 2009 reelection push. "He said he didn't want to get paid because he didn't want to be owned by anybody," one Bloomberg worker told The Observer. Volunteer or not, Mr. Haggerty had the mayor's ear and spent long hours with the campaign's war council, including Kevin Sheekey, Patricia Harris and Bradley Tusk.

"Ballot security" operations have a long and sometimes tainted history. At best, they are designed to uncover potential fraud by challenging suspect voters. But, quite often, civil rights historians say, ballot security is a euphemism for voter suppression, particularly within minority and low-income populations. Tactics include in-your-face ID checks, aggressive challenges of voter registration and invasive demands for proof of residency or address.

In 1981, for instance, the Republican Party in New Jersey employed signs labeled: "WARNING THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE NATIONAL BALLOT SECURITY TASK FORCE"; later, the party was sued for harassment.

In the fall of 2009, Mr. Bloomberg's campaign faced a tough challenge from Democrat Bill Thompson, the city's African-American controller. While the mayor's camp decided it "needed a substantial ballot security operation" to fend off his opponent, as one campaign official told The Observer, there was some concern that "ballot security could be construed as racist."

Mr. Haggerty was one of the few people in New York who could pull off such an operation. To get around the red flags raised by the scheme, the campaign and Mr. Haggerty came up with an elaborate plan to obscure his involvement. According to Mr. Haggerty's lawyer, Dennis Vacco, Mr. Bloomberg funded Mr. Haggerty's work by completely bypassing his "Bloomberg for Mayor 2009 Inc." committee and wired $1.2 million from his personal accounts, in two installments, as a "donation" to the tiny Independence Party.

Specifically, the money went to the party's "Housekeeping Account," which is exempt from contribution limits. (While Mr. Bloomberg did not disclose the payments, the party later did.) According to the indictment, the unwritten agreement between Mr. Bloomberg and the Independence Party was that Mr. Haggerty would be paid $1.1 million to oversee ballot security; the leftover $100,000 was meant as a kind of handling fee for the party to keep.

Mr. Haggerty accepted the money through an entity called "Special Election Operations, LLC"-unincorporated until later. It's unclear how much he actually did on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2009. In the DA's recounting of the scheme, Mr. Haggerty spent only about $32,000 of the total $1.1 million on expenses for the operation.

So where did the rest of the mayor's money go? As it happens, Mr. Haggerty's father had recently died, and Mr. Haggerty's family needed to resolve the ownership of that historic house in Forest Hills Gardens. Mr. Haggerty used about $600,000 of the Bloomberg money to buy out his brother Bart's share. (Like his brother, Bart worked for the Bloomberg campaign; unlike
John, he earned a salary.)

Interestingly, the DA's office decided to treat the case as a simple theft, with the mayor cast as victim. "This case is about theft and greed, but it is also about transparency and the integrity of the electoral process," announced Mr. Vance.

Left unexamined in the DA's case were several puzzling issues: Why was Mr. Haggerty, who did political work for a living, an unpaid "volunteer" when Bloomberg was spending a record $109 million on his campaign and doling out huge bonuses? Why did the billionaire mayor channel money to Mr. Haggerty from his personal accounts through the Independence Party, rather than paying it straight through his campaign committee, Bloomberg for Mayor 2009 Inc.? And why the Goldman Sachs-like complexity?

Mr. Bloomberg's representatives insist no laws were broken, since he "contributed" the $1.2 million as an individual rather than as a political candidate, and therefore didn't need to use his campaign committee. "It is perfectly legal for the mayor to make a personal contribution to the Independence Party," said Mr. Bloomberg's chief campaign finance lawyer, Kenneth A. Gross. "We've done everything in compliance with applicable state and city law." Mr Gross also said he believes a temporary loophole in city law made Mr. Bloomberg's actions legal.

When asked about funneling money through the party to Mr. Haggerty, he disputed the term. "When you say 'funneling,'" he said, "it sounds pejorative. There is nothing pejorative about what the mayor did."

Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign,
maintained that if the Independence Party gave Mr. Bloomberg's funds to Mr. Haggerty, then "that was a decision that the party made." So, he said, "that is a question for them." Mr. Wolfson added that "ballot security is a traditional function of parties."

However, sources familiar with the Independence Party said that it had no intention of "ballot security" or "poll watching" until the Bloomberg camp requested that it pass along the mayor's money to Mr. Haggerty. That is, it seems the entire operation was conceived of, paid for and planned by the mayor's campaign, not by the Independence Party.

Another argument central to Mr. Bloomberg's defense is that anything the Independence Party did was not solely for the mayor's campaign but also for other candidates. Jerome Koenig, former chief of staff of the New York State Assembly Election Law Committee, dismisses that. "Even if you accept the argument on face value," he said, "which is ridiculous, part of it was done for Bloomberg. Even if it was done for other candidates, part of it was done for Bloomberg, so it still should have been disclosed."

TO FULLY UNDERSTAND the Bloomberg arrangement is to pick at some old threads from the mayor's 2005 election. Then, the mayor was running as a Republican, rather than an "independent," and spent $78 million to beat out Democratic challenger Fernando Ferrer. It turns out, Mr. Bloomberg funded another ballot security operation-helmed by Mr. Haggerty-in that race as well. In that case, Mr. Bloomberg made two $400,000 donations to the New York State Republican Party's "Housekeeping Account." (Those parallel the two $600,000 donations he would make in 2009 to the Independence Party.) In turn, the Republican Party paid $200,000 in "poll watcher" fees to an apparently unincorporated company called Campaign Resources. Located at 205 Montague Street, in downtown Brooklyn, it used the address of the law office of the late Robert Allan Muir, Mr. Haggerty's attorney and friend.

When asked about Campaign Resources, Mr. Bloomberg's lawyer, Mr. Gross, said that if it was connected with Muir, then it was a John Haggerty operation. In other words, for two consecutive mayoral campaigns, Mr. Haggerty, the officially unpaid Bloomberg "volunteer," was in fact paid very well through unincorporated firms, with funds that had originated in Mayor Bloomberg's private accounts.

NOW MR. HAGGERTY faces criminal charges, but it is Mr. Bloomberg's actions, according to lawyers with knowledge of the case, that may violate city and state campaign-finance-disclosure rules. Mr. Bloomberg's official campaign committee, Bloomberg for Mayor 2009 Inc., was supposed to be the sole manner in which he funded his campaign. That way, voters could look at its filings and know how he spent his money-something he promised to do in a sworn document signed at the time.

So how could Mr. Bloomberg's "donation" to the Independence Party for ballot security-the money that Mr. Haggerty allegedly stole-be exempt? According to the district attorney's case against Mr. Haggerty, it seems to be definitively "related" to the campaign. Consider this phrase used in the prosecutor's filings: "The Campaign needed ballot security and poll watching operations for Election Day."

"This is clearly an attempt to evade the purpose of the law," said John Moscow, a former white-collar prosecutor in Manhattan.

New York City has rules that are separate from, and more elaborate than, New York State's. Political candidates "are required by law to make timely and complete disclosures of all their contributions and all their campaign expenditures," emailed Eric Friedman, a spokesman for the city's Campaign Finance Board, or CFB. Mr. Bloomberg never disclosed his $1.2 million contribution to the CFB.

Since the operation was a "ballot security" and "poll watching" effort, experts say New York City rules are specific: "[T]raining, compensating, or providing materials for poll watchers appointed by the party" are considered a contribution, meaning they must be disclosed.

"The only victim I see here is John Mr. Haggerty, who served the mayor faithfully for nine years and was traditionally paid this way, and now they are using him as a scapegoat," said Thomas Ognibene, a street-smart Republican politician from Queens who tried to run against the mayor in 2005. (It was, ironically, Mr. Haggerty who destroyed Mr. Ognibene's chances. Acting again as a "volunteer" for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Haggerty tenaciously used every legal technicality he could find to disqualify the signatures for Mr. Ognibene's nominating petitions.)

Mr. Ognibene, who has since made peace with Mr. Haggerty, says he thinks the DA's case is based on a flawed premise. "I believe the mayor was trying to get money to John for the services he rendered," Mr. Ognibene told The Observer. "And that the mayor was aware that John had needs concerning buying his father's estate, and this was the mayor's way of funneling money to him."

When The Observer asked Mr. Haggerty's defense lawyer, Dennis Vacco, about this point, he responded, "Notice that I'm not answering it."

"I WAS SHOCKED that Cy Vance [the new DA] gave the mayor such a free ride," one veteran former prosecutor told The Observer. "It seems that Vance has decided he doesn't have the stomach for it."

Sources familiar with the investigation say the DA's office did not believe there were actual criminal violations by Mayor Bloomberg's campaign. Because of that, sources say, potential civil violations of campaign-finance law by Mr. Bloomberg were not even officially investigated.

When Mr. Haggerty's trial moves forward, Mr. Vacco hints that secrets will emerge, and mayoral aides will be called to testify. "This case is anything but simple for the DA's office," he told The Observer.

Mr. Vacco says Mr. Haggerty didn't steal any money, because he did run a ballot security operation-and he delivered for his customer. "Mr. Haggerty's company was under contract with the Independence Party," he said. His pointed hint is that Mr. Bloomberg couldn't be portrayed as a victim in all this unless, ironically, he was steering the Independence Party money to Mr. Haggerty for his own campaign. After all, to make a legal contribution, Mr. Vacco emphasized, "you have to make very certain the contribution is not directed in any fashion."

As for that house, Mr. Haggerty's shaded, mansionlike residence in Forest Hills Gardens, where Bloomberg's money ended up? The DA in New York is seeking to forfeit it and seize it from Mr. Haggerty as ill-gotten gains-so he can give the proceeds to Mayor Bloomberg.

editorial@observer.com

Aram Roston is a print and TV journalist and the winner of the 2010 Daniel Pearl Award for Outstanding International Investigative Reporting. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

"I regret to have to take these affirmative actions but under our existing election law the only way these filings will get a line by line scrutiny is if we take this step," Congressman McMahon said.

McMahon says that 402 of Tabacco's 678 signatures appear to not be valid.

McMahon will be on the Independence Party line in the September primaryafter submitting more than 1300 signatures of Indy Party members, but his campaign hoped to avoid a costly primary for the right to run on the line in November.

Tabacco ran on the Indy Line for the City Council last year but was defeated.

He has recently been embroiled in an allegations that he paid the wife of the state party's chairman $10,000 to earn the Indy Party endorsement.

McMahon did not get the Working Families line due to his "no" vote on health care, and his backers have seen him securing the I-line as crucial to his re-election prospects.

In those days, New York’s Independence Party was a quirky, shoestring operation—and in many ways it still is. But now, for the first time, it’s trying to professionalize and show that it stands for something more than simply being a third-party alternative at a time when the country is sharply split.

Not surprisingly, the party’s new push is tailored perfectly to its source of newfound cash. Business groups are pouring money in, partly as a reaction to the rapid rise in influence of the pro-labor Working Families Party. Mayor Michael Bloomberg ran part of his enormously expensive reelection campaign through the party, and the Real Estate Board of New York has tentatively embraced the organization to run candidates that will be friendly to business interests.

And next month, for the first time ever, Mr. MacKay plans to hire staff: a full-time fund-raiser and an executive assistant. The highlight of Mr. MacKay’s new standing will come in early July, when he hopes to conduct a few private screenings of a 48-minute documentary showing what went right, but mostly what went wrong, with the independent presidential campaign of Ross Perot. The goal, Mr. MacKay said, is to show the film to a number of influential people (billionaires, celebrities, etc.) in the country and convince one of them to run for president in 2012.

It’s a serious undertaking for a party that has seemed, at times, less than serious.

“There’s no one in the Independence Party who’s normal,” said Frank Morano, a party state committee member from Staten Island. “Everybody is a bit eccentric, a bit odd, a bit colorful—and not in a negative way,” he said. “Mostly in a very entertaining and positive way.”

Party leadership is split into two factions, the result of a legal battle over who had the authority to allow nonmembers to run on the party’s line—arguably the most powerful tool they can offer. On one side are Mr. MacKay and his state committee, on the other side is the city organization.

The best known New York City party member is probably Lenora Fulani, who has run for president and who once made a brief alliance with conservative Pat Buchanan.

Among Ms. Fulani’s allies are Fred Newman, the founder of what is called “social therapy.” Mr. Newman is 75 and in a wheelchair, and during an interview with NY1 in 2005, he said he did not object to therapists having sexual relationships with their patients.

Mr. MacKay’s allies are only slightly less colorful. Mr. Morano, for instance, takes to writing public declarations every now and then, imploring well-known citizens to run for office—Lindsay Lohan, for example.

Another, Bob Kumar, once faked his own kidnapping (something he shares in common with Mr. Morano’s employer, radio host Curtis Sliwa).
The Independence Party has seen riches before. After Mr. Perot, billionaire Tom Golisano, who founded PAYCHEX and co-owns the Buffalo Sabres NHL team, used the party to run for governor three times.

In all three of his mayoral campaigns, Mr. Bloomberg ran on the Republican and Independence Party lines. With financing from Mr. Bloomberg, the city party printed fliers, staged rallies and manned phone banks. Mr. Bloomberg, who is not registered in any party, but has been held up as a model by the Independence Party, has not been shy about opening his wallet. He gave $1.2 million to the state party last year and $400,000 to the city organization, the party said.

(Newfound riches, of course, can come with questions. The Manhattan district attorney has begun looking into a $750,000 payment made to a firm run by consultant John Haggerty from an Independence Party account that received a $1.2 million donation from Mr. Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg has been unusually mum on the topic.)

“Doing the job is what [being] independent is all about,” Bloomberg said at an Independence Party rally. “It is about pragmatic problem solving, not partisan warfare.”

In addition to Mr. Bloomberg’s support, the Real Estate Board of New York has tentatively embraced the party as a way to counter the influence of the labor-backed Working Families Party, which demonstrated enormous influence in the 2009 elections.

The new plan, according to numerous executives familiar with discussions, is to dump money into a third party that can cross-endorse a set of candidates who espouse a few general beliefs that have a Reagan-esque ring to them: low taxes, fiscal restraint and limits on government regulation on issues such as rent regulation.

The backers of the effort, which is not fully formed and is still under discussion among REBNY members, see 2010 as a key year, and REBNY president Steven Spinola has said he hopes to raise $5 million.

There have been numerous meetings of the inner circle of REBNY membership about the longer-term strategy, and leaders are searching for both full-time staffers for the effort and part-time consultants. (Former Bloomberg campaign manager Bradley Tusk, for one, has interviewed as a potential consultant and made a presentation to members.) [Clarified]

Mr. MacKay bristles at the notion that his party is synonymous with any one particular industry in the business community, which is what his counterpart in the labor-backed Working Families Party, Dan Cantor, is saying. Mr. Cantor even has a nickname for Mr. MacKay’s organization: “The Landlord Party.”
Mr. MacKay doesn’t appreciate it.

“When he talks about landlords, he’s probably referring to our relationship with business groups,” Mr. MacKay said. “There are business groups all over the state that are coming to us,” he said. “The LIA is a group that we’re working with and talking with, constantly. Certainly they don’t have anything to do with landlords,” he said, referring to the Long Island Association, a business membership organization.

“We’re the party of business,” continued Mr. MacKay. “We’re proud to say we’re the party of small business. Half the jobs in New York State are created by small business, and we would love to be known as the party of small business,” he said.

But not the party of big business?

“The party of business. ‘Business’ is not a dirty word in our book. But small business are what we’re attracting,” he said.

“We’re getting a dialogue together with businesses, and we’re attracting more voters who are concerned with business and economic issues, and fiscal responsibility,” said Mr. MacKay. “And they’re looking at both major parties and not seeing that, but it’s a dialogue.”

“The Independence Party is a counterbalance to the Working Families Party,” said a real estate executive familiar with the plans. “They don’t care about social issues, they care about business issues.”

The rise of the WFP in last year’s city election has only strengthened the resolve of business groups looking for an alternative. (Mr. Bloomberg, for his part, has in the past butted heads with WFP members.)

On June 5, the party’s executive committee will hold its convention in Albany to select their nominees for statewide office. In years past, they’ve often endorsed candidates from other parties; now that they have more support, there’s an even greater chance they will be able to put up their own.

Currently, the Independence Party stands in good position to be the strongest third-party organization in New York, something they’ve never before had a shot at.

“In Frank’s case, he sees this as an opportunity to take this to that level,” said Mr. Morano. “To be more credible, not a third party, but a third major party. His desire to partner with Bloomberg, Golisano, REBNY, RSA [Rent Stabilization Association] is motivated not by anything untoward, but to see party building, to the extent that the Independence Party can be a party that competes with Republicans and Democrats.”
apaybarah@observer.com, ebrown@observer.com

"Whether Hoffman wins or not, the Conservative Party has clearly driven the action in that race," said Bruce Gyory, a political consultant and adjunct professor of political science at SUNY Albany.

Over coffee last month, Gyory made the case that Hoffman is one key in a three-pronged strategy by the Conservatives to assert their relevance (this argument gained new weight when Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate, suspended her bid this weekend) as the most dominant third party in the state. According to Gyory, the other two prongs are Steve Hansen in the Nassau County executive's race and Stephen Christopher, a stealth candidate for New York Mayor.

"I think Mike wanted to send a message to a number of people in the Senate and the Assembly: don't take me for granted. Some of these guys are now running to the Independence Party for their support," Gyory said. "He's proving his muscle and making it much harder for people to isolate him."

And not just legislative races: Long has positioned himself to exercise a lot of influence on the formation of the Republican ticket the next time around. Also, a series of wins could bring Long closer to winning the votes to gain back Row C on the ticket, which his party lost when the Independence Party backed Tom Golisano. (Ballot placement is determined by the number of votes on each line in the governor's race. Long's success could conceivably make it more likely that the Republicans will nominate someone he would cross-endorse.)

The Conservatives currently occupy Row D, which may hurt Hoffman.

During an interview with me last week, Long denied being so Machiavellian.

"Look, I'm not flexing my muscles," he said. "In all honesty, I don't see us doing anything different than what I have attempted to do since I've been state chairman. In politics, sometimes it has to be the right time, the right place, and the right candidate. Clearly, there have been peaks and valleys, and that will always be in the game of politics. Certainly, the Doug Hoffman race is going to be one of those high points."

"Would I prefer to be on Row C? It rhymes with the Conservative Party. Yes, and I intend to work towards that," he continued. "We were a hair behind the Independence Party in 2006. We're not far at all from them. And we had a tough year--we had Eliot Spitzer, who had 70 percent of the vote. We didn't lose it because we lost our bearings, but we lost it because he spent a ton of money."

Bloomberg, who is running on the G.O.P. line, will be on the Independence Party line too, and likes to refer to himself as an "independent"

Jackie Salit, a leader in the Independence Party, is defending Bloomberg, and emailed reporters to say, "The Thompson campaign memo leaves out an important fact about Thompson’s relationship to the Independence Party. He reached out to us in the hopes of receiving our endorsement because it’s a vital way to establish a candidate’s bona fides as an independent. We’re very proud of that. We endorsed Mike Bloomberg because he is the independent in the mayor’s race and should be recognized as such.”

When asked when Thompson sought the party's backing, Independence Party spokeswoman Sarah Lyons emailed to say, "Nov / Dec 2008."

Thompson spokesman Mike Murphy responded by, basically, ignoring Salit's comments, and continued using the words "Republican" and "Bloomberg" as many times as possible.

"Is Mike Bloomberg or is he not on the Republican line. If he didn’t want to be identified as a republican he shouldn’t have spent a quarter of a million dollars securing a spot on that line. If he talks like a republican and governs like a republican then I say he is a republican," Murphy wrote in an email.

All told, the leaders of the Independence Party probably aren't the surrogates Howard Wolfson or Bradley Tusk would choose to deliver Bloomberg's message at any given time. On the other hand, Thompson's campaign is trying to pick a fight with Michael Bloomberg and now finds itself in a back-and-forth with...Jackie Salit.

Probably not a game-changer.

It features Michael Bloomberg at one of the group’s events (more recognizable Independence Party members like Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman aren’t seen in the mailer, but attorney Harry Kresky—bald guy in the glasses whom Bloomberg once appointed to a Charter Revision Commission—can be seen easily).

The mailing also includes a statement about "independents" and "Independence" that is technically correct.

“Right now there are over 900,000 New York voters who are registered as independents or Independence Party members. That’s almost one in five voters."

According to the State Board of Elections latest enrollment statistics, as of April, there are 795,779 voters in the city who are registered to vote, but are not registered with any party. There are 108,616 registered members of the Independence Party.

They were speaking at the group’s annual fund-raiser in Tribeca yesterday. Bloomberg seemed pleased.

“My mother will be pleased with that,” Bloomberg joked. “Whether Barack Obama will be pleased, I have no idea. He’s probably not going to hear about it anyways.”

They were speaking at the group’s annual fund-raiser in Tribeca yesterday. Bloomberg seemed pleased.

“My mother will be pleased with that,” Bloomberg joked. “Whether Barack Obama will be pleased, I have no idea. He’s probably not going to hear about it anyways.”

Should the mayor pull off this trifecta, it would be, roughly speaking, the political equivalent of serving simultaneously as the president of the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets fan clubs. These are not groups that see the world the same way—not even close.

Of course, the one thing Mr. Bloomberg will not be identified as on the ballot is the one thing he actually is: an "unaffiliated" voter, officially unaligned with any political party—a distinction the mayor shares with more than 700,000 of his fellow New York City residents.

Mr. Bloomberg's likely fall opponent, city Comptroller Bill Thompson, is accusing the mayor of "party affiliation by political expediency," a charge that is absolutely true. From the standpoint of practical politics, though, Mr. Bloomberg really has no choice: New York's archaic ballot rules and procedures reward candidates who align themselves with as many political parties as they can, philosophical coherence be damned. And they punish candidates who don't.

Mr. Thompson himself knows a thing or two about this: right now, he's likely to run as the Democratic Party's candidate, but he also wants his name at the top of the Working Families column, and he previously made inquiries into the Independence line.  

In most states, this kind of cross-endorsing between political parties is forbidden by law. And of the few that actually allow it, none take it as seriously as New York, where electoral fusion seems to be regarded as a permanent, almost sacred, institution.

The system has its roots in the Tammany era, when the city's various reform parties found it impossible to topple the Democratic machine individually. But if they could team up when it was strategically beneficial—running common candidates for the most important offices, and their own slates for down-ballot slots - they'd have a chance. (Of course, the Tammany bosses figured this out, too, and created their own "rival" party lines that purported to appeal to machine-wary Democrats but that were, in fact, filled with Tammany loyalists.)

New York's political landscape has changed dramatically in the decades since, but the cross-endorsement system hasn't. In election after election, major-party candidates devote considerable effort to wooing the smaller parties that have prominent, official-looking columns on the fall ballot. A mythology has grown around the this ritual; we are often reminded that no successful mayoral candidate in the fusion era has ever won with just one party's backing.

The same system prevails statewide, where automatic ballot slots are awarded for the next four years to any party whose gubernatorial candidate secures at least 50,000 votes. In most states, this threshold would be too much for a small party to reach. But thanks to cross-endorsements, small-party leaders simply bargain away their top slot to a major party candidate, who invariably receives more than 50,000 votes in the small party's column.

Some people dismiss the needless complexity of the fusion system as an odd but ultimately harmless quirk of New York politics. Sure, casual voters are often surprised to see their preferred candidate's name on the ballot more than once and may not be sure which box to check, but in the end, they still get to vote for their preferred candidate.

But fusion is more than a nuisance. It measurably warps politics and government, both at the city and state levels, giving outsize power and influence to often-anonymous small-party and interest-group leaders who use their ballot columns to extract concessions from the major parties and their candidates.

The Working Families Party, for example, is in many ways an adjunct of organized labor, which provides much of the party's financial and organizational muscle. But fewer than 12,000 city residents actually belong to the party (out of 4.6 million total voters). The statewide enrollment total is just under 40,000 (out of 11.8 million). Still, by cross-endorsing Democrats for major offices, the W.F.P. has won an automatic ballot spot, which it now uses as a carrot to lure Democrats into compliance: if you want to keep appearing in our column, you'd better do X.

The tiny Conservative Party has been around longer and has had an even more visible effect on the New York Republican Party. Its chairman, Bay Ridge liquor-store owner Mike Long, has long made life miserable for culturally liberal Republicans, sabotaging their efforts to win G.O.P. nominations with threats to deny them access to the Conservative column in the fall.

Two simple steps could eliminate the disproportionate influence of small parties-and the attendant need for candidates to make exorbitant concessions to their agendas. One would be to ban cross-endorsements: no more leeching off of the name I.D. of the major-party candidates and profiting from voter confusion. If you want official-party status, you have to earn it with your own candidate.

The other is to rethink the premium that New York's ballot procedures place on party labels. In some states, voters receive ballots that group candidates according to the office they are seeking, with their partisan affiliation listed under their names. In New York, each party receives its own column; candidates unaffiliated with any party are free to run, but (unless they create their own party and recruit hordes of candidates for a column of their own) their names are banished to a remote corner of the ballot, sure to escape the notice of many casual voters.

That's why Mike Bloomberg can't run as the one thing he actually wants people to believe he is: a true independent.