At this point, it just seems cruel to editorialize much on Freddy‘s view of this race.
“A guy with brass knuckles was giving me a beating and the CFB was killing me with rules,” Freddy’s quoted as saying of the CFB, which had written his campaign checks totalling $3,897,336 by late October.
“In case this scenario is repeated, the [City] Council must consider a change that allows contributions up to the state limit; unlimited contributions from the unions; and no limitations to partisan political involvement,” he suggests. (It’s worth noting that a version of this option existed; Freddy could have opted out of the public funding system entirely, with all its rules, and chosen to play by state rules. Only no free money.)
And then there’s this.
“I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories, but when you can get the [New York] Times to completely ignore the fact that you are disregarding [the CFB’s] rules, then one is suspicious,” Ferrer says.
Borrero continues: “Freddy’s fingerpointing at the Times comes from the fact that, in its editorial pages, this newspaper has criticized politicians and candidates who do not submit to, or break, the mandate of the CFB — but, in the case of the Republican leader, they didn’t issue their usual criticism.”
Again, the material kind of speaks for itself. But just as a matter of fact-checking, the Times did issue “its usual criticisms” calling the spending “out-of-control” and “obscene” in the editorial that endorsed him and, in an August editorial, warning that Mike would be remembered as “the man who bought City Hall.”
So the Times cares a lot about campaign finance, but also cares about other things, and made a judgement. Where’s the mystery?