In the lead-up to the November 2025 election, the New York City Council has launched a multi-pronged campaign opposing three housing-related ballot proposals advanced by the 2025 Charter Revision Commission – ballot questions 2, 3, and 4. The Council’s opposition has included mailers sent to thousands of households warning of the proposals, a dedicated website and social media toolkit to share messaging against the proposals, digital ads, presentations to community boards, and public rallies and press conferences. Media reports suggest the Council paid up to $2 million to send out those mailers.

We’ve been asked by many voters, reporters, and civic groups how the City Council can spend public resources on an apparent political electioneering campaign against ballot questions—so we’ve put together this explainer to clarify what the law says, what’s actually happening, and what can be done about it.

Is it legal for the City Council to conduct electioneering on a ballot question?

No. Section 1136.1 of the New York City Charter explicitly prohibits public servants from using “governmental funds or resources for a public communication that contains an electioneering message.” An electioneering message is defined as a “statement designed to urge the public to […] support or oppose a particular referendum question.”

Is it legal for anyone else in city government to do so?

Also no. The ban applies to all elected officials, officers, and city government employees.

Do the City Council’s mailers count as electioneering?

This is the central question. The City Council’s materials claim the ballot proposals would lead to “less investment,” “less affordability,” and “more gentrification.” They describe the proposals as efforts to “strip New Yorkers’ voice in how our city grows,” “take away your power to influence new development,” and “leave our communities weaker.” These messages are paired with bold headlines, warning signs, and negative imagery.

Taken at face-value these materials are clearly intended to urge the public to oppose the ballot questions.

However, the City Council argues that the campaign efforts, including the mailers, are designed only to “educate” the public about the ballot questions, and do not advocate for a particular result. Some Council Members have emphasized that the materials do not explicitly say “vote no” (although, other members have openly called voters to vote no). The mailers avoid explicit phrases that urge a specific action, such as “vote against,” “defeat,” or “reject.”

Is this the first time this has happened?

No. In 2024, the City Council ran a similar campaign against ballot questions proposed by a prior Charter Revision Commission. That year, a Council Member filed a complaint with the Department of Investigation (DOI) alleging a violation of the electioneering law.

What about the Charter Revision Commission’s campaign?

The 2025 Charter Revision Commission, which proposed the housing-related ballot questions, has conducted its own public outreach. Their campaign includes short videos featuring commissioners and city officials, including Comptroller Brad Lander, describing the importance of building more affordable housing, and urging voters to “flip their ballot” and “make their voices heard.” These videos do not explicitly describe the potential impact of the proposals and are not dissimilar to past PSAs from previous charter revision commissions (for example, the 2018 PSA and the 2019 PSA featuring Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson), which have not raised concerns or complaints before.

What are the consequences of violating the electioneering rules?

Under City Charter Section 1136.1, intentional or knowing violations of the electioneering ban are punishable as misdemeanors, in addition to any other penalties under the law.

Isn’t there a government regulator for this? Where are they?

There are a few, but none have stepped in to regulate this activity:

• Campaign Finance Board (CFB): This agency has rules on what counts as express electioneering advocacy on a ballot question. It says that campaign slogans or words that, in context, “can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election, passage, or defeat of one or more clearly identified ballot proposals,” is express advocacy. However, the CFB only regulates candidate campaigns and independent expenditures (Super PACs)—not government communications about ballot questions.
• Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB): This agency enforces rules against using city resources for non-city purposes. Chapter 68 of the City Charter prohibits using City letterhead, title, personnel, equipment, resources, supplies, or technology assets for any non-City purpose. The mailers, which bear the City Council emblem, would seem to fall within that category. However, the City Council claims it received guidance from COIB before designing the mailers. That guidance is not public. A request last year for the City Council to publicly release its guidance from COIB went unanswered. Press reports suggest COIB advised the City Council that the ban on using city resources for non-city purposes applies only to campaigns involving candidates or political parties—not a campaign promoting views about specific proposals from a charter revision commission.
• Department of Investigation (DOI): DOI has broad authority to investigate unethical conduct, waste, and violations of the City Charter, and that includes violations of the electioneering ban. At least one person filed a complaint with the DOI regarding the Council’s mailers. A similar complaint was filed last year. However, DOI investigations are confidential, and no information has been published on whether an investigation was undertaken or findings were reached.

Why did COIB approve these mailers, allegedly? 

This is where it gets a bit Kafkaesque. While COIB’s guidance has not been published, reporting suggests that COIB advised the Council that it may use public resources on ballot question electioneering because the ballot questions are a matter of city policy, despite the Charter ban on using public resources to urge the public to oppose a ballot question, which is mentioned above. Why? Because COIB is only allowed to interpret and enforce Chapter 68 of the City Charter – also known as the conflicts of interest law – while the explicit ban on ballot question electioneering appears in Chapter 49 of the City Charter.

What have watchdog groups said?

Last year, Citizens Union, Reinvent Albany, and NYPIRG asked COIB to clarify its guidelines. We warned that COIB’s apparent green light creates the perception that public servants have wholesale approval to spend public resources advocating for or against local ballot questions. COIB responded that it cannot interpret laws outside Chapter 68 but promised to “alert public servants to the existence of other potentially relevant laws” in its educational efforts.

Citizens Union has spoke out against the use of electioneering mailers on the public dime, and have said that the Council’s mailers clearly violate the spirit of the law. We said it both last year, when we were on the same side as the City Council in opposing the 2024 charter ballot questions, and this year, when we are on opposite sides of the debate over ballot questions 2-4 (Citizens Union supports all 2025 ballot questions).

What can be done?

To close this regulatory loophole that allows for this misuse of public resources, the City Charter should be amended to either clarify that COIB can enforce ethics-related provisions outside Chapter 68, or to re-codify the electioneering ban within Chapter 68, allowing COIB to regulate it directly. Citizens Union has proposed these reforms to recent Charter Revision Commissions.