The Wrath of Bloomberg?

Now that the State Assembly has killed Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, do its members fear any potential electoral consequences (as Kevin Sheekey suggested they should) from opposing a mayor with billions of dollars at his disposal?

They say no.

Democratic Assemblyman Jose Peralta of Queens said he thinks the mayor’s decisions on whether or not to contribute to candidates running against congestion pricing opponents would be based more on his own political plans than anything else.

“I think he starts funding insurgents if he is going to be running for governor,” Peralta told me just now. “If not, then he worries about his business and his philanthropy.”

There would, Peralta, be no retribution. “He’s a big boy. He’s beyond that.”

It's not unimaginable that the mayor might back candidates at least in part on their stances on the congestion issue. This is, after all, the the same mayor who donated $500,000 to Senate Republicans, whose leader then supported congestion pricing.

But Assemblyman Rory Lancman, also of Queens, said, “I don’t see how him funding opponents against incumbent legislators is helpful.”

“[It's] not good government nor good policy,” according to Lancman, because the New York City delegation of the Assembly stands with Bloomberg nine out of ten times.

“Plus," Lancman added, "the advocates' spin notwithstanding, this was always unpopular in people’s districts.”

Of course, no Assembly member would want to risk retribution from Bloomberg by saying he might seek retribution.

“Look, I’m not inviting or challenging any person to run against me," he told me, "but I’m very happy to run for re-election on a message that I opposed congestion pricing.”