Several years ago, I read a critique of NFL football that pointed out how there seems to be a penalty flag thrown without exception on every kick off and punt return. Well, substitute election for kick-off and lawsuit for penalty flag, and you get pretty much the same thing. Think back to the last election season when there were no lawsuits filed by, against, for, on behalf of, or behind the back of some candidate.
Why should this election be any different?
However, sometimes lawsuits can be a good thing. In this case, several groups have filed various lawsuits that seek to clarify a new city law that limits the amount of money that candidates for office in Philadelphia can accept from individuals or political action committees - PACs.
On Wednesday, the Daily News reported that the Committee of Seventy filed a lawsuit against all six of the "could-be mayors" that seeks to end the practice of raising unlimited money by not officially "declaring" their candidacies. Seventy hopes that the court will be able to define precisely that someone becomes a candidate when they begin accepting contributions.
One day later, Councilman Michael Nutter, a could-be mayor himself - thus earning a spot for his head shot in macho row on TheNextMayor.com - filed a suit against four of his rivals who had been accepting contributions in excess of the limits. A fifth rival, Tom Knox escaped Nutter's wrath since he's only received one donation in excess of the limit, $5 million, from, well... Tom Knox.
Finally, on Friday, John Dougherty (who, like Nutter coincidentally, isn't smiling in his picture) filed a lawsuit that challenged the law itself. According to the Inquirer, Dougherty's lawer, George Bochetto (another former could-be candidate for mayor but then again, who hasn't been?) said that Dougherty would "ask the courts to invalidate the 2003 city law by declaring that only the state legislature has the power to regulate campaign cash." Dougherty also calls on the state legislature to step up and pass a law regulating campaign contributions at the state level... which seems about as likely as getting through an election without a lawsuit. You didn't think that just because something happens on Friday and doesn't get in the paper until Saturday that we wouldn't see it, did you?
(Campaign Strategy 101: If I've learned anything from the West Wing, it's that candidates will often wait until Friday to take actions that they think are necessary but might not be well received by the public hoping that the news coverage will be minimal and that most people won't read the paper on Saturday morning. Archaeologists believe that there was a time when people actually read information from a piece of paper with ink on it then disposed of the that paper and its contents. Now with the power of this so-called "internets" we can hold onto these stories forever! Yay us!)
By the way, if you're keeping score of Number of Lawsuits by or on behalf of a candidate, that's Dougherty - 2, Nutter - 1, everyone else - 0.
Really all these suits are just about making sure that rules are the game are clear before the players really step onto the field. Voters are very unlikely to choose a candidate based solely on his or her position on campaign finance. I mean, come on... really... the only way campaign finance would be an issue is if someone were actually proven to have solicited large donations in favor of giving a contributor preferential treatment for city business. But when has that ever happened? Huh? Ron who?
So there's a lot to chew on here. When does someone become a real candidate? Are limits on campaign contributions giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates who can afford to finance their own campaigns? Should the city have the power to regulate its own elections? What would it take to get the state to pass campaign finance reform? What will Brad and Angelina name their soon-to-be Namibian-born child?