Nutter comes out swinging on campaign finance reform (The Next Mayor)

As Councilman Kenney prepares to introduce a bill that would remove the limits on some large donations in the mayor's race, Michael Nutter has scheduled a press conference to condemn the bill.

It will be Thursday at noon, outside City Council chambers.

Lifting the limits, conventional wisdom says, would benefit Brady (who could get big checks from big labor) and Evans (ditto), while hurting candidates who are working a broader base of smaller and individual donors. That would include Nutter.

Of course, Kenney's bill is triggered by Tom Knox's jump in the latest mayoral poll, which showed that the cost of a 21 point jump in poll numbers right now is just over $2 million in TV advertising.

It's a tough issue. Millionaires have the right to spend as much of their personal fortune as they want to on running, because the First Amendment protects political speech, and what's more obviously political speech than spending millions to promote your political goals? But we see that such spending absolutely has the power to move the race -- though it's early, folks -- and so some people want to respond by opening up the spigots for other candidates who don't have $15 million to spend running for mayor.

And yet, campaign donation limits were one way that the city was attempting to reform its pay-to-play culture. Yes, even Kenney's bill would not change the new rules that prohibit developers and law firms from writing huge checks to campaigns (they'd still lose their ability to bid on city business if they do). But, under the Kenney proposal, what's to stop a union or PAC from exerting a lot of political influence? Is it a good idea to allow unfettered union donations, for example, when one issue raised in this race is reform of the city's zoning and construction codes? And what other groups could be given a wide-open field to pay and play in?

Therefore, expect Nutter tomorrow to link this issue to ethics reform, which he championed as a City Councilman and has raised early in this primary.

Comments (8)

Jamal Jones:

I know many of you are upset by the rumor that the campaign finance laws may be removed tomorrow. I just hope it is more than a rumor. Allow me to make a few points, if I may.
Campaign finance laws were designed to level the playing field. A goal we all wish to see happen, especially me. In this instance, one evil was traded for another. Under the current law, no longer can rich persons “buy” candidates, but rich candidates can “buy” city hall. Look at Knox: with no real policy, substance, or credibility, he has purchased himself approximately 25% of the vote. Meanwhile, the other (dare I say more credible) candidates have their legs tied with regard to fund raising.
Also, this law violates the powers the State gives to municipalities to regulate campaign finance: it is only still in existence because of an appeals process. Trust me, after that appeal, the current city law will be reversed. The only problem is that it will happen one month after the election… But in the meantime, the city is for sale, start the bidding! If Knox really cared so much about poverty in Philadelphia, why not invest $15 Million in the cities under educated, under funded, under privileged children?
Please just consider this non-bialy: the current law is flawed. Unless you are for Knox (and that’s your choice to make) then this law is a hindrance to your candidate. Regardless of who you are for, the current campaign finance law is a hindrance to democracy. The City ought not to be for sale!

Posted by Jamal Jones | January 31, 2007 11:38 PM

Dave

While I agree that this doesn't constitute a level playing field, I tend to prefer that a candidate beholden to himself than to special interests.

Furthermore, I think your claims that Knox lacks policy, substance or credibility. If nothing else (and those who have gone to public forums Knonx has attended know that he does have other ideas), the fact that he's successfully run large organizations in the private sector lends him some credibility.

Posted by Dave | February 1, 2007 9:01 AM

Jennifer:

I question whether it's worse to be responsible only to yourself, or to others and special interests. You may immediately say special interests. But I think I disagree. Knox isn't responsible to anyone...without relying on others for campaign funds, he has no one to keep him in check. Say what you will about "special interests" or groups doing what they think is best, they keep elected officials in check. For every special interest on one side, there is a special interest on the other side balancing them out. Sometimes they don't have the same resources ($$), but they help to balance the system. A candidate or elected official that only needs himself, is certainly not reassuring.
Knox isn't even beholden to the voters once he gets in office. He doesn't have to please anyone and can do whatever he wants. There is no hammer, there is no penalty for him. He doesn't need the money and he certainly does not have to worry about a post-mayoral career to support his family.

Mind you his private sector business was health insurance and pay day lending, not exactly role model industries.

Posted by Jennifer | February 1, 2007 9:09 AM

sheth

Street had plenty of donors but I dont consider him to be "in check" or accountable to anyone. I think its a stretch to say big donors are enough to keep candidates honest once they are in office. I'm no Knox fan, but honestly a rich runs because he wants the job. I think its silly to say he is spending all this money to get to CH and do nothing for 4 years. At least two of the five candidates want to get in office (partially at least) to empower their friends and supporters. Sure it will be a little harder with the new reform laws, but I assure you they will do their best to reward those who have been loyal. At least Knox doesnt have to repay anyone with cushy jobs and board seats if he wins. I'm pretty sure Knox would have to pay attention to what voters want if he plans to seek two terms. I think a guy with little experience would stand a high chance of being voted out if the public disapproves of his performance as mayor.

Posted by sheth | February 1, 2007 9:20 AM

Bobby:

Campaign finance laws ARE NOT intended to "level the playing field"...they're intended to make sure that one or more large donors don't have undue influence over a candidate or that a candidate isn't beholden to one or more large vendors. You can't stop rich people from being beholden to themselves.

Posted by Bobby | February 1, 2007 9:27 AM

I don't think reality backs your comments up, Jennifer. Just take a look at how much influence unions have in this city. Who's balancing them out?

And what does Knox not needing a job to go back to if he were elected have to do with being responsible to voters? The reason most elected officials aren't responsive to voters is that they have special interests to thank for having gotten elected more than they have voters to thank. When you say Knox "can do whatever he wants," are you saying he'd do things that would financially benefit him? Since he's got so much money already, why would he do that? Wouldn't he be risking going to prison like Councilman Rick Mariano, and the 30+ people who have pled guilty or been convicted as a result of the FBI corruption probe did? Furthermore, why do you think Knox is running for office in the first place? Like you said, it's not like he needs a job to pay the bills.

Posted by Dave | February 1, 2007 9:28 AM

mike:

Dwight Evans has proposed a good approach to this issue - keeping the limits in place, but including an adjustor related to the "millionare's exception".

Dwight Evans for Mayor
Feb 1, 2007

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Tim Spreitzer

DATE: Thursday, February 1, 2007
OFFICE: 215/253-4965
tim@evansformayor

DWIGHT EVANS CALLS ON CITY COUNCIL
TO REJECT EFFORT TO REMOVE CAMPAIGN LIMITS

PHILADELPHIA --- Mayoral candidate Dwight Evans today called on Philadelphia City Council to reject an effort to remove campaign contribution limits based on personal contributions from wealthy candidates. In a letter to all City Council members, Evans asked Council to vote against the outright removal of the caps. Instead, Evans urged Council to consider simply escalating the factor by which individual campaign contributions are increased as a wealthy candidate spends more of their personal resources on the campaign.

“I was disappointed to learn that Councilman Jim Kenney has put forth a proposal to eliminate caps on political donations to candidates running for office in Philadelphia,” Evans wrote in the letter to Council. “Those who support such a proposal are signaling their support of the pay-to-play, machine-driven politics that reward the few at the expense of the many. For too long, our City politicians, and by extension, our city government, have been run in such a manner. It is time for a change, and those of us in elected positions must set an example today for the candidates of tomorrow.”

Evans believes a better course of action for Council would be to simply increase the multiple by which the current caps are raised given certain escalations of personal spending by any mayoral candidate. For example, if a candidate were to spend in excess of $2 million of personal resources in a campaign, then the limits on individual contributions should increase by a factor of four. Coupled with requirements for 24-hour disclosure of any donation over $1,000, this would move toward leveling the playing field while maintaining public scrutiny and preventing a return to the “Wild-West” days of old.

“I strongly urge you to not give in to the tired practices of reactionary politics or the tendencies for corruption under unlimited campaign contributions,” Evans wrote.

Posted by mike | February 1, 2007 1:34 PM

Andy Daven:

Wow...I can't believe someone is making the argument that Knox would be well suited because he would be beholded to no one!

The whole idea is you want the Mayor beholden....to the voters!

Sure, the Mayor will remember who supported him. But I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but I wouldn't want to help someone that wouldn't return my call.

Now, if there is a question about curruption, that's one thing, but simply remembering the people who got you where you're going is common courtesy.

The idea that Knox is somehow clean (pay day loans and predatory lending aside) because he simply bought the election with his own money, is ludicrous!

Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 10:02 PM

Comments (8)

Post a comment