The Brady Relief Act? (The Next Mayor)

Here's some VERY interesting fallout from today's poll.

Dave Davies of the Daily News reports:

City Councilman Jim Kenney wants to take the fundraising gloves off of the non-millionaire candidates in the mayor’s race.

Kenney will introduce a bill in City Council tomorrow amending the city’s campaign finance law to lift the contribution limits for mayoral candidates in a race where a self-funded candidate kicks in $2 million or more.

Businessman Tom Knox’s $2 million TV advertising spree which has taken him from nowhere to second place in this week’s Keystone poll.

If Kenny’s bill passes and is signed by the mayor, it would leave Bob Brady, Dwight Evans, Mike Nutter and Chaka Fattah free to collect checks as big as they want until the May 15 primary.

But the change still won’t return the city to the days of unlimited pay-to-play contributions.

Inaddition to the campaign fianance law, the city has a new set of pay-to-play contracting laws which restrict contributions from anyone who wants to do business with, or get a financial benefit from the city.

So big law firms, insurance companies, developers, etc still can’t make mondo contributions unless they’re prepared to forego city business for four years.

Who does that leave to write the big checks? Unions for one, many of which support Brady, whom Kenney also supports. And maybe some trade associations or Harrisburg PACS….. it will be interesting to see who the money players are if the bill passes.

Kenney says he thinks he as the support of most Council Democrats, and believes the bill is needed to restore some fairness to the mayor’s race.

“Every five minutes on television I see a Tom Knox ad,” Kenney said. “Unfortunately the campaign finance restrictions have left one candidate with the ability to get his message out on the one really effective medium.”

“Today’s Daily News pushed me over the top on this,” Kenney said, referring to Knox’s showing the Keysone poll. “Tom Knox bought 22 points worth of name recognition. If he weren’t in the race, we wouldn’t even be talking about this change.”

Comments (10)

Dave

Does Councilman Kenney support Brady, or is State Sen Vince Fumo Councilman Kenney's patron saint/politician and also happens to be pushing Brady for mayor?

Regardless, it looks like I was right about not being able to trust City Council to close the loophole sensibly (or at least in a way that I find sensible).

Posted by Dave | January 31, 2007 4:43 PM

I've been informed that limiting contributions from individuals is unconstitutional, so I guess that idea wouldn't have worked. Maybe Councilman Kenney's proposal is the best solution after all.

Posted by Dave | January 31, 2007 4:59 PM

Jennifer:

Why would this bill benefit Brady the most? Don't the other candidates have connections to other organizations that have money? Presumably Fattah has access - he wasn't into the campaign finance limits in the first place (didn't he accept a $250,000 check pre-candidacy?). Also Fattah and Evans are/were on the Appropriations Committees in their respective positions. They would also have access to big donors, right? Nutter works for some company that does business with the city as well - I assume they are networking to raise money for him and cut big checks.

I am not sold on campaign finance limits, as I said before, because they, alone, are not the solution. Maybe this will level the playing field?

Posted by Jennifer | January 31, 2007 5:13 PM

As the blog entry mentions, there is a law that keeps large contributors from getting city contracts. Even though they would be allowed to give money to the candidates, the theory is that they might not want to since they wouldn't be able to get city contracts in exchange for the contributions. I'm assuming that unions aren't included among the organizations that can't receive city contracts if they've made large political donations, hence the perceived advantage for Brady, who has a lot of support among unions (I believe his December fundraiser was organized by union leaders).

Did that make sense?

Posted by Dave | January 31, 2007 5:31 PM

James Seibert:

Kenney is a fraud... first he wants to find ways for the city to fine geneo's for for the owner speaking his mind. Now he wants to introduce a bill just to help his political friend Brady??? This man should be feared by all AMERICANS!!!

Posted by James Seibert | February 1, 2007 3:57 AM

sheth

Kenney is very obviously doing this to benefit Brady who will be able to get fat union checks. Unions are one of the few groups that wont be penalized for donating money to candidates and thus Brady would stand to benefit the most from this changes. Fattah and Nutter dont seem to have much labor support and I think they would be penalized to some extent, although Fattah can just get some big checks from his friends in politics. Kenney used to be about reform but ever since he made up with Steet he has lost my respect. Now he all about supporting the status quo, in this case Brady.

Posted by sheth | February 1, 2007 9:15 AM

Vic:

This is another case of the unions and Brady trying to control the city.Six months everyone said that this candidate did not even count. A joke, he'll never make it, TV does automatically mean votes. NOW Brady is a little worried that people are sick of the same old thing and if a new message is delivered effectively, that the old guard could loose and there would be a new Philadelphia. This should be a race and people should stop trying to change the rules during the race. If this was an issue, it should have been an issue when council was developing the original campaign reform legislation. But back then, people were so arrogant that it did not even matter. Some candidates have ward leaders, some have coalitions, others have churches and some have money. Let the candidates do what they do! May the person who excites the most voters win!

Posted by Vic | February 1, 2007 9:39 AM

davekopps

Re: "Stunned by Knox poll, council ready to rewrite reforms" by M. Schaffer at the Inky -
These guys are unbelievable. They are terrified that someone outside their club, who hasn't "paid their dues", who doesn't owe them anything, might actually win and ruin their sweet gig. Our political class is pathetic.

Posted by davekopps | February 1, 2007 2:21 PM

Andy Daven:

Guys, you're arguing the wrong point. It's not about who benefits...that's up to the people.

The issue is whether the current law is a good law, fair, and just. And the answer is NO! It is not because it has a LOOP HOLE that allows a self financed multi-millionaire to give himself 3000% of the individual donor limit ($5K versus $15 Million he said he'd put in).

That is not fair, and please have the integrity to admit that, instead of trying to game this out for your candidate of choice.

Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 10:05 PM

Marvin Brausnstein:

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Real finance reform would in some way make the playing field the exact same/level for each candidate. Each of the candidates except for Mr. Knox has different stakeholder groups that want to support them. So far as I can tell Mr. Knox has one stakeholder group, i.e., Mr. Knox. Whatever else he has, he has bought. I support the working men and women of America; not some millionaire who probably is only interested in his ego. If Mr. Brady can get money from my union brothers and sister; God bless him!

M. Braunstein

Posted by Marvin Brausnstein | February 5, 2007 2:28 PM

Comments (10)

Post a comment