We get letters... (The Next Mayor)

And this one, e-mailed in response to the campaign finance controversy, is from John Karr, political director of the Libertarian Party of Philadelphia.

"So called Campaign Finance Reform is a farce. Both parties are corrupt and they’re both writing the rules that are supposed to make them less corrupt."

Read more after the jump...

So called Campaign Finance Reform is a farce. Both parties are corrupt and they’re both writing the rules that are supposed to make them less corrupt. The rules that they write tend to squeeze out the little guy, the people like Nutter and Evans who are established in the political landscape can collect from lots of donors, rich people like Tom Knox can pay their way. But ordinary people who are stepping up to try and change things get shut out either way.

The alternative we often hear of having the government finance elections will still work out so that the little guys get nothing. The FEC recognizes five political parties as being National Political Parties. When the Republicans and Democrats nominate their candidates the FEC writes them a check for $80 million. When the Green, the Libertarian, and Constitution Parties nominate their candidates, they get $0. Yet the little guys have to follow all of the same reporting rules and donation limitations. In order to pay my Libertarian Party Dues I have to write three separate checks, one to the National Party, one to the Pennsylvania Party and one to my County Chapter, it didn’t used to be this way, and by making people have to join each level separately has reduced revenue and increased the paperwork that the minor parties across the board must do.

If you want to talk about really fixing the corruption and pay to play culture, then let’s talk about breaking the two party monopoly. Get rid of all of the stupid campaign laws that don’t work. The only one that matters is disclosure – who gave how much to whom. Require that every office up for election be subject to one of the following: Approval Voting (vote for all candidates you approve of), Preferential Voting (allow voters to select a second choice for an instant run-off between the top vote getters if no one gets a majority), or Proportional Representation (the At-Large Council race is a very crude form of this). As an example of how stacked the political duopoly has made it, last year Republican and Democratic Candidates for Statewide office needed 2000 signatures, other candidates needed 67,000 signatures, and not only were the minor parties off the ballot but the Green Senate Candidate has been fined close to $200,000 (in addition to his own legal bills) for trying to get on the ballot. So not only are the Minor Parties shafted by every attempt at campaign finance reform, but we are forced to spend all of our resources just getting on the ballot.

What Democrats and Republicans call Campaign Finance Reform is really just a veil for keeping the competition down.

John Karr
Political Director, 18th Ward Leader
Libertarian Party of Philadelphia.

Comments (14)

John:

Bob Brady is hands down the best canidate for Mayor. He is exactly what philadelphia needs, someone who is in touch with the people and can get things done.

Posted by John | February 4, 2007 4:20 PM

Duce :

same guy who said "we just spun that s--t", yeah real man of the "people"

Posted by Duce | February 5, 2007 10:39 AM

sheth

what does "get things done" really mean? I keep reading that about Brady. I know he "brings people together" but I'm not sure that is enough to make someone a great mayor.

Posted by sheth | February 5, 2007 11:31 AM

Andy Daven:

A couple thoughts...First is, my understanding about that "we just spin" quote is that it was taken out of context, so I think we should probably stop throwing that around.

No one knew it was an FBI bug until a week before the election, so they had to guess where it was from. Was it such a leap to think it came from the Ashcroft White House?

More to the point about getting things done, I think it means this... Brady has always been the problem solver in the city, from the SETPA strike, to the Teachers strike, to getting lights on the Platt bridge, getting funding into the shipyard, or even getting the funding for ground-breaking technology at Penn.

He's also been the guy who could stop political fueds so people would get back to work for the city. And when crime started to blow up, he was the only person in the city that could get everyone to the table to talk about it. No one else could have pulled that off! (Unfortunatley, he probably realized that if he wanted something done, he'd have to do it himself.)

Brady also is one of the few candidates with bi-racial appeal. He's head of a largely African American ward and has the only majority minority congressional district.

So, I know you know about the "brings people together", but just as much he has a record of "getting things done".

He's been the number one fundraiser for bringing federal money to Philadelphia to create JOBS for people. And while many people spend their days beating their chests for publicity, Brady has been comfortable to just do the work and give the credit to other people.

Hope that helps... Of all the candidates (except maybe Chaka), Brady has the most exensive track record in terms of service to the city, at the local level and the federal level.

Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 1:26 PM

Dave

What context should Brady's "spinning the sh**" quote have been taken in? I'm not quite sure what else "Nah, I was just spinning the sh**. And it worked" should be taken to mean?

Posted by Dave | February 5, 2007 2:00 PM

Dave,

If you want to keep using it, please find the whole context and reference from where that came from, and post it, so we can see the context.

Thanks

Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 2:09 PM

davekopps

Brady defended Street during the FBI probe and more than a dozen of Street's employees, associates and allies go to jail. then he says he was just "spinning the sh**"

so let's see what brady says tomorrow when his friend Fumo gets indicted and then let's see what he says in 6 months after Fumo and/or his minions get sent away.

the guy is a disgrace.

Posted by davekopps | February 5, 2007 2:36 PM

If the allegation is that Philadelphia Magazine used the quote out-of-context in one of their articles, I fail to see how finding that article and posting it here will help clear things up.

The article obviously printed it in the context of that being his response to whether he really thought the FBI investigation into corruption in Mayor Street's administration was really a racist Republican conspiracy. Only Bob Brady (or maybe you?) can tell us in what context we're actually supposed to take it.

Posted by Dave | February 5, 2007 2:38 PM

Look, I'm only saying that you remember the context one way, I remember it the other. Most people I know, at the time, thought it was a Republican plot. So, Brady wasn't saying anything that most people weren't thinking.

By the way, Brady may have defended Street (and I'm no fan here), but Street was NOT indicted, and nothing was turned up on him. City Treasurer, yes, Street, no.

So, I'm not sure what you're saying.

Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 2:44 PM

Anonymous:

I am saying that he proved to me that I can't trust him. If he was "spinning the sh**" because "that's what everyone else thought at the time" then what kind of leader is he? If really knew at the time that it was not a "repubican plot" but spun the sh** anyway, then he is liar. which do you prefer, a lemming or a liar?

Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2007 3:16 PM

That previous anonymous commenter wasn't me, although I tend to agree with what s/he said.

I also agree with what the Attytood blog said:

http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/the_shame_of_2003_wont_die.html

Posted by Dave | February 5, 2007 3:19 PM

You still haven't shown that this comment was in context. As I said, it was taken out of context. I'm glad to revisit that, but no one using it seems to be able to show the context or that he was even referring to this topic.

Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 3:24 PM

I think I told you what context it was placed in. Now the balls in your court as far as explaining what context it's supposed to have been taken in but wasn't... boy, I'm loving this little discussion about context ;-)

Posted by Dave | February 5, 2007 10:00 PM

I think Brady's comments are pretty easy to understand. Forget about "context", just read the article and his comment. Everyone knows what he was saying and I think that comment and his behavior during the '03 election will haunt him.

Posted by Anonymous | February 6, 2007 9:20 AM

Comments (14)

Post a comment