And you thought it would be the casinos! (Might still be, actually.)
Please go check out Young Philly Politics, which has a complete compendium of the sentiment on the Kenney bill, including a look at each of the City Council co-sponsors and their vulnerability to motivated opponents. Directly quoted from Dan U-A:
CoSponsors:
1)Frank DiCicco (strong opponent running, who opposes this)
2)Dan Savage (strong opponent running, who opposes this)
3)Donna Miller (strong opponent running, who opposes this)
4)Carol Campbell (strong opponent running, who opposes this)
5)Marian Tasco (very disappointed in this. Generally a very good Councilperson. Now that Evans is opposed, it is important to see what she does.)
6)Darrell Clarke
7)Juan Ramos (at large candidate, with many strong candidates)
8)Joan Krajewski
And Dan concludes: "102 days till election day. Do you really want to do this?"
(ETA: Irv Ackelsberg, a candidate for the 8th council district (that would be Donna Reed Miller's seat) has sent out his statement opposing the Kenney bill and asking Miller to reconsider her support. Read it here.)
Comments (22)
Warning about Young Philly Politics!
I linked to this site because I saw it advertised here today. I posted a few things, and was BOOTED off the site, because I disagreed with the moderator. This is crazy!
Here is what he sent me:
"Concern troll, its time to
Submitted by Dan U-A on Sat, 02/03/2007 - 6:18pm.
Concern troll, its time to start your own site.
Yeah, metaphors are now political terrorism.
Peace, Andy, we will be seeeeeing you."
This site DOES NOT allow disagreement or debate. If you are not on board with their support of certain candidats and certain views, you can not participate.
THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN VOICES FROM AROUND THE CITY. Only the elites in the wealthy parts of Center City and Chestnut Hill.
This site has no credibility!
Posted by Andy Daven | February 3, 2007 6:27 PM
They booted me too... this site is not an open forum: it is a biased sounding board for 1 candidate... they aren't even allowing new users. I got booted for supporing Kenney.... THIS SI BOGUS!!!!
Posted by David Golberg | February 3, 2007 11:14 PM
There is no doubt that YPP has a certain slant. For those who only started reading recently, however, you probably aren't aware that the site has evolved quite a bit over time. I don't agree with the moderators all the time but since I've contributed substantial and issue based posts, they even front page me once in a while.
I suspect you were banned because you didn't build up your cred before jumping into the debate. The site has had a rash of new users and it's difficult to discern who might be a potential valuable contributor and who is just mad because their favorite ally isn't worshipped. I hope other visitors learn the lesson. For the record, I'm not an elite, not from Center City or Chestnut Hill and not a Ted Kennedy liberal. Generally speaking, I'd even say that Council Kenney is a decent Council representative even if this latest fiasco is more about preserving entrenched power than leveling the playing field.
Posted by mdcphilly | February 3, 2007 11:34 PM
Dare I ask...what was the point you were trying to make?
I'm interested in points of view that support Kenney's bill, as long as the discourse here stays rational and thoughtful.
I should say, I have to agree with everyone who has noted that he has proven in the past to be an intelligent and caring City Councilperson.
Posted by Wendy | February 3, 2007 11:46 PM
I was just giving another view on YPP for your readers.
As for Kenney's bill, while I'm no fan, he is doing a credible job of defending it on YPP--arguing that Tom Knox will buy the Mayor's office if his bill is not passed.
I'm not sure Knox buying the office is better or worse than others using their various advantages to win office. Moreover, since it is probable that Knox is merely a spoiler, the argument that he'll buy the office is somewhat specious.
Posted by mdcphilly | February 4, 2007 12:33 AM
On the YPP site, my understanding is that multiple people have been kicked off, and the only consistency was that they had views that differed from the moderator! That's fine for that site to do that, but then they should say clearly that they only allow views within a certain range, or participants that support certain candidates. I don't even have to mention who those candidates are, because it's that obvious!
It is an interesting site to read, but people need to keep in mind that it is in no way representative of the electorate at large in the city, and the site has a track-record of banning people who didn't "build up your cred" on the site, i.e., who aren't part of their cabal.
I think the site needs a large disclaimer up front that it is only for a certain limited ideological crew, that it implicitly or explicitly endorses candidates, and that new participation or new voices are viewed with skepticism if they deviate from agreement with the 5 or 10 usual conversants.
Really, I guess what I'm saying, is this site is fraudulent, because it is not what it purports to be! In that way, it does a disservice to people like Councilman Kenney and Goode who read it, because they may not be aware that posts of certain view points are being deleted and members are banned if the conversation takes a turn that the moderator doesn't like. As they are quick to say, they own the bandwith, not the participants, and they'll do as they please. (For that reason alone, they should have to relinquish the lable progressive, as the progressive movement was about inclusion and participation and transparency!!!)
Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 1:54 AM
On the Kenney Bill!
If you read the YPP site, there is a growing movement towards SUPPORT of the Kenney bill and the closing of the multi-millionaire loophole. Unfortunately, those were the members who were kicked off.
In short, the argument was that the campaign finance ordinance sought to reign in the pay to play culture, and take the "For Sale" sign off City Hall. Unfortunately, a gaping loop hole was left open, that of a self-financed campaign, which would have NO restrictions.
Thus, although an individual can only give $5K, Tom Knox can give himself $15 Million (which he said he would do). That means Tom Knox can give himself 3000% more than any donor could give a candidate.
Councilman Kenney and his colleagues realized that in this first test of the new law that someone stepped into this loop hole. The result was someone with less than 1% name recognition was able to buy his way into the #2 spot in the most recent poll, despite having no political record to speak of. In addition, the Hollywood style self promotion and spin of course didn't protray the whole story, including that some of the money to fund this effort came from predatory pay day loans earned off the backs of working people. (We're talking 400% loans here!)
So, there is a growing chorus of people in the city who are saying BRAVO to Councilman Kenney for his leadership to stop something most of us know is wrong.
The goal was to take down the FOR SALE sign on City Hall, not establish a price and sell it all together! Anyone in the know, knows that Tom Knox is not a credible candidate, but clearly money works. This was NOT the intention of the reform ordinance.
It should also be noted that the pay to play stuff was also kept in the ordinance, so law firms that donate couldn't get no bid work, etc. The only change proposed would be to level the playing field when a self funded multi millionaire steps in the race with the intention to buy the election (investing over $2 Million of his money).
I am certain that the goal of this ordinance was not create an environment where rich people at any time could step in and by any Council seat or the Mayor's Office simply because the law given them an advantage that cannot be matched.
So, congratulations Councilman Kenney at stepping up, and exposing yourself to those who are protesting this (many of whom are disengenuous and really are angered that it may not help their candidate of choice).
I think most reasonable people realize that this is an unacceptable loophole, and the sooner Council fixes this, the better.
If they do not act, Philadelphians may wake up with Mayor Knox, and when they realize he is not the man that $15 Million of TV said he was, the whole city would have a rude awakening. I wouldn't want to be the councilmember who brought us that reality, because I was scared of the attacks from supporters of one of the candidates whose only chance at winning is to protray himself as an outsider who is fighting the establishment. (Note, that candidate is fighting to stay on as ward leader, and be part of the same structure he publically denounces).
Anyway, that's off topic. Kudos to Kenney and his co-sponsors on doing what most Philadelphians want!
Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 2:13 AM
Although not a young Philadephian, I am a regular reader and frequent poster on YPP. (Yes, they allow old folks on the list and a lot of interesting intergenerational dialogue occurs.)
I’ve learned a great deal from the many thoughtful posters and can attest that there is a very wide range of views expressed. The moderator steps in only when a poster uses scurrilous, abusive language or engages in over the top personal attacks.
Andy arrived on the site a day ago, posting essesntially the same post over and over again, and using very inflammatory language--e.g., calling people he disagreed with political terrorists! Interestingly, he is adopting a very different style on this list.
I know many moderators would have been a lot less patient with Andy Daven than the YPP moderator.
The chorus of approval for Kenney’s bills was essentially a chorus of one or two voices repeating the same points non-stop. Most posters were in favor of the contribution limits which reformers struggled so hard to get. There have been disagreements about best strategy to respond to Kenney’s bill. What follows is my response to Marc Stier which gives a better flavor of the kind of debate which usually occurs on YYP than does Andy’s rant:
Changing the rules in the middle of the game is a really bad idea
Marc Stier has suggested that there be a compromise with Councilman Kenney which would keep the principle of caps on contributions, but allow other Mayoral candidates to collect larger contributions as Knox keeps contributing to his own campaign. Marc doesn’t cite numbers, so it’s not clear to what extent any such compromise would gut campaign finance reform.
However, changing the rules in the middle of the game is a really bad idea.
Everyone knew that Knox would do this. Wilson Goode has already addressed this problem by amending the campaign finance law to raise the caps when a candidate like Knox entered the race.
And now because of the results of one poll, Brady’s supporters are in a panic and want to change the rules in the middle of an election cycle. The Committee of Seventy has raised questions about the legality of this:
If the Kenney ordinance prevails, we believe that the
constitutionality of changing the campaign finance system after five
individuals have already declared their candidacy is likely to be challenged
in the courts. (From letter to Philadelphia Board of Ethics posted at http://www.seventy.org)
Of course self-financing candidates like Knox are a major problem, and thanks to Supreme Court decisions, we are not in position to ban his contributions to his own campaign.
But why backtrack on reforms we fought so hard to get because those reforms do not address every problem? The limit on campaign contributions was not designed to eliminate the self-financing candidates’ advantage. It was designed to counter corruption.
Reform can’t stop at contribution limits. We must have public financing and this should be a major goal of progressives after this election cycle. This will be a long, protracted (but I think ultimately winnable) battle.
Backtracking on the reforms we’ve achieved will not make it any easier to gain support for public financing. Each gain strengthens our position to fight for further gains.
And what could be worse public policy than changing our campaign finance laws every time a poll comes out that frightens backers of one candidate???
Posted by karen | February 4, 2007 9:51 AM
If the unions are so upset that they can't fund Brady's campaign, why not start a "Unions for Brady" advertising campaign. Wouldn't that be protected under the first amendment? The more I think about it, the more I think the current campaign finance law is forcing transparency as far as who supports what candidate and the various "who" entities out there either don't realize how they can now support their candidate or they're resisting it.
Posted by Dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/nextmayor/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2007 12:44 PM
Never mind, I just saw Wendy's response in the previous "Bob Brady respons" discussion. Looks like I'm probably wrong.
Posted by Dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/nextmayor/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2007 12:47 PM
Thank you for following me to this blog to attack me here as well. All my posts on the Young Philly Politics site were appropriate, and I encourage anyone who wants to go to that site and read what I had to say there.
Again, it's amazing how some of you will characterize as inappropriate anyone that disagrees.
And when I said "political terrorism" it was a satirical point, a subtlety I'm sure not missed on you, but you chose to quote out of context anyway. Furthermore, I never called anyone a hack -- I was called a hack when I expressed a dissenting view.
Also, as I said on that sight, I'm leaning towards Chaka, although people dismissed anyone who supported the Kenney bill as a shill Brady supporter.
I don't know why some of you can't imagine that a reasonable person could disagree on a reasonable issue.
If you don't care to discuss the issues, and want to just continue with innuendo and attack, than go back to the Young Philly site, where that appears to be the norm.
Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 5:22 PM
On the topic of racism, I certainly didn't hurl that charge either.
However, my understanding was that a grass roots group of African Americans called Unity in the Community posted on the site, and their post was pulled.
I found one of their posts, which I've attached below.
It did appear that the YPP site had a very cool reception to new voices of African Americans who live in some of the more challenged neighborhoods. As I did say, YPP seems to want to limit itself to a mostly white, wealthy, and elitist audience, and will boot off anyone from a different cultural background or perspective. I'm not saying that as a criticism, per se, just a statement of fact.
Maybe the reason so many of the people on that site are supporting the Knox Multi-millionaire loophole, is because they want a mayor to be elected that looks and feels just like them? I don't know.
But with WHAT off the air, the "voice of the African American Community" was silenced. Now with YPP cutting African Americans off of their bandwith, and overtly supporting a loophole so that a multi-millionaire can buy an election, it make you wonder what is going on.
---
I am a member of Unity in the Community; a community based grassroots political action committee, who is in support of Congressman Robert R. Brady in his efforts to become the Mayor of the fine city of Philadelphia.
The reasons that our organization, which is primarily comprised of 35 year old and under members of the African-American community supports Mr. Brady are numerous; but I will limit our reasons to three. This is because I do not want to offend some of the more progressive and intellectually inclined members of the political community of Philadelphia. Those of you who have already formed your hostile and overly prejudicial views of the Congressman and his campaign. These opinions that the Congressman somehow represents some union financed, street thug supported, old-school apparatus. We decided to give him a chance and so should you.
The reasons we support Mr. Brady are he is a great unifier who can bring different groups of people to the table to resolve complex issues in a manner that is satisfying to all parties. Additionally, his experience as a dedicated and experienced Congressman in D.C. gives him an advantage in areas of raising money and political capital for the City of Philadelphia from the Federal Government. Finally, being raised in a row home in West Philly, the son of a police officer and hard working carpenter/family man he has the understanding of the psyche and make-up of all aspects of Philadelphia society and can put himself in the shoes of the lowest member as well as the highest member of society.
Posted by Andy Daven | February 4, 2007 5:29 PM
I am am member of the grassroots organization "Unity in the Community" and I was booted off of YPP as soon as I said the former... This site is bogus. Build up cred? Brother, I've lived in Philly for 30 years. I know the streets. I don't need someone from YPP telling me to build up cred before I can speak on what is supposed to be an open forum...
Posted by Shanti Smith | February 4, 2007 6:11 PM
Knox more sinister than I thought!
I just heard some inside information from a reliable source...
Apparently, Knox thinks he can really win, but he is concerned that if he rocks the boat, how will he govern City Council.
So, he's working out the final details of running a slate of both at-large candidates, and targeted district candidates.
He thinks that with $500,000 per seat, he can bring in, or bring to his side permanently, a majority vote in council, so he alone can push his agenda though.
Apparently, he was going to release this plan sooner, but they've put it under wraps because they're concerned about the Kenney bill. They're waiting (and hoping) for the bill to fail, so they can move forward.
I doubt anyone else had heard about this, because it's really under wraps, but if you have, let me know.
This is madness! And this is what campaign finance reform has brought us??
Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 10:07 AM
I just want to know why everyone is so afraid that Knox is going to win just because he has a lot of money. Has anyone here heard of Ross Perot or Steve Forbes? Being rich does not guarantee a victory in an election. Why cant the other candidates go after Knox's lack of experience and erase the advantage he has in money? This seems like an over-reaction and I doubt the campaign reforms will ever be reinstated if they are lifted now. while the other parts of the pay to play legislation will stay in place I wouldnt be surprised if we see them undone in the future when someone is inconvenienced. Instead of trying to fix the reform laws, Council is saying "reform doesnt work so let's give up".
Posted by sheth![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/nextmayor/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 5, 2007 11:15 AM
I think you're missing the point. It's not that people are scared of Knox... Perhaps he can win, perhaps when people learn about his pay day loans and predatory lending (and lack of record) he implodes.
What people are saying is the current situation is UNFAIR and a BAD LAW. Because a fair law doesn't let one man give himself 3000% of the individual donor limit.
It's really not that hard to get your hands around.
So, the Kenney bill is the right way to have a level playing field for this election. If that doesn't work, it can be re-tooled later.
Good Government is a work in progress, and the argument that now it's unfair in a way you like more than before, is just intellectually dishonest and ethically unsound.
Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 12:00 PM
How level will the field be if Saidel slides his money over to Brady? Or would that not be permissible?
Posted by Friedman | February 5, 2007 12:15 PM
Hey Andy,
Wouldn't $500k be far above the current legal limit for contributions an individual can make to a candidate's campaign? I'll have to check Lexis/Nexis and make sure, though... or I could read all about it in the Councilman Kenney bill discussion.
Posted by Dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/nextmayor/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 5, 2007 1:21 PM
Dave,
I'm not sure how he'd do it, and don't know if he'd give it to them. I just said I heard he'd run a slate...maybe through his own campaign he'd run Team Knox, and include some people in his commercials, and not others. I also think the thought was that $250K probably buys a council seat, but some could go to $500K.
Again, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the logistics...only that he's probably paid the most high powered to figure out a new loophole for him to not only control the mayor's office, but city council as well!
Posted by Andy Daven | February 5, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment Deleted. One copy of your comment is enough. Thanks.
Posted by m braunstein | February 5, 2007 4:00 PM
I think a visualized display can be improved then just a easy text, if information are defined in sketches one can simply understand these.
Posted by best car | January 18, 2012 2:50 PM
Can you please send by e-mail me the code for this script or please inform me in detail in relation to this script?
Posted by cheapcar insurance | January 19, 2012 8:05 AM