Reading for Monday (The Next Mayor)

Two stories to call to your attention today:

Dave Davies of the Daily News has an excellent column on Tom Knox, which raises the question of what the loan of $5 million of his own money to his campaign really means.

Knox loaned his campaign the money. That means it can be repaid to him after a Knox victory. That raises the alarming specter of City Hall fund-raisers for Knox -- to be blunt, of special interests giving a sitting mayor money after his election that would go straight into his own pockets.

I am surprised that the campaign didn't immediately say, "Well, it was a loan because that was a long time before the race. Of course, once Tom wins, he will forgive the loan. We were serious about that take-the-For-Sale-sign-down-off-City-Hall thing."

But, as you will see if you read the story, they so didn't say that.

As Dave writes, "If somebody says they want to buy City Hall back for me, I'd like to know they aren't doing it with a $5 million mortgage."

Yikes.

Also, Thomas Fitzgerald of the Inky has a look at the candidates on the stump as we close in on the last 10 weeks of the campaign.

And the Inquirer editorial page on Sunday has a well-deserved pat on the back for the five (serious, ie non-Milton) Democratic candidates for making this a campaign about issues. It's true and a real credit to the five people in the race.

Now, let's keep it that way for the next 10 weeks.

Comments (3)

Linda:

PHILADELPHIANS want government that responds to the needs of our people, and not just to those whose money carries influence. It matters little whether this money is contributed by rich corporations or by wealthy individuals. It should matter little whether it comes from a thousand individuals, or just one affluent candidate.

Every resident should be able to serve. If the rich are given a bigger advantage, as the current campaign-finance law unintentionally provides, then our city has erected roadblocks to good citizenship. Worse, it did so at a time when many low-income residents already feel disconnected from the mainstream and cut off from the Center City's prosperity.

The Committee of 70 deserves our thanks for its efforts to promote campaign-finance reform.

As it has chosen to lead this campaign, local residents have a responsibility to demand accountability from this prestigious and increasingly influential group. How racially diverse are they? How many meetings were held in poorer communities to hear diverse ideas and perspectives? When they formulated their blueprint for action, who sat at the table? Does the majority of this group's membership live in the city or suburbs?

When tackling campaign finance, reform may shut one door and lock out some influence-peddlers. But if it leaves the window open, what really was accomplished?

Posted by Linda | March 5, 2007 10:41 AM

Dave

My understanding is that the campaign finance loophole for self-funded candidates was introduced by the (federal) supreme court ruling in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case. It had nothing to do with the Committee of Seventy or our local politicians (at least it's my understanding that those on city council who drafted the bill would have supported limits for self-funded candidates).

As far as I'm concerned, the campaign finance reform we have now is better than none.

Posted by Dave | March 5, 2007 11:39 AM

Wendy:

Dave is right -- the right to self-fund a campaign comes from the US Supreme Court, which ruled it was a part of First Amendment-given freedoms. 70 has actually said they'd rather no one be able to buy city hall, but when the US Supremes rule, there's not much that can be done.

Posted by Wendy | March 5, 2007 3:12 PM

Comments (3)

Post a comment