- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
The issue at hand
Submitted by Jim Kenney on Thu, 02/01/2007 - 1:18pm.
I was one of the first council people to introduce campaign finance reform legislation, and have been a continued supporter of efforts today to help the issue progress. I support campaign finance reform because it allows good candidates who may not have a political foothold, but have the desire and ability to make a positive difference, a fair and fighting chance to win elections and bring change to the sometimes stagnant system.
Capping campaign spending is a noble concept. Public financing of campaigns is equally venerable. But both are wishful thinking in an imperfect electoral system in an imperfect world. Candidates will always find ways to get around public financing and around spending limits. They will simply resort to dirtier, more surreptitious means of building press and securing votes. Instead of promoting that kind of behavior, I am suggesting a road which I truly feel will be better for everybody, from the average person running for committee person to the multimillion dollar mayoral candidates.
The fact that I am perservering amid criticism should show my resolve and belief in the issue. All candidates deserve to play on an equal plane. Our electoral system is unfortunately skewed to allow people to play the system with financial resources, not political experience and goodwill, and use it to manipulate the public beyond what is healthy for our citizens.
This is about fairness. The fairest way to solve this problem now, for today, is to grant other candidates an equal chance at courting the necessary media and advertising which our elections depend upon. Recent events have shown that public opinion, and ultimately, an election can be purchased. We need to afford all candidates the opportunity to use the most essential mediums at their disposal.
Remember, the law restricting holders of no-bid contracts like law firms and developers will still be in place. The provisions of my new bill are only triggered when an individual spends 2 million or more of their own money. Also, candidates recieving contributions over the current limit must report those contributions to the Board of Ethics and the City Election Commissions within 24 hours.
The risks of a candidate being "bought" by campaign contributors are no more evil than a candidate buying the election itself.
I know that many of you reading this already have solidified your opinion on this legislation. I'm not posting to try and change your beliefs, but merely as a courtesy to a group who cares about the issue and deserves to hear another side. This is not something I'm trying to shove under the radar. We will hold public hearings and it will move through the system like any other piece of legislation. But we need to have this discussion.
Sorry Jim
But there's no way that in the given context, you can convince me that this initiative respresnts principles rather than partisan loyalties.
While I don't agree with it, there is some merit in your rationale - the issue of personal wealth in campaign finance is a real one, but the time to make your principled argument is not the day after polls show Knox making huge gains against other candidates.
The day after....
is when I was able to see the clear results of his expenditures solely on TV. It is shocking. So amazing that I believe it warrants a public discussion.
Once again, Jim
There is just too much "backstory" going on here to accept this legislative iniative at face value. You aren't just trying to "level the playing field," you are trying to enhance the chances of some candidates relative to others in an ongoing campaign.
One could use the "playing field" argument to support Knox just as easily; he needs to spend money on TV ads because he needs to level the playing filed in terms of name recognition and inside political influence of other candidates.
Ultimately, you are disrespecting the intelligence of Philly voters by suggesting that you think that they won't judge Knox on issues, but only based on how many times they see him on TV. If you want to ensure a just election, get out and expose the weaknesses in his, or anyone else's positions. You have the platform to do so.
And in the meantime, you are weakening a policy which is targeted specifically at improving the equitability in our represntative government structures.
But Councilman . . .
Under federal law, the answer to a millionaire's self-financing isn't "no limits" but "expand the contribution limits", tripling them in the extreme case. Why shouldn't that be a sufficient answer here?
Fairness?
Councilman - will you be equally vigilant as the campaign unfolds as to whether Bob Brady unfairly uses the apparatus of the Democratic machine to give himself an unfair advantage?
which reminds me
Lawyers and law firms are basically prohibited from getting involved in big mayoral fundraising under the pay-to-play laws, so you know who's left to write the big checks? The unions.
Lame, but appreciated defense
Councilman, I appreciate your coming on here and attempting to defend yourself, but I have to agree with DEII on this one for a number of reasons.
First, Knox is an anomoly--we do not have a problem with millionares running for office at this time and in this city. What we do have, however, is what is obviously a political class who is starting to get nervous about new-comers. If you really wanted a vibrant democracy, we should be moving towards enhancing the opportunities of bright, young leaders to be in public life. Not make it harder. Regardless of your opinion of Knox--your bill will have a much larger effect. And though it applies to mayoral candidates---who knows what it will look like when it gets out of committee or what happens the next time. It's a slippery slope good Councilman.
If you really wanted to promote democracy on a grand scale, you would can this foolish bill now--before your otherwise very good reputation is tarnished by it.
Second, it is not really about an equal playing field, these campagin finance laws--it is about access. While special interests and firms who do business with the city may not be able to get work due to the pay to play regulations, what stops them from otherwise exerting pressure on issues like tax breaks, reinvestment funds, eminent domain issues. Nothing.
There was a reason why you supported them in the past, are you saying you were wrong then too?
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Which is it? Fairness or paternalism?
"Our electoral system is unfortunately skewed to allow people to play the system with financial resources, not political experience and goodwill, and use it to manipulate the public beyond what is healthy for our citizens."
So let's get this straight, you're worried that Philadelphia is populated by a bunch of rubes who are in danger of being duped into voting on the basis of something other than "political experience and goodwill"? Is that the danger your legislation is meant to address?
But then you go on to say "This is about fairness." You claim that it is not fair that one candidate has more access to the media than the others. Well is it fair that you change the rules in the middle of the game like some spoiled brat who knocks over a game rather than let someone else win? How is that fair?
Which is it? (a) paternalism; or (b) a spoiled brat?
That said, the whole things strikes me a a desperate move. Which makes me happy because that means the insiders are scared - which you should be.
______________________________
Phillyville
To level the playing field ...
is someone going to pass legislation not allowing family members of candidates to be on a mainstream nightly news station?
I also tend to agree it sounds like sour grapes changing the rules in mid stream.
So now we have 3 of the 5
So now we have 3 of the 5 candidates coming out saying they still want campaign finance limits.
Councilman Kenney, is that not an indicator that it is in the best interest to keep them in place? Not even the majority of the candidates want them revoked.
Oddly enough the two that want them removed are the two most tightly tied to the Philly Dem Machine.
Fattah
We haven't heard from his campaign yet, so, that isn't so clear.
Hell, we haven't heard from Brady yet, who could end this whole thing with one statement.
Yes, you are correct I am
Yes, you are correct I am jumping a bit to a conclusion.
Even though, 3 out of 5 is still 3 out of 5.
No...
The three candidates:
-Knox: obviously he just wants to outspend everybody.
-Nutter and Evans: They are playing race, hoping the white vote is split among Brady and Knox... they don't want to see Brady beat Knox by the margin he will when this law is revoked!
umm, the Brady supporters just played the race card...
wow, what a surprise.
______________________________
Phillyville
Woah...
No, I just spoke the truth... Why is it that every candidate but Brady is so supported here? This site has become WAY to biased...
Well between you and your
Well between you and your BFF posting every other minute, the Brady campaign... I mean perspective seems to be represented quite well today.
Damn Right
We are representin!
Brady Seems Pretty Well Connected...
So why can't he get any better representation online than two half-wits who can barely write? I haven't decided who I'll vote for in the primary, and I can definitely be persuaded to vote for Brady (or any other candidate for that matter), but the immature ways that his supporters (whether they are paid or not) behave in a semi-open forum like this does not bode well for his chances to become mayor. You are going to have to convince a hell of a lot of people to vote for your guy, so why not start practicing right here and right now? How about you write an impassioned & well written post that explains to the 92% of Philly who currently say they'll vote for someone not named Brady why he is the right candidate and what his plans are to address the very serious issues that we care deeply about?