- The Mayor...
- Stuff I am reading from around the interwebs
- Supreme Court Hands Tom Corbett an Enourmous Amount of Power to Protect Pennsylvanians. Will he Use it?
- ONE GETS LIFT-OFF ON GLOBAL RECRUITMENT DRIVE AS U2 360 WORLD TOUR OPENS
- The Shrinking of our Shrinking: Will Philly Grow Next Year?
- Don't Cut Loose World's Poorest
- Franken Wins
- Federal Court Enjoins Confidentiality Provision of Ethics Act. Philly Repercussions to Follow?
- Workers Report Back from Fight for Healthcare for All
- Watch out world, here we come
John Dougherty Knows How to Engender Loyalty
In today's Daily News, Dave Davies has an article on the immense amount of money that John Dougherty has spent through the political committee of his union. Proving that he knows how to make friends, Dougherty spent about 2.8 million dollars in 2003 and 2004. (Does sponsoring John Lieber shirt day for the Phillies count in this?)
Think this is normal, typical union spending? It isn't, at least not in Pennsylvania:
Click read more to see the rest
That's more than twice the spending of the carpenters or laborers, two politically active local unions that are more than twice as large as Local 98, and nine times that of the much larger Philadelphia Federation of Teachers in 2003 and 2004, according to state campaign records.
In fact, Local 98 with its 4,000 members spent far more than statewide unions like the Pennsylvania State Education Association, with 170,000 members, or AFSCME District Council 13, which represents 65,000 Pennsylvania workers.
Dougherty's union appears to lead the state in political spending, and it also dwarfs the spending of the political committees of other potential mayoral candidates.
And, as Davies notes, what may be most important, is that Dougherty has not just given money to well-known races (like half a million dollars to John Street, filed under the "Philly really needs campaign finance reform act."). In fact, he has given money to 42 candidates, seven of whom are Republicans, and 9 political action committees.
Among those who received his dough:
Local 98 also showed considerable largesse for some lower-ranked politicians: $192,000 to Rick Mariano, fellow union member and city councilman; more than $150,000 for South Philadelphia state Rep. Bill Keller, and $120,000 to Dougherty's new ally, State Sen. Vincent Fumo - all Democrats.
And there was $43,000 for the young state House candidate Andrew Hohns, who lost his second run for office last year.
Among other recipients: State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., $45,000; unsuccessful City Council candidate Dan Pellicciotti, $30,000, and Republican City Councilman Jack Kelly, $25,000.
Dougherty gives money to Republicans, to conservative Democrats, to liberal Democrats. In a way, he is the perfect example of the Philadelphia Democratic Party: No obvious conservative-liberal ideology, just power, pure and simple. And Dougherty has accumulated an amazing amount of that power, among people of all shades and stripes in Philly.
As the article notes, all these donations have provided some pretty tangible benefits for Dougherty: Rendell appointed him to the Delaware Valley Port Authority, Street appointed him as Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority, and he is now the treasurer of the Philly Democratic Party. The guy has more cards up his sleeve than a cheating poker player.
Can Dougherty win in 2007? Not unless he figures out the whole bullying thing will not make the average Philadelphian vote for him. That said, given how far and wide he has spread his money around, from candidates to community groups, you will see support in places where you would not expect to see it. Somehow though, I don't think the guy who has used political donations, among other things, to rocket himself to the top on Philly politics, will be all that committed to getting money out of Philadelphia politics.











Johnny Doc
I know he's powerful and not afraid to throw his weight around, but I have yet to see how a guy whose constituency is mostly white guys that live in New Jersey can get enough votes here.
Local 98's reputation as a liy-white trade union in a city like Philly has caused some long-smoldering resentment with not just citizens but groups like the African-American Chamber of Commerce.
I know Dougherty has lately done stuff like funding a Negro League memorial in North Philadelphia, but I bet that's not enough.
Phree Philly
Campaign Finance Reform
1) I've accomplished more on campaign finance reform than anyone else in the city's history.
2)I'll vote for even more reform (absent public financing) but I won't use any more political capital on the issue.
3) As we've discussed, the issue of political cronyisim in Philadelphia is more complex than that - and it is best addressed through new successes in independent politics which will not stem simply from the public financing of campaigns ( it has not worked at the federal level).
4)I've run against the party and beat it. And I've spent less than $200k in my entire political career in 5 campaigns ( never more than around $60k in any election).
Most would say that my political success is due to my name - but isn't that part of what we are aiming for? When I was born with the same name, my father was a community activist - did that create an unlevel playing field for me politically? Yes, my family helped organize the electorate that we've enjoyed as a base of support.
Grassroots organizing is still worth the effort. So I can't support the use of tax dollars to subsidize a corrupt system. The biggest part of electoral reform is participation - not money.
Organizing neighbors doesn't cost the average family a dime.
People still count - so we don't need to target their tax dollars as a substitute for a free conversation.
WWGjr
Johny Doc and Campaign Finance Reform
All campaign finance reform legislation is tempered by the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, i.e., union members have the right to collectively contribute to PACs that make campaign donations. That's a good thing for labor rights. (And it's benefitted me.)
My question is :What else do you want from local campaign finance reform other than contribution limits for actual municipal candidates? If it's public financing of campaigns that you want, I can't support it.
Otherwise, I am very curious ... where's the better bill? Why doesn't it exist? I did mine and it's a law that working to some degree. A law that will lead to even better law.
But where's the bill to make it better law? And whose bill will it be? And why?
Hmmm.....
WWGjr
How about you?
How about it becomes (y)our bill, (y)our law? Finance limits do something, and it is a good start, but why would we stop there?
I am curious why there is hesitancy to public financing of campaigns? Even the Presidential campaings have matching funds and spending limits of some kind.
But more specifically, on why some sort of public financing of campaigns is important...
First, in races that can now cost upwards of 1 million dollars, where is the money coming from for these elections? Philadelphia has a median household income of about 30k a year, with many areas having far less. Can these people afford to give $2,500 to a political candidate? Of course not. So where is the money being raised? Boardrooms of law firms, banks, companies, well-off union PACS, and wealthy neighborhoods. That does not sit well with me, because the one place it is not generally coming from is the average Philly resident, who could not dream of making that size of a donation.
How about a system, which you can in theory make voluntary, that instead does something like provides matching funds for the first 50 or 100 dollars of each person's donations. That way, the City gives $100 for a $100 donation, or the same $100 for a $1,000 donation. And, of course, if you choose to opt into the system, you have to adhere to certain limitations. Or, do what NYC has done, and match FOUR dollars for every one dollar raised per person, with donation limits of $250 dollars. Why is that wrong?
No question, we have some Councilman who can probably navigate the moral and ethical dilemas of accepting big checks from people who may not represent the best interests of their constituents. But, assuredly we also have many who do not make the right choice.
Why is it negative to return the power of our political process away from the well-heeled and well-connected, and back to where it belongs: The average Philadelphia family?
Who is funding Andrew Hohns?
Is it me or have I read that Andrew Hohns is funded by anti-union individuals recently? Above it says that John Dougherty gave him money. So which is it or is it both? Before I possibly post some commentary, I'd like some clarification here. Thanks.
Philadelphia Reform - a Goode response
Defining the term "candidate" in local legislation would bring a legal challenge because we are preempted from doing so by the state election code. The only reason the local law was not challenged is because I didn't redefine anything covered by the state code. I absolutely couldn't define what a "candidate" could do with a committee that was already established under the state code.
I could have added "penalties" to the bill - which already shocked the world when it won the minimum votes for a veto override - but we would not have won, and we almost didn't. No one believed that I would win that veto override - including my 12th vote! :)
But I definitely agree with the posting of contributions and expenditures - and I continue to work on that - it is contained within other pending and draft legislation.
Also,"pay to play" reform is somewhat different from campaign finance reform - and I introduced my bill before the "bug" - and strictly because of low voter turnout in the 2003 primary.
Contracts are not the only issue - and "pay to play" is not the only issue with contracts.
Finally, few are shamed because most are shameless - including some that you might consider to be reformers - how many on City Council support bans on nepotism, outside employment, and gifts/meals?
Who's for all three reforms - only me! (Daily News - 11/19/04).
I also happen to have the lowest budget on City Council and no city car.
Just adding to the dialogue! :)
P.S. And it's good to have a place to dialogue like this.
or
You make it a voluntary system, where the majority of people will buy in. Then you can place whatever restrictions you want. NYC has made it pretty damn successful.
I am going to try and put together something on the NYC system, with an interview or two with an election official from up there.
You are right, there is no support. But, we have 2007 and its buildup to make it an issue that cannot be ignored. How we do that is something we all have to figure out...
And
Adam, good to see you here. You may "only" have federal experience, but, your expertise is both needed and welcome.
Philadelphia Reform (cont.)
I worked on my campaign finance legislation with the League of Women Voters which offered an amendment to establish an Election Reform Board. The base of the bill was from an Ortiz bill based on the NYC model.
The law does have voluntary expenditure limits and the posting of campaign reports through the Election Reform Board.
I would like campaign finance to be overseen by an independent Board of Ethics approved by the voters. That's our goal before 2007.
Stay vigilant on these issues. And let's continue to talk.
WWGjr