One Solution Only: PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS
So, as noted, yesterday afternoon, a decision was reached that overturned the City’s campaign finance law. The basic rationale was that the City does not have the power to regulate it's own elections. The people who "won" the lawsuit, and who we can thank for overturning the law? Half of our own Mayoral field.
Mike Nutter, one of the parties to the suit, is likely to appeal. But, unless the judge issues a stay pending the appeal, it is back to the Wild Wild West for Philadelphia elections.
Terrific. However, as Ray noted last Friday, today is the day for solutions. In terms of money in politics, we now only have one.
First, I would like to send a big shout out to my boy, John Dougherty. It was Doc who, when Nutter sued to try and get the candidates to follow the campaign law, countersued saying that we didn’t have the power to regulate our own campaign laws. From that, Fattah and co. joined him, and we got yesterday’s decision. So thanks, Doc! With your help, Philadelphia politics will continue to be controlled by the moneyed few.
Second, Chaka Fattah, who with his noted team of election lawyers, jumped into the fray, to also declare the law Unconstitutional. Makes sense, since Fattah has been able to collect single contributions for six figures. Fattah now says he will abide by the law until a higher Court rules. How about he instead pledges to abide by the law period? If the rest of the candidates pledge to do so, will he? Doubtful. But, anyway, thanks for helping the cause, Congressman.
Third, Dwight Evans. Evans, who says he wants public financing, says he won’t wait for an appeal. He is going to start violating the City’s law ASAP, because he can. Evans gets special ire because this lawsuit, and its preemption and overturning of the will of the elected body of the City of Philadelphia, follows a pattern that Evans has long helped advance. He preempted us on schools, and he crushed our predatory lending law, among other things.
The thing is, I know they will say they were only arguing what they think is the correct law. For the most part, that is horseshit. What Philly can and cannot regulate has a lot of gray area, and each decision that gets marked down against us is one more check on our ability to self govern. As people who want to be Mayor, I am stunned that they are so willing to lessen their own future power for the ability to collect $10,000 checks.
So, we cannot set campaign contribution limits, eh?. We now have one option, and one option only: We can start a robust, voluntary, system of public financing. No more hiding behind campaign limits as a solution, because we cannot set them. Our only option is a system of strong public financing; one that rewards small donations. That’s it. We can promote the hell out of it, and shame the candidates that don't accept. You either support that now, or you are for total unregulated money in the Philly system.
So, Fattah, Brady, Nutter, Dougherty, Evans and Knox: Where do you stand?
Another load of horse hockey
I was a little taken aback by the opinion attributed to Bochetto in the Legal Intelligencer article:
Bochetto said with more than 175 municipalities in Pennsylvania, it doesn’t make sense to give each the power to regulate their own campaign laws.
A. All kinds of exceptions can be made for "cities of the first class" of which there is only one in all of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), and
B. Why not give the power to each municipality to regulate the campaign laws for its own municipal elections? The candidates in those elections will know the rules about what they can and can't accept so it's not like contributors have to worry about being confused. If someone from Chester County wants to give a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia a contribution, the candidate can make sure that the contribution doesn't violate the limits. I don't see why it's so hard as long as you keep the laws restricted to elections that are for offices that are entirely in one municipal body (ie not state rep or state senate seats which cross many municipal boundaries).
The Committee of Seventy doesn't seem too concerned about this since there's a bill that's already passed the House and is expected to pass in the Senate, which would allow municipalities to make their own campaign finance laws. Let's hope that happens in time to be in effect for this election.
You didn't ask me or the other council candidates
but I'm going to tell you my views, anyway.
You are absolutely right. Public financing is the solution. (Mandatory low-cost tv advertisements on cable would help too, if only by reducing the cost of public financing. But it is not enough.)
I've testified about public financing at council and blogged about it a number of times
http://www.stier.net/blog/2006/08/22/more-on-public-financing/
http://www.stier.net/blog/2006/04/29/public-campaign-finance-hearings/
http://www.stier.net/blog/2006/02/02/a-first-step-to-public-financing/
It would be nice to hear from some of the other council members and candidates who appear here from time to time: Jim, Wilson, Derek?
And why not send a YPP email to all the Mayoral candidates and council candidates and ask them where they stand?
In the meantime, the first thing we have to do when General Assembly comes back into session is get Dwight Evan's bill to give Philadelphia the power to regulate campaign finance reintroduced in the House and Senate and passed in both bodies. The Senate is likely to be the tough sell. Progressive groups are going to have to mount a major lobbying campaign to get our Philadelphia State Senators on board. I hope Neighborhood Networks, Philly for Change, Hallwatch and other groups jump on this quickly.
My History
I have co-sponsored many campaign finance reform bills and voted to approve all of them.
I am supportive of publicly financed elections, but will tell you that I think it will be a tough sell with voters. We are constantly pushing and pulling over scarce resources. The debate over using city dollars for campaigns as opposed to Rec Centers, Fire Houses, schools or the PD will be interesting.
I do understand that elections financed this way in the long run save money because it reduces the number of politically sposored contracts. The public needs to understand and really support the concept or its won't work.
I intend to follow the limits even if they are currently not law.
Sure, but, 311 will cost
Sure, but, 311 will cost money upfront (and actually, as it becomes really popular, maybe a lot of money).
But in the end, it (public funding) will likely save us cash, as you say.
In a big budget, I think we could find some room, or a creative way to fund it. Hell, lets just raise the BPT! (--Crickets chirping--).
Anyway, the public very much cares about ethics and corruption these days, and I think if we make sure to focus on that, that as our target, it will get support.
Please tell me it isn't true
"I do understand that elections financed this way in the long run save money because it reduces the number of politically sposored contracts."
Jim, you can't be implying that there is a pay-to-play system in Phiadelphia, can you?
This is the year to make the case for reform
Good to know that you are on the side of the angels on this, Jim.
Voters know that politics is broken in Philadelphia. If those of us running for office stick our necks out a bit and explain to them how public financing can help fix it, we can build support for it.
not so fast
Dan - you're mistaken when you say this:
"The Committee of Seventy doesn't seem too concerned about this since there's a bill that's already passed the House and is expected to pass in the Senate, which would allow municipalities to make their own campaign finance laws. Let's hope that happens in time to be in effect for this election."
I hope that isn't 70's position, because that bill is dead. in fact, many were suspicious when Dwight did not call the bill up for a vote in the House (through his friend Speaker Perzel) until after it was clear that the Senate was done for the year. he literally called it for a vote on the first day that it was clear there was no way it could become law. I only point this out because today he announces that he is the only one of the candidates that will not follow the limits that in theory he was advocating for through his state bill, so that's either disingenuous or merely a disappointing change of heart. regardless, the bill is dead, and would need to be introduced and go through both the House and Senate and to the Governor's desk, something that couldn't happen until probably late March at the earliest, and would then require Council to act, so there is no way Dwight's bill impacts this election.
otherwise I'm in complete agreement with you. I don't think Tereshko's argument will stand. Philly has passed a number of campaign or election related laws and this is no different - it is not in any direct contradiction to any state law (which is what pre-emption is supposed to be all about). and shame on Fattah and Dougherty for pressing this lawsuit and striking down our limits, by the way. Philly deserves better.
311 & Pay to Play
I agree that 311 will also cost to start-up. People will perceive that this is going to directly affect the level of service they receive in a positive way. The public campaign financing may be viewed as "those politicians trying to get me to pay for their TV commercials". I do not think that is is impossible to accomplish, just a harder initiative.
I am not implying that there is a PTP System in Philadelphia. I am conceding it. That is why we have considered and passed not only fundraising limitations, but contracting rules that will hopefully help with the issue.
Pay-To-Play Start Up Costs
"Uggh. Ack. Aaecch."*
*Pardon me, that was the sound of me puking.
I'm calling bullshit - the only reason why a 311 system will be difficult to finance is because our city's leadership lacks any and all creativity.
Having called various city agencies and sat on hold for endless amounts of time, I can come up with at least one source of funding - allow advertisers to deliver a 5-10 second recorded messages at the beginning of each 311 call. I imagine all the time city residents spend on hold trying to reach our various dysfunctional city agencies has got to be worth millions to advertisers. And I imagine all city residents would be happy to listen to a 10-second message rather than sit on hold for endless amounts of time. Hell, the City passes the law that allows advertisements to be played over the 311 system, I bet the City could even turn the darn thing into a source of revenue.
______________________________
Phillyville
311 Start Cost Figures
Using figures from a memo and associated study for Vancouver's proposed 311 system available at www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20061130/documents/csb2.pdf from November 8, 2006, the cost was $10.5 million for the implementation project, software, facility and related costs; and
$1.83 million for an Enhancement Fund to support departments while business and staff issues are resolved, for a total of $12.3 million. Using the conversion rate from the Bank of Canada for 9/26/06 (the date of the cost analysis) the U.S. cost would be 90 percent of the Canadian cost or $11.07 million. Vancouver has an estimated population of 600,000. Philadelphia's population was 1,517,550 in the 2000 census or 2.53 times that of Vancouver's. Factoring in the 2.53 times size differential, and assuming 25 percent of additional costs for potential inefficiencies due to the increased size of Philadelphia and for other issues related to our apparent inherit inefficiencies, under a worst case scenario the cost would be $35 million for Philadelphia to implement a 311 system. In NYC, the estimated cost was $25 million to implement their 311 system in 2002 according to Government Technology magazine.
The estimated operating cost for Vancouver for $5.63 million in 2010, their first year of projected full operation. Running the numbers using the assumptions presented earlier for the Vancouver to Philadelphia conversion, the cost for full operation in Philadelphia would be $16 million per year starting in 2010.
Can the City of Philadelphia please get working on this (move beyond the idea and talking about it stage) to get this implemented and not set-up a multi-year commission/task force/advisory board with battling factions and special interests to study it and identify obstacles that will become self fulfilling and self perpetuating in limiting action, or design a pilot, or get into a fight during the process over minor labor issues or some other insipid ancillary matter? NYC got their 311 system up and running 13 months after Mayor Bloomberg announced the project there. Can we maybe get this done and up and running in say two years from today?
" assuming 25 percent of
" assuming 25 percent of additional costs for potential inefficiencies due to the increased size of Philadelphia and for other issues related to our apparent inherit inefficiencies"
Is there some standardized concept that you're using to get that 25% figure? I understand that Philly's government seem remarkably inefficient, but that number does seems a bit high. And what about potential offsetting benefits from "economy of scale?" Is it accurate to assume that the relative costs would necessarily be proportional to the relative population sizes? And I know that the four year gap would account for increased numbers to some degree, but given how you've tied your estimated into population sizes, why do you come in with the cost for Philly at $10 million more than the estimate for NY?
But even if the actual numbers came in a bit lower, the total figure is staggering. That's going to require quite a bit of politicking.
And speaking of politicking....ok, elp, now we're expecting an estimate for what public campaign financing will cost.
25 Percent Figure
My 25 percent figure is not based on any research or analysis, rather it was used for three related purposes:
1. An assumption that Philadelphia is somewhat generally more inefficient than comparable cities in implementing complex programs;
2. My somewhat cynical and pragmatic nature; and
3. To show what would hopefully be a worst case scenario (in part so that people cannot effectively argue that costs would be higher if I did not factor in a high local inefficiency factor).
I am not aware of any study that has shown cost savings from implementing a 311 system, or studies that do a cost benefit analysis. Obviously there are savings and benefits in terms of people being more informed, getting information sooner, getting problems solved, and perhaps most importantly in forcing departments to work together to develop content for the 311 systems and to improve their operations and policies based on 311 calls, tracking, monitoring, and evaluation of 311 data and responses to calls.
While I only pulled data for 2 cities, Vancouver and NYC, their implementation costs (Vancouver at $11.07 million U.S. dollars and 600,000 population and NYC at $25 million and 8,008,278 population) would lead to a cost per person of $18.45 (USD) for Vancouver and $3.12 per person for NYC. For Philadelphia at a cost of $18.45 per person the cost of implementation would be $28 million and at $17.5 per person the cost would be $4.73 million. I believe that a 311 system for Philadelphia would likely be closer in design to the NYC system and likely share more total cost similarities to NYC than Vancouver based on location and other issues such as the complexity of NYC and Philadelphia governments over what I assume is a less complex Vancouver government. While there would be economies of scale there would also be certain fixed and base costs that would likely not be significantly impacted by the size of the population. Also realize that Bloomberg was a successful private sector CEO of a multi-billion dollar information-technology business and knows how to implement complex systems like 311 and their system was largely implemented as a direct response to 9/11, while Philadelphia does not have these benefits (this is not an endorsement of Bloomberg but a quick pragmatic read of the situation).
I actually do not find the figure staggering high. The City just passed a $150 million arts and commercial development bond issue, and the City often finds money to pay for other medium and large ticket items that are discretionary. Also, the City could find ways to fund the 311 system by identifying non-essential program or staff cuts or as was suggested in an earlier post by someone else by finding creative partnerships and revenue options to support the 311 program. The value of increased productivity and information and resulting improvements in efficiencies within government would be significant as would the benefit to the citizenry in terms of knowledge and time savings, and in getting problems solved.
While I may try to tackle campaign financing costs later, a simplified market analysis argument would be to identify the total cost spent per election and realize that unless the spending rules were changed, or public funding were capped per candidate or there was free media time provided that there would need to be a dollar for dollar replacement for each private dollar with a public dollar. The 2003 mayoral race alone cost over $23 million. Factor in additional funding for City Council races, as well as the other local races (e.g. DA, judges) (if you want to include them) and I would guess that you would likely have a total cost of over $40 million for all Philadelphia elected offices. Using four year terms and you have a cost I would guesstimate to be at least $10 million per year.
Hmmmm....
Maybe I missed a big flame war between you and Jim, but for the life of me I can't see what provoked your rude response. What exactly did he say that is "bullshit?"
Anyway, you've put forth a good idea here that should probably be explored (could something similar be used to finance Wireless Philly?) but I'm sure it would be better received if you didn't start your comment with "e-puking" and calling "bullshit" on what seems to me to be a pretty honest assessment of the realities of the city.
One thing I would ask Jim is, couldn't we also ban TV ads for the last month or two of the campaign? Then it wouldn't be seen as "buying candidates TV time". I mean if we're already putting up big restrictions, why not go a little further? Besides- TV ads are almost completely useless, and hugely ineffective and inefficient uses of campaign funds.
I agree. I dont know what a
I agree. I don't know what Kenney's statement on 311 had to do with what Rubylegs then was barfing about, nor am I clear what the point of that was. But, whatever.
As far as a ban on TV ads, I am pretty sure that would violate the First Amendment. But, in a sense, who cares? If they are inefficient, the person loses. People will learn the hard way.
Anyway, in terms of TV, what you could more likely do is demand TV time for candidates. That would be a little different than banning advertising, and if a candidate felt their issues were getting aired, the marginal benefit to running another ad, as opposed to canvassing, etc, goes way down.
According to the recent testimony
the start up costs are @5million and the annual cost is @4million.
But, some of the operating cost will be covered by the fact that the departments involved, like, PPD, PFD, Streets, Rec, Water, Gas and and others all have their own call centers and service departments. They can be consilidated.
The real benefit is that service requests will have a tracking # like UPS. Citizens will have the ability to monitor the time it takes to complete a request. The mayor and managing director will have the data necessary to evaluate every department's ability to respond to citizen requests.
I believe that in the end the city will be able to track its progress and the government will be able to respond to citizens better.
Also, 911 will be relieved of the burden of non-emergency calls making us all safer.
Public Financing
I drafted the resolution and organized the public finance of election hearings in City Council last Spring. During the hearing, we had Mary Ellen Dodell (Counsel to the NYC Campaign Finance Board) as well as a State Rep from Arizona and a representative of Public Citizen testify about the issue.
Although NYC and Arizona have somewhat different approaches to public financing of elections, it did appear that providing public dollars in elections helped to reduce the amount of money in campaigns.
However, it does not address the issue of self financing of campaigns (i.e., Bloomberg in NYC and now Knox in Philly). Due to the US Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, people have a first amendment right to spend as much as they want on their own campaign. Unless we have a change at the Supreme Court level, this fact will remain.
Another issue that came up during the hearing was whether the public would want to commit City resources for elections. Without getting into the 311 debate, Councilman Kenney does raise a legitimate issue concerning how we prioritize and spend our resources. I am not saying that we should pit public financing of elections v. 311 costs, but we only have a finite amount of money.
Even with both of these concerns, I believe that we should still move forward with public financing of elections. We just need to make sure that we do so without giving short shrift to other issues (i.e., crime, education, etc.) that may be more vital to the public.
More than One Solution for 2007... Public Financing Isn't One!
There is obviously more than one solution ... particularly for the 2007 municipal election ... but public financing isn't one of them!
The Evans legislation was not meant to only support the right to enact local campaign contribution limits but public financing of elections AFTER 2007. It was clear that public financing for the 2007 municipal election was not a goal of the resolution, the hearings, or the sponsors.
The first solution is to support the Evans legislation - and if it is passed, all local campaign finance laws will "spring into life" even if they had died from rulings of state preemption.
The second solution is to lobby the City to appeal the case. If the City appeals, it has more weight than a Nutter appeal and the judge's decision will be stayed. Therefore, the law is still law during the City's appeal.
The third solution is for municipal candidates to abide by the law voluntarily.
The fourth solution is for major campaign donors to abide by the law voluntarily.
The fifth solution is to remind municipal candidates and major donors that the "No-Bid Contract Law" was not struck down. In fact, I had a bill applying the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the "No-Bid Contract Law' that was unanimously passed by City Council on Thursday and the Mayor may have already signed it into law.
The sixth solution is for the Independent Board of Ethics to issue an opinion on the status of campaign contribution limits and to legally intervene on the matter.
The seventh solution is for the media to fully expose those municipal candidates and campaign donors that see the judge's decision as a window of opportunity.
The eighth solution is to lobby against all candidates that reject the campaign contribution limits.
The ninth solution is to publicly expose donors that reject the campaign contribution limits.
And the tenth, and final, solution from me is to lobby the Governor and State Legislature for statewide campaign finance reform.
Clearly, there isn't just one solution ... but I still hear you, Dan. :)
WWGjr