Generally good post, and yes- we can focus on things that the media ignores. That said, when a Councilman is going to be put in jail for taking bribes, it matters, and it matters a lot. We elect our leaders to be our representatives, and because we choose them and pay them and have to decide whether to retain them, they matter a lot more than an ordinary city employee. Having elected officials indicted just gives one more reason for people to tune out and become disaffected.

Ben, like Ray Murphy in some of his recent posts, downplays the importance of corruption in this city. I think this is mistaken, for reasons I will mention in a moment. But I think I understand the motivation that leads Ben and Ray to make like of corruption. I want to address that first.

Over the last 120 or so years, there has been a tension in American cities between what I will call progressive, good government reform and liberal, social justice reform. The progressive reformers were mostly from the middle class. They sought to end corruption, improve city services, and eliminate slums. The liberal, social justice reformers, sought to improve the well being of the members of the working class, in part by providing them with education and services and in part by providing them with city jobs. The progressives sought lower taxes which served the middle class interests and used slum clearance to provide opportunities for new office buildings, apartment buildings and roads to the suburbs. The liberals were happy with high taxes which served the interest of the working class who benefited from the jobs and services paid for by those taxes. The liberals looked the other way at the seamy side of the political machines that supported them. And the progressives often used their reforms—such as voter registration laws and the civil services laws—as a means of weakening the political machines and, later, unions of municipal workers.

Seen against this background, I suspect that the current concern with corruption in Philadelphia seems to Ben and Ray to be an emanation of a progressive spirit that, also, is behind the effort to reduce the business privilege tax as well as, going back a few years, Rendell’s determination to reduce wages and benefits for municipal workers. And they are rightly suspicious of this spirit. So Ben and Ray are trying to call into question the concerns that lead people, like Michael Nutter and those of us in Neighborhood Networks, to work for progressive sounding ideas like Ethics Reform.

I can sympathize with the source of their suspicions. But I don’t think that putting contemporary problems into a twentieth century grid will help us understand what Philadelphia needs today. There are two problems with Ray and Ben’s argument. The first is that social justice and good government now complement one another rather than being in conflict with one another. In Philadelphia we won’t get the social justice reforms we need unless we get good government reforms we need as well. And vice versa. I can’t defend this position here but, instead, invite you to read a draft of a long essay I have been working on for a few months, The Reforms We Need Now at www.stier.net/writings/the_reforms_we_need_now.pdf

The second problem with their argument is that they minimize the amount of corruption in this city by pointing to the relatively few people who have be indicted or convicted. That, in my view, is entirely the wrong standard by which to measure the political well being of our city. For the real problem with Philly is not what’s illegal, it is what’s legal. Most of what makes our politics so unappealing, wasteful, and of so little use to our citizens is perfectly legal. Let me as quickly as possible sketch the three levels of corruption today. (The next three paragraphs are drawn from the essay mentioned above.)

The first thing everyone means by reform today is ending pay to play, the practice of rewarding campaign contributors with government contracts, whether for legal services or printing or other goods and services. Over the last year, we have learned how this middle level of corrupt practices wastes our money and burden our businesses with the financial and moral cost of making payoffs to get city business. And it doesn’t matter much whether law firms, bankers, and city officials break the law or not. Trading contracts for contributions harms us all no matter whether that transaction is at arms length or is conducted in the cavalier fashion seen in the Ron White tapes.

But that is not the whole story of corruption today. There is also the lower level of corruption that takes place in our ward politics. In many parts of the city, ward leaders make unilateral decisions about who their organization of committee people will support; this support is given in exchange for substantial sums of money; and committee people reluctant to go along with their ward leader are threatened with the loss of their street money and / or the city jobs held by them or their relatives. In this way, the formally democratic ward structure, in which committee people are elected by their neighbors, is transformed into a top-down system that raises the costs of campaigns and contributes to the election of candidates who are unresponsive to the voters who elect them or who are unqualified for the positions they seek.

And then there is the top level of corruption, the benefits that major developers and corporations receive from the city or state in exchange for large campaign contributions. Here is a prime example: Comcast, which made $1.9 billion after expenses and taxes last year—in part because of government approved cable rates that are unnecessarily high—is receiving a $30 million subsidy from the state to put up its new gold-plated office building. And there are many other examples of developers who have made large campaign contributions in order to be chosen to take on one or another multi-million dollar real estate project and who, after doing so, have run rough-shod over the objections of local community groups.

Most of what is done at all three levels of corruption is legal. But it is all damaging to the finances, moral, and political health of this city. And all three levels of corruption make it very difficult to find the resources, support the people, and create the institutions that will create opportunities for those who suffer from unemployment, poor schools, high crime rates, and devastated communities.

That is why I support both progressive and social justice reform.

there tension between "traditional news sources and media primarily based on the internet" is indirect. the majority of media is for profit newspapers sell adds to companies like Strawbridges, Macys's, Auto Dealers etc. television networks sell ads to automakers, beer companies (even though beer companies do not run ads during the local news programs) etc. traditional media exaggerates the importance of a story to get the audience hooked over a long period of time. traditional media stays with in the boundaries drawn by the corporate ideology, whether it because they are corporations themselves or a dependent on their corporate advertisers.
internet media is far more democratic. it is superior to traditional media because there is less self-interest, has broader perspectives and insights.
traditional media has had to adapt to the suddenness of the blog community and the increase in their audience getting their news online. but this is not a tension of news sources, this is competition adversely effecting corporations. the blog community and online news services are the cost effective. the tension is between individuals and groups that are competing to manufacture the consent of the populous. news groups compete to stay effective and relevant to their advertisers and boards.
we can not look to 10 city officials and one indictment to say this is an accurate sample to how much corruption takes place in city politics. i was watching C-Span a couple of months ago, where the head of the FBI was telling Senators that there is not enough FBI funding to investigate and prosecute white collar crime. i bet, if Meehan had a larger budget he would uncover a lot more corruption that what has been found and reported recently.
large campaign contributions getting rewarded with city contracts or influencing bill introduction or no votes is legal corruption. i am one that does not believe corporations have the same rights as citizens. corporations should not be allowed to make campaign contribution at all. when we reduce corporations’ ability to influence elections is the day when we will have a government that is accountable to its citizens.
working class and unemployed people are more likely not to have college degrees, high school diplomas or broadening horizon experiences. they more than privileges classes of people lack the confidence, education and hope to get involved in politics. these are necessary precursors to becoming politically engaged. corruption and champions are important as well. but only a champion can catalyze hope, education and confidence.

Ben is right, to some degree....none of the mayoral hopefuls are talking about this city's seemingly endless marriage with poverty, unemployment, underemployment, failing schools, rising crime and a host of other traditional urban ills that seem to be more severe here in Philadelphia than in most places of similar size. We need reforms in these areas and we need them now.

But we cannot expect reform policies in these areas if we don't have more reform policy makers in City Hall. And we won't get many more of them in City Hall until we close the widnows of opportunity for corruption-- nepotism, moonlighting, real estate pay to play, zoning variances for sale, etc.

Make no mistake, Philadelphia faces an ethics crisis and it is real. In the 1st Council District ALONE, two of the last four councilmembers have gone to Federal prison and the FBI is currently investigating a non profit co-founded by the current 1st district councilmember.

Think about the moxie of one member of council who--in the face of the massive FBI probe and charges being brought against a colleague-- had the guts to say she was "all ethic'ed out".

Or how saddened so many progressive reformers were when even our most enlightened and beloved member of council sat on a bill in committee that would give us a tougher ethics commission.

I've worked in and around City and State government and politics for over 10 years. I've worked with and around some amazing individuals who are true public servants. And I have also seen the darker side of our city's politics and the darker side of our party.

I've worked in the legislative and executive branches; I've run campaigns; been involved in the ward system and was even a candidate for 3 short months. After all that I have witnessed with my own two eyes, no one can convince me this City isn't in an ethics crisis.

This is why it is so good to hear that Seth Williams is our new inspector general. And why we must embrace all progressive reforms.

Oneof the things that I find funny is that 99% of the content on 99% of the blogs are simple short quips that reference and link to stories from the mainstream media and papers. I mean 99% blogs are just a waste of cyberspace.

Ben's original post, I immediately thought of how the participation in blogs by Councilman Goode and Rep. Marc Cohen has helped me to gain a deeper perspective on "blowback" from the pay-raise outrage and the dangers of how the issue of ethics in Philly's government is being hyped by MSM. These issues attract a lot of attention and can easily be used by parties with a wide variety of agendas to gather support.

As such, I think Ben's point is an excellent one. Jumping on the pay-raise and ethics bandwagons has the potential to be dangerously "non-progressive" or counter-productive in the long run. "Progressives" need to be sensitive about how they stake out their positions on this issues, and I'm concerned that some missteps may have already been taken.

In my opinion, disaffected voters are mostly turned off because they see little progress on the issues that affect them most directly. Repealing the pay raise and passing ethics bills will not go nearly as far in activating the public progress on issues that hit closer to home, and we have to be careful about taking our eye off the ball. Does anyone seriously think that if the pay raise is repealed and limited ethics rules are in place, many Philadelphians are going to be saying: "Well, now that I can trust my government, I'm going to go out and vote."

Of course there is overlap - of course transparency in government practices are important and vital to making progress on progressive issues - but I, for one, think Ben is making a point about priorities that deserves close scrutiny. And I appreciate the role that this blog plays in promoting such scrutinization.