- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
The Rest of the Mayoral Candidates Decide to Sell the City Out
Submitted by Dan U-A on Wed, 05/03/2006 - 10:02am.
UPDATE: OK, see Adam's comment below. I think he at least has a valid point here.
Earlier I discussed John Dougherty's leadership style, and why I thought his attempt to have Philly's campaign finance law declared unconstitutional- a direct swipe at the power of the City he wants to lead- was incredibly short sighted. But, to be fair to Dougherty, yesterday, the rest of candidates except Mike Nutter, decided that they too, should attempt to sell the City down the river.
Chaka Fattah, Tom Knox and Dwight Evans have all decided that their personal interests in raising unlimited amounts of money are more important than the City having clean elections.
Terrific.
I disagree
Because the Philadelphia campaign finance law does not contain a "millionaire's amendment" as federal law does, which would allow candidates faced with a millionaire self-financer to raise larger sums than would otherwise be allowed in order to compete fairly, then I believe that unlimited fundraising is more in line with the goals of campaign finance reform than would be a system that gave Tom Knox a huge advantage.
Knox's Threat
I meant threat to win. Whether Knox would be a good mayor or a bad one is something I do not know. I know very little about him.
In the political circles in which I travel almost no one seems very concerned about Tom Knox winning the election. I know a lot of people who think Chaka Fattah will win if he runs. I know some people who think Saidel will win if Chaka, Dwight, and Michael Nutter all run. I know some people who think Dwight Evans or Michael Nutter will win if Chaka does not run. I know no one who thinks Knox will win under any circumstances.
Maybe all these folks are wrong. But the reason they discount Knox is that Philadelphia is a pretty tribal city and there is no obvious tribe that will claim Knox as their own.
If Knox is appealing to the good government tribe--those who want clean government, efficiency, low taxes--why would those people support him instead of Michael Nutter? Nutter is obviously very smart, knowledgable and experienced and has a track record of accomplishment in these areas. If one has heard him talk lately, one knows that he also has interesting things to say about crime and education. I don't see how a political neophyte can match him. (That is not to say that this post is mean to be an endorsement of Michael Nutter. There are other issues that concern me that Michael has not yet addressed in ways I find appealing and other candidates, such as Dwight Evans who have addressed them.)
The record of mayors and governors with little political experience is almost uniformly bad with the possible exception of Michael Bloomberg. That is one reason I do think it is a problem if I am wrong and a rich person can win an election simply because he has a lot of money. The other reason is that I take democracy seriously and a system in which the rich can buy elections is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy.
One last thing: about three or four months ago I got a call from someone who said they were part of the Knox campaign. The person wanted to know whether I wanted to meet Tom Knox and / or join his campaign. I asked him why I would want to do that. I expected to hear a good government reform litany. Instead, the person told me, "Knox has all the money and you know money is what buys political power in Philadelphia." I turned the invitation down. I am going to assume for now that this person was not really a representative of the Knox campaign. (It wouldn't be the first time in my experience that an enterprising person claimed to represent a candidate to whom he had no connection.) If he was really representing the campaign, then Tom Knox would be a threat (to the city) if he really were a threat (to win) but he is not.
That forsaken Adam B.
But, that is a good point.
Except
For the precedent it sets. Basically, you have a group of Philly's powerful politicians doing this right? Together they could certainly lean on enough people to have it changed?
So, why not change the law, rather than having a judge rule that Philly can never again enact CFR?
I go back to my original point, that out of self interest, they are really hurting the City.
You're Both Right
But Adam B., don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The impetus behind the City's campaign finance reform and anti-pay-to play measures is a concern that individuals and businesses with money to spend on politicians shouldn't have undue influence over candidates. The concern isn't - as with millionaire Mr. Knox's self-funded campaign - when candidates have an undue influence over THEMSELVES. Having a millionaire’s amendment would be fine, but the real problem isn't millionaires who are beholden to themselves, but candidates who are beholden to something other than ideals and the broader electorate.
Knox and Nutter
Maybe I'm young and naive, but I have to believe that the city can move beyond its parochial history, as you put it so well "tribal" politics. Next year will certainly prove a good test to that theory, as I'm sure we'll see a flood of nepotistic (is that a word?) and other "chosen" candidates attempting to backfill some of the vacancies at the City Council level too. Here's hoping Philadelphia voters will elect a fresh set of faces and ideas.
And good point about Nutter and Knox (or anyone serious about reform) - if they offer similar visions, it would be sad if they cannibalized each others' voters, thus allowing a status quo candidate to win.
My understanding, though . . .
1. The City Solicitor has stated that "once [a] person becomes a candidate, he or she can use money raised prior to becoming a candidate in support of his or her candidacy, but only to the extent that the money derives from contributions not in excess of the contribution limits imposed by the ordinance." I recognize that Councilman Goode has previously posted here about other ways such money could still be used, however.
2. The peculiarities of Philadelphia home rule may be that the state may have to specifically authorize local CFR; we may not be able to just do it ourselves. And if it requires Harrisburg's help, why would those who control the Capitol offer it right now?
3. Think about St. Sen. Evans in all this -- if he ran for reelection, he could raise unlimited funds; if he decides to run for mayor, he can't. So what should he do under the law right now?
understood
But money's not only important for who it can buy (and political science research generally suggests that donations go to people who are already supporting one's cause; it doesn't change people's minds), but for what it can buy. Between its ability to purchase television time and block rivals from doing so (and Action News is not cheap) to its ability to influence ward leaders and committeemen in this City (sadly), allowing one candidate to have a disproportionate funding advantage could really lead to pernicious outcomes.
It's like the Cold War: it doesn't really matter how many missiles one side has, as long as everyone has more or less the same.
(I can't comment on the pay-to-play matters because I'm advising a client on them. I should also note that I've been asked to join a candidate's exploratory committee, and clearly it isn't Tom Knox's, but this has nothing to do with that relationship.)
Political Science Research on Campaign Finance
is equivocal. But my reading of it, and common sense, suggests that
1. Campaign contributions do not turn liberals into conservatives adn vice versa. They rarely influence the votes of legislators on issue that affect large numbers of people.
2. They very much do influence the votes of legislators when it comes to providing government benefits to specific individuals, businesses or small groups. I once had a student analyze a congressional vote on the Chrysler bailout. The two most important factors that seemd to influence that vote was (1) whether the legislator had an auto factory in the district and (2) whether the legislator received campaign contributions from the Chrysler executives or tbe UAW PAC. Pay to play is a very real phenomena.
3. This is more controversial, but it seems pretty clear to me that Republicans usually get more money than Democrats and moderate Democrats get more money than liberal Democrats all other things (e.g. incumbency) being equal. So, even if campaign contriubtions don't lead individual legislators to change their votes on broad issues of public policy, the effect of campaign contributions is to give our political system a right wing tilt.
So I am unequivocally in support of limits on contributions and public financing of campaigns. And I am disturbed that mayoral candidates who say they support these things are opposing the committee of seventy suit. There is, I think, very little legal grounds for opposing the suit.
Is the threat of Tom Knox a good reason to gut campaign finance limits? I don't think so. First, I really don't think Knox is much of a threat. It takes more than money to win and it takes a lot of money to elect someone with no political track record. Knox's pockets are nowhere as deep as Blumberg's.
And if he is a threat, then the combined influence of the other Mayoral candidates could get a public financing law in place in a matter of weeks. It could take effect now and provide public funds to candidates so as to match Knox's money.
Knox a "threat"?
Mark, Just curious about the context of the term "threat" with respect to candidate Knox.
Do you mean a "threat to win the election" or some other kind of threat?
I don't know any more about Tom Knox than you can read on his website or in the newspaper, but his message seems to focus on improving government and quality of life for citizens (and yes, any candidate can prioritize such vague platitudes too - Knox is just further along in building his candidacy, I think).
His own personal wealth doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother some contributors to this site. If a candidate were beholden to funders who wanted something from him/her (such as a corporation looking for a tax break or a labor union looking for a sweetheart contract), then I'd be worried. But if a candidate finances their own campaign, who exactly are they beholden to besides themselves?
I'll admit I like the message of reform I hear primarily from the Nutter and Knox camps, as opposed to other, what I consider "status quo" candidates. But I digress......."threat"?
-Will