I was still drafting and redrafting my testimony this morning until I heard the news this morning, but, I figured, I'm not just going to let this rot on my C drive for a few months. So, skipping the introductory formalities and with the understanding that this was just a draft, here goes:
+++++
I would like to make three general remarks, and then I am happy to answer questions. The first regards the purpose of campaign finance reform as it relates to these proposed bills; the second regards the ignored role of the Internet in this 2007 campaign and beyond, and finally, a note on the public financing bill also before Council today.

With regards to the first, the purpose of campaign finance legislation is not to ensure that campaigns are well-financed. The primary purpose behind laws like this is to attempt, as best we can, to curb the appearance and reality of corruption of elected officials through large political contributions. Under the law, contribution limits are reasonable so long as they do not prevent candidates from, as the Buckley decision held, “amassing the resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy.”

Neither of these bills are necessary in order for the candidates to be able to fairly and effectively compete with each other. On that, let me give some illustrative examples:

-- Jim Pederson, Richard Tarrant, Katherine Harris, Ned Lamont, Mike McGavick, Pete Ricketts, Joshua Rales and John Raese all are millionaire challengers who ran for the United States Senate against better-known foes in 2006. They spent a range from $2.2 million to $17 million of their own funds to try to establish themselves and win. Yet every single one of them lost their races despite, in many of these cases, outspending their opponents.

-- The same is true on the House side – of the top 10 self-funders, nine of them lost their races, and the tenth, Vernon Buchanan of Florida, may have only won because of massive electronic ballot failure in his District. Surely, someone here remembers the example of Michael Huffington, who spent $28 million of his own money to win a Senate seat over Dianne Feinstein in 1994 . . . except for the fact that he didn't win. Or Blair Hull, who spent $28 million of his own money to win a seven-person 2004 Senate primary in Illinois, only to finish with 11% of the vote, well behind Sen. Barack Obama. And in 2004, according to a USA Today article, of the 22 millionaires seeking to win seats on Capitol Hill through their own millions, only one won. As you know by now, under McCain-Feingold, a candidate faced with the challenge of a millionaire self-financer is allowed to triple her contribution limits, but no further. It has proven successful on the federal level, and the extreme remedies proposed by these two bills are unnecessary here.

-- The other main example is nearer to my heart, since one of the candidates involved lives near my house: in last year's open Democratic primary for the 175th State House district, Terry Graboyes was able to raise approximately $235,000 and Mike O'Brien $141,000, compared with just $20,000 for Anne Dicker. Both Graboyes and O’Brien were able to spend heavily on advertising, with Graboyes’ ads appearing on television for a month before the election. Graboyes, however finished a distant third in the race, spending $157 per vote compared with Dicker’s $12 per vote, narrowly losing to O’Brien, who himself spent $72 per vote. What accounts for the remarkable efficiency of the Dicker campaign? That leads to my second point:

Second point: Any campaign finance reform measure needs to take into account the remarkable power of the internet to level disparities in wealth. Not only did Dicker have a strong message, but she was able to harness the low-dollar fundraising techniques popularized by the Howard Dean presidential campaign into building a fundraising and volunteer army which helped deliver her near-victory.

This is what Dean learned, Dicker near-perfected and now-Cong. Patrick Murphy perfected in his 2006 House bid: a $25 contribution may not seem like much from a campaign’s perspective, but from the giver’s perspective, it often is. A person who cares enough to give what she can will continue to make efforts to see the campaign win, whether in volunteering, encouraging her friends to contribute or in making other small contributions. Smart campaigns find ways to encourage and provide incentives for such contributions, and then work with the contributors to stimulate further involvement with the race.

In addition, the Internet allows the candidates the opportunity to speak to infinite audiences for free. Several members of this Council already participate on sites like Young Philly Politics and The Next Mayor, as to several of the mayoral candidates and their staffs. But none of the candidates in this race, from what I can tell, have begun to harness the true power of the internet in spreading his message, nationalizing this race (for fundraising purposes) or organizing volunteers and activists. The tools are there – and having a token MySpace page barely scratches the surface of what’s possible. Whoever learns to harness this technology will have a real edge in the race, but these campaigns thus far seem to have learned nothing from 2004 and 2006.

Finally, we are big supporters of public financing, but the proposed bill is not the way to go about implementing it. Because the contribution limits for participating candidates is not low, but rather $2500, the incentives aren't there to truly promote low-dollar giving as an alternative to the status quo. A better system can be found in Maine or Arizona, where a candidate can have her entire campaign funded publicly if she foreswears private fundraising and can demonstrate her viability by collecting a significant number of $5 contributions, and can receive matching funds against a noncompliant opponent. If you want to do public financing, call up the folks at Public Campaign and do it right.

Thank you for your time.