Councilman Kenney writes here on why he is introducing the bill to gut the City's new campaign finance law.

This is my basic response to what he said:

First, and fundamentally, the Councilman says this is about fairness, and, gives "the money is like water, it finds a way in," argument:

Capping campaign spending is a noble concept. Public financing of campaigns is equally venerable. But both are wishful thinking in an imperfect electoral system in an imperfect world. Candidates will always find ways to get around public financing and around spending limits.

So, Jim, What do you mean by getting around it? Violate the law? One big reason for campaign finance limits is to limit corruption, or the appearance of corruption. When City Council passes a law, and then attempts to overturn it because of a poll that shows an outsider doing well, that is very problematic.

Basically, by your logic, if candidates will always get around it, we should give up. But, you are keeping it for Council races, right? So, that seems inconsistent. And frankly, that is pretty damn worrisome for the future. I would venture to say that getting money out of politics in local races has been more successful in different cities than, say, fixing urban public schools. We aren't just giving up on that though, right?

Secondly, who says public financing doesn't work anyway? Anecdotally, it has worked in a number of different places. And yes, in NYC Bloomberg got elected with his millions and millions- but 1)he is a gazillionaire, and 2)their public funding system largely was credited with giving his competition in his first race more of an edge then he otherwise would have had.

Third, in terms of corruption, we know the law firms, etc are still banned from giving tons. But, besides them, who else? How much can a statewide PAC give Dwight Evans? How many hundreds of thousands can Gerry Lenfest give Fattah? How many millions will unions pour into Brady?

How much power will John Dougherty have, if he can give a million dollars of IBEW money to the candidate of his choice?

Basically, what you have is a system that once again returns us to being beholden by a chosen few power brokers.

The risks of a candidate being "bought" by campaign contributors are no more evil than a candidate buying the election itself.

As I have made clear on this site, I do not like what Tom Knox is doing. But, in fact, I disagree that they are morally equivalent. At the very least, people will be voting for Knox. When someone is cutting someone else checks for hundreds of thousands, who are we really voting for?

Fundamentally, you don't like that Knox has been able to zoom to high name recognition. But instead, you are going to make him the victim and you are going to make Brady, in particular, the personification of a system that cares above all else about making sure its various players stay in power. From Carol Campbell basically violating the law with her PAC, to this, you are giving people less faith in Government, not more.

We know where Nutter stands. But, if you want to personify in one law why Congressman Brady should not be elected, and why we need to tear down the current way we are dong business in the City- this is it. And so, you might be giving Brady some more money now, but, in doing so, you are going to personify him, rightly or wrongly, as everything that is wrong with this City, where no matter what, preserving power trumps policy.

Finally, strategically, this is just not smart. Knox will not win, not given his lack of policy experience and how he made his money. He is ahead because it is still really early. That will change. But, you are about to make him the noble outsider, something he does not deserve to be.