- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Marc Stier Against Repealing Contribution Limits
Submitted by Marc Stier on Sat, 02/10/2007 - 10:19am.
I oppose any legislation that would have the effect of eliminating campaign contribution limits in the current Mayoral race.
The goal of campaign finance reform is to preserve our democracy. Democracy is undermined when money becomes so important in politics that those who contribute to campaigns play a dramatically greater role in determining who holds office—and thus what our office holders do—than our citizens. So I am concerned about both limiting the influence of those who contribute to the campaigns of others and those who contribute to their own campaigns.
In order to attain both goals, I proposed last week a compromise that would lift campaign contribution limits gradually if a candidate for Mayor increased his contributions to his own campaign.
Rather than being a serious compromise, the new bill goes so far in lifting contribution limits as to make them meaningless. It is a fig leaf that doesn't cover the obscenity of the initial bill.
I have also proposed a number of way in which we can reduce the role of money in political campaigns. In particular we need public financing of campaigns and we need to reduce the cost of campaign advertising on television by renegotiating the franchise Comcast holds with the city.
But our broken politics in Philadelphia is incapable of thinking ahead. Everyone knew month ago that Tom Knox would spend millions of his own money on his campaign. And everyone has known for years that money was far too important in our campaigns. And yet our campaign finance laws remain inadequate.
At this moment in the history of Philadelphia, our most important goal has to be to keep the hard won limits on campaign contributions in place. So we have to fight against this legislation
In May, our goal has to be to elect City Council candidates who are willing to fight to preserve democracy in the city that gave birth to it in modern times.
For those of you who support this bill...
It's a tacit admission that to you, city politics is little more than an extensive (and acceptable) barter system, held together by party bosses. Because otherwise, you'd recognize the power of an idea vs. the mere ability to spend. Why do you believe Philadelphians are incapable of telling the difference?
Susan
I have been trying to stay away from my past personal attacks on Knox, but I must point something out.
Tom acquired his financial assets by being the consumate insider and deal maker. From his banking profits to his HMO profits to his government insurance earings, he was the inside guy in many city and state administrations. That is how he made his money.
Now it would be laughable, if it were not so serious, that he is using his fortune to weave a tale of rags to riches glory and trying to portray himself as the consumate outsider and reformer. His past activities and inviolvement, is exactly what needs to be reformed.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Tom earned his money. You may not like how he earned it, but he did it legally. And now he's ready to spend a large chunk of that money to get in and fix a badly-corrupted political system, one that you're a part of.
May I point out that Tom's not the one on the inside of that system, looking out?
If he's such a consummate insider and dealmaker, how come he's not the one working to preserve business-as-usual in city government? And why wasn't he one of the officials indirectly mentioned in the Fumo indictment as the improper beneficiary of state funds? No one from Citizens Alliance ever showed up to shovel his sidewalk, I can assure you.
And one last thing: If he's such an insider, wouldn't that mean he'd have more support from the other insiders? Yet you keep saying he has no support.
As time goes on
both the press and the other candidates will reveal just how deeply entrenched Tom has been in using the insider system to make his fortune. I will not recount now the many times and ways he has done this for the sake of not being labeled just "anti-Knox". I will call on you later to be as moralistic as you are currently when you will need to explain his past dealings.
Perhaps you are young and have bought into your own TV ads, but you might be rather shocked at just how he got so rich.
Not so young, Jim.
And not so naive. I was a reporter covering the Delaware County GOP machine for 15 years. One of my Keystone journalism awards was for an investigative series on municipal insurance contracts. You think I can't spot who the source is on a planted story? Please.
If these things you saw on the inside of the corrupt political machine were so shocking, why didn't you do something about it? Why wait until now?
And Jim, I'm not "moralistic." I'm moral. There's a difference.
Young as an Insult
Er, Councilman, it's usually a bad idea to use "young" as an insult on a website for young progressives.
---
http://benwaxman.com
The Role of Money
If you think that being able to spend millions dollars to get your message out is not important in politics, then I have to wonder where you have been for the last thirty years.
Indeed, if money doesn't matter, why are we so worried about campaign contribution limits? Money is not enough. Ideas are critical, too. But people who can spend or receive enormous amounts of money have a tremendous advantage of those who cannot. And that is not healthy in a democracy.
I seem to be the only one in this discussion who recognizes that big money in politics undermines democracy both when it comes from a candidate and when it comes from contributors to candidates.
The best solution for this year is for Tom Knox to voluntarily limit his spending and for the the contribution limits to be left where they are.
The second best for this year would be a limited increase in the contribution caps--far far less than has been proposed in Council--if one candidate spends an overwhelming amount of money on the race.
Neither of these are the best solution, however. Public financing and free television time are what we really need.
I strongly disagree that one
I strongly disagree that one of our best options is to raise the caps, but, just raise them some. The best solution is to leave the law alone, and let the candidates get to work.
They will all have enough money to compete.
Especially since half of the
Especially since half of the candidates are revoking the law.
Here, here
This is what I was writing, in a much more long-winded fashion, as this was posted. And Marc, you are certainly not the only one who recognizes that big money undermines democracy whether it some from rich candidates of campaign contributors. Definitely not. But you can recognize that truth and still be against a compromise here.
garbled
whew, I really should proofread: I meant "wheter it comes from rich candidates or campaign contributors."
Will they all have enough?
Michael Nutter is talking about raising a total of 4 to 5 million, I believe.
I can only guess about the other candidates
Dwight Evans can probably raise that much.
It is beginning to look doubtful that Chaka Fattah can raise as much as Nutter and Evans.
Bob Brady can probably raise as much as Nutter and Evans.
I don't see anyone who can raise more than what Tom Knox has already contributed to his campaign. And the prospect of Knox spending three times what all the other candidates have spent does really concern me. It is not democratic and not fair.
This is not about the Mayoral election for me. I am not anti-Knox and I am not pro-anyone else. As an at-large candidate I have the luxury of telling everyone, including the candidates, that I can't endorse any Mayoral candidate. In addition, I really have no idea who Knox hurts in this campaign. Most people think it is Brady on the assumption that racial voting is an immutable fact of life. I don't think that is true. And I suspect that Knox might hurt Nutter as well because, by the end of the race, Knox may look like the only anti-party, reform candidate who has a chance to win.
My concern goes back about twenty years when I knew a really good Congressman who was forced out of a Senate race because Frank Lautenberg spent millions of his own money. Lautenberg has not been a bad Senator. But the other guy would have been much better.
I wrote an article and letters to the editor then predicting that the problem of self-financed candidates was going to get worse and worse. I was right.
So it seems to me that we progressives shouldn't act as if Knox's campaign contributons to himself are not a problem for us, no matter which Mayoral candidate we support.
At any rate, the issue right now is not raising the caps just a little. It is about raising them so much that they are meaningless. That's the fight we have to win first
As I stated in my post below
I don't think this particular election, or the one involving Lautenborg should be used as a foundation for policy on this issue. Any of us might diagree about any particular candidate. We might disgaree about who is progressive. Your argument above, as is Kenny's in presenting his repeal, is based on a subjective rationale. You didn't like Lautenberg, Kenney doesn't like Knox. But in the end, the total amount of money poured into the system, and even worse put into the system by large contributors, will increase in any compromise legislation. No compromise. The bills should stand as passed unless the public indicates it wants a change.
This election is not the issue
My point all along is that there is an important principle involved here and we progressives should defend it: rich people don't deserve an advantage in being elected to office.
I was not that concerned about Frank Lautenberg. It was, however, that election when I recognized a problem: the immense and importance of TV together with the Supreme Court's tortured interpretation of the First Amendment, gives people with enormous wealth an unfair advantage in the electoral process.
The campaign finance laws in Philadelphia should have been prepared for this. They were not. We have to fix them in the future by creating a system of public financing of campaign and by lowering the cost of TV for political candidates.
And I think another small--let me emphasize small--increase in the contribution limits this year would be a good idea as well. But the current bill goes much farther than anything I'd ever vote for because it would lead to the end of contribution limits in practice if not principal. There is a very big difference between increasing the limit for PACS from, say, 30,000 to 1.2 million.
Well, I agree and I disagree
I agree that the campaign finance laws should have been drafted to deal effectively with the "millionare loophole" -- to the extent that they could have given SC findings.
I disagree that even a small increase in the contribution limits this year would be a good idea. To whatever extent they will be raised, as I said below, the role of money in the election will be increased (if anyone can show me how my reasoning is wrong I'd appreciate it). And further, as I said below, I think changing the restrictions at this point would be antithetical to democratic processes and a violation of the public trust placed in the hands of our representatives.
Ultimately, as a realist, we'd be better off with very small - let me emphasize very small - increases in contribution limits this year rather than see the laws that were passed (in response to the will of the public) completely and cynically blown up by a few folks who feel that they are empowered to change the odds to be less in favor of candidates they don't like.
But I feel it is important to distnguish that a principled stance would be that no changes should be made prior to this election. And I think it is important to debunk the rationale that somehow changing the laws is somehow the "fair" thing to do.
Mr. Kenney feels that such a viewpoint disgards the "unfairness" of Knox's money buying him influence. And you seemed to have a similar perspective, when you said that you feel that you're the only writing here that is concerned about that unfariness. I don't disregard that aspect at all, and I'm quite sure that Dan and virtually everyone that is strongly opposed to Kenney's repeal, and even to any compromise bill, don't underevaluate the problems of Knox's unrestrained spending.
I am not a Knox supporter.
Let's all work towards a more complete public financing system without dismantling the limitations that have been put into place. That, I feel, is the "progressive" thing to do.
So, I agree that fighting the ability of millionares to "buy"
office is an important principle, but I diagree that compromise is an effective way to fight that battle, and in fact, for mutliple reasons, a compromise would be "un-progressive."
But in the end, I guess this nuanced debate is irrelevant, as we both agree that Kenney's repeal is completely unacceptable.
Thanks D.E.II for summing up the arguments so well
Thanks D.E.II for summing up the arguments so well. I agree completely with your statement:
I disagree that compromise is an effective way to fight that battle, and in fact, for mutliple reasons, a compromise would be "un-progressive."
Backtracking on the reforms we’ve achieved will not make it any easier to gain support for public financing. Each gain strengthens our position to fight for further gains.
I also appreciate your response to Marc’s assertion that:
"I seem to be the only one in this discussion who recognizes that big money in politics undermines democracy both when it comes from a candidate and when it comes from contributors to candidates."
Obviously we are all concerned about self-financing millionaires, but many of us don’t want to undo the progress we've made because we are not in a position to address the Knox loophole.
The more I learn about Knox, the worse a candidate he appears to be. (And I have heard this from many other friends and colleagues.) So far, he’s had a free ride on the air waves. That’s not going to last.
Nutter and Evans have done a very impressive job raising a lot of money from small contributors. And when a candidate has to raise money from a wide donor pool because he can't rely on a few big checks, that candidate talks to lot more people.
Marc said he thinks Fattah is having difficulty raising money. I am sure with Fattah’s name recognition and front runner status, he can raise funds under the current law. And if Brady has as much support as his advocates on this list suggest, he should be able to do likewise under the current law.
Everyone knew that Knox would do this. So why are some people in a state of panic about Knox now?? What could be worse public policy than changing our campaign finance laws every time a poll comes out that frightens backers of one candidate???
Tell the Truth , Marc!
Marc wrote: "The campaign finance laws in Philadelphia should have been prepared for this. They were not."
Not true.
I passed two laws with "millionaire's amendments" last fall - doubling the limits and applying them to the no-bid contract law.
But you and some others were so consumed with the definition of the term "candidate" that you failed to see the bigger picture.
WWGjr
Still Relevant?
Given Catherine Lucey's article yesterday in the Daily News about Fattah's exploratory committee spending and how it might have morphed into campaign spending, it seems like the definition of when one becomes a "candidate" is still relevant, no?
No.
Fattah announced before the laws became effective on December 15 and December 26 - so the laws immediately applied to his candidacy when they took effect.
WWGjr
OK
OK, but what about the money raised and spent before he was a "candidate"?
OK
OK, but what about the money raised and spent before he was a "candidate"?
Friedman, read carefully ...
The local law applied to him IMMEDIATELY when it became effective on December 15th. The law immediately forbade the acceptance of contributions above the limits and the expenditure of excess pre-candidacy contributions.
The money raised by the exploratory committee above the local limits was allowable under state law - and I don't know if any of it was spent after December 15th.
But ask yourself a question - should the money that Nutter raised as a city councilman be used for a mayoral campaign? If so, doesn't that mean that he violated the Home Rule Charter? Hmmm...
Enough questions?!
WWGjr
Not Even Close!
I've got a ton of questions...I think this is pretty confusing stuff, especially for somebody like myself who doesn't do this every day or have the level of knowledge that you have about it. I do thank you for the information.
Two laws with "millionaire's amendments"?
Councilman, Could you please explain more about the two laws you passed last fall and explain why, if you passed the millionaire's amendments already, there is discussion of repealing campaign donation limitations now. Please forgive my ignorance. Thank you.
2006 Millionaire's Amendments
1) The first law took effect on December 15 - and it doubled the contribution limits for any muncipal candidate in a race with another candidate that has spent over $250,000 of his/her own personal resources. Because Knox declared before December 15 and had already spent $250,000 of his own money - the mayoral contribution limits went to $5000 per individual and $20,000 per committee on December 15 - rather than $2500 per individual and $10,000 per committee limits for other municipal races.
2) The second law took effect on December 26 - and it applied the millionaire's amendment to the No-Bid Contract Law so that the limits would be consistent throughout the Code.
WWGjr
Cool. I expect some more of
Cool. I expect some more of these statements as we go.
To this specifically, I don't particularly think offering a compromise at this point makes a whole lot of sense, especially as they hold the specter of killing the limits over our head, as if that is some kind of rational bargaining chip.
Like you said, everyone knew Knox was going to spend millions, and, those limits were hard fought. Lets keep them and not flip out because of one poll.
By the way
I look forward to meeting some of you this evening in person at the K Pass. I will be the old hack with the walker.
Jim's repeal is antithetical to Democracy
Ok, here's my broken record rant again - but since Jim keeps posting the same kind of responses here at YPP, I don't feel quite so foolish in repeating myself.
Yes, the role of money in our elections undermines the democratic nature of our governing structure. The power of money in electoral processes effectively undermines the principle that all folks are created equal. As such, and as "progressives," we should all be working to reduce the impact of money in elections; whether the source of that money is wealthy people financing their own campaigns or candidates accepting outrageously large contributions.
For that reason, it is clear that Jim's repeal, if passed, will be decidedly "non-progressive," as it will do nothing to deter Knox from spending his own money to get elected, and will only increase exponentially the amount of obscenely large and potentially corrupting contributions that will be placed into the hands of candidates by individuals and pacs.
There is no objective benefit from Jim's repeal from a systems perspective (and in that sense, from the aggregate perspective of the citizens of this City whom Jim is representing). The only possible benefit is that it promotes the prospects of some candidates relative to others. But the determination of that outcome as a benefit is, by definition, subjective. And therein, lies the anti-democratic nature of the appeal. This appeal effectively means that Mr. Kenney is using his power to manifest his own personal perspective, regardless of the perspective of the plurality of his constituents.
And that is why I feel that any concept of a "compromise" here also represents a miscarriage of democratic principles (and certainly Jim's proposal, as we understand it, is no compromise, anyway). The voters have made their intent about campaign reform clear. If Jim or anyone else feels that as political leaders they are in a position to present a case to their constituents and ask them to reconsider their intent - so be it; they should do so and see how the public responds. If they make a good case, they will have support.
But to me, any "compromise," even a real compromise as opposed to what Jim seems to be promoting as a compromise, would still run counter to what Philadelphians have stated they want. ANY compromise will not reduce the role of money in this election - it will only shift the relative balance of the sources of the money while, at the same time, increasing the total amount of ways that money can corrupt our governing system. The total amount of money spent in this election by a very small segment of the population will increase. And such an increase is in direct opposition to the stated wishes of the voters.
In theory, if we could trust City Councilfolks to always represent the collective interests of their constituencies rather than pursue their own interests or impose their own personal perspectives, then a repeal such as this one would represent no danger, as in the end, collectively, the Council's vote would, in fact, represent the will of the plurality of Philadelphians.
However, the reality that Mr. Kenney didn't bother to ask his constituency what they want before he drafted his repeal; the reality that in contrast, he is advocating legislation that is in direct opposition to our intent as voced by our votes on the issue of campaign finance reform, and the fact that we have seen over an extended period of time that there are at least some people on City Council and in other branches of our government who elevate their personal interests, perspectives, and wishes over those of the City as a whole, do not allow me any confidence about the outcome of next weeks vote.
In sum: this sucks.
Yay Marc
Marc has been very outspoken on this issue and done a great job trying to find a compromise.
I know we've come to expect it from Marc, but let's take a moment to recognize some solid progressive leadership.
---
http://benwaxman.com
A Tale of Poverty
Its funny to see different candidates tell stories of how they grew up in the mean streets of Philly ,one man grew up on section 8, the other was shot in the leg or the chest. Sometimes I can't remember all the tall tales of rags to riches. But can these people really relate to the constant struggle that goes on in our community. And now from riches what are they doing now in the community. I hate to see the once a year, one a campaign walk through the hood. They clean one block, shake a few hands ,but how real is that .Do they really want us to believe that these powerful rich men of the city can really know how we feel as Philadelphians????
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
community
I have know Bob Brady while attending his classes at Penn..one thing that remains a constant as an indicator of his personal ethics is his refusal to accept payment for his services to Penn and the community. Rendell received upwards of 100,000 for his teaching there...Bob donated his salary back.....there are many such sories of his civic ethics that just don't receive any airtime or mention in the press due his modesty and reluctance at self promotion. Jim
Curious, Jim
If he's such a reluctant self-promoter, why did he tell you that he refused payment for teaching his classes at UPenn?
Penn
Public knowledge and from my association with Prof. Gale. So this comes as a surprise....confirms my point. Also why the cynical tone? I'll wager the more you learn about his personal ethic the less dismissive you may become. Jim
Why the cynicism?
because of the fradulent nature of many "testimonials" that have been posted about Brady on this site. As Dan cautioned, the onslaught of smarmy first-person homages to Brady have had the unintended effect of tainting any posts by his supporters (at least for me). And I have to say, that the fact that these folks seemed to be in some ways formally associated with his campaign, there was a carry-over to my impression of the his campaign ethics.
I hope that you're right, and that the more I find out him more I'll think highly of his ethics -- as I consider personal ethics to be a key criterion for office. And I wouldn't want an unethical mayor to get elected, and it seems Brady has a quite reasonable chance of being elected.
So, since you seem to know something about Brady's personal ethics, let me ask you a few questions so that you can further show me how my cynicism is misplaced:
What do you think about his association with Fumo? How about his association with Campbell? What about the reports that he disingenuosly tried to "spin the shit?"
TESTIMONIALS
No argument here about the extent of manipulation behind most testimonials...thanks for taking mine at trust. I am sincere in my personal evaluation. I don't posssess the methodology to discern anyones inner motivations but can say emphatically that I have come away with a positive appreciation of Brady and his heartfelt concerns. As to his convoluted associations with Fumo and others it remains outside mine and I would argue your purview to comment authoritively. Jim Hionis
Tinderbox
Are you the same Jim Hionis who owns the Tinderbox?
---
http://benwaxman.com
tinderbox
Yes Ben....but don't let that disqualify me on grounds of dubious objectivity. I write what I believe will advance the dialogue and what hold to be true.
Jim
I'm not sure that owning a
I'm not sure that owning a cigar shop could hurt your objectivity. Unless you've got some sort of vested interest in keeping smoke filled rooms around or something.
I wasn't trying to imply anything, I was just curious.
---
http://benwaxman.com
smoke filled rooms
Ben,
We here often engage in political conversations which I know would interest you and members of this great site. Conversations range from international to regional. Obviously the next mayor figures prominently here. -please attend- you will be surprised by the level of sophistication permeating this smoke filled enclave....often cited as the last refuge. Jim
smoke filled rooms
Ben,
We here often engage in political conversations which I know would interest you and members of this great site. Conversations range from international to regional. Obviously the next mayor figures prominently here. -please attend- you will be surprised by the level of sophistication permeating this smoke filled enclave....often cited as the last refuge. Jim
Life Would Be Boring If You Only Associate With Folks Who Agree
Life would be pretty boring if you only hang with people with whom you agree. I seek out people who don't share my point of view. It helps me refine my ideas as they face challange. If my ideas can't pass muster then they're not good ideas. Honest people can and should disagree.
As part of being in Philadelphia politcs for many years, Bob Brady has come in contact with every kind of person. Over time, some of those people have become his friends. Bob Brady's biggest strength is his loyalty to his friends. Vince Fumo has brought a lot of money to Philadelphia. It's alledged that he's been feeding at the public trough. Over the next few months we'll see if the charges are true. Carol Campbell has delivered to her constituancy. Both are people with whom Bob has developed friendships. I'm pretty sure that Bob Brady will stick by his friends. How much of a friend can a person be, if they cut and run the first time someone complains about them? Please let me know if any or all of your friends are perfect.
Guilt by association doesn't make you guilty. As I've said before, there has been only one perfect person and he hung out with some pretty bad characters. Did that make him a bad person? I don't think so. I think that Bob Brady is the best person for the Mayors job. I feel his ability to find and judge people will put good folks into the right places.
To use a sports analogy, Bob Brady is a talent scout and a coach. Over time, Bob Brady will take Philadelphia "to the house"