- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
State Aims at the City Campaign Law... Again
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 07/06/2007 - 7:51am.
A bill that would undermine the city's enforcement of its new campaign-contribution limits cleared the state House this week by an overwhelming 200-1 vote.
The proposal would eliminate an electronic-filing requirement that the city Board of Ethics used effectively this spring, moving quickly against candidates who accepted bigger contributions than permitted.
State Reps. Rosita Youngblood and John Sabatina Jr., the primary sponsors of the legislation, said they were just trying to give a break to volunteer campaign treasurers who were confused or inconvenienced by the electronic-filing requirement.
"I received numerous complaints from treasurers," Youngblood told the Daily News in a telephone interview yesterday. "It was a hardship upon them, having to file electronically. In a lot of cases you have seniors that are treasurers; they're not computer-literate."
Rigggght. The Board of Ethics responds:
By eliminating the electronic filing of campaign reports with the Ethics Board, this bill would essentially gut the City’s 2003 campaign finance law and reverse the progress Philadelphia has made toward greater transparency and accountability in City government and preventing large campaign contributions from corrupting city government.
Without electronic disclosure of campaign finance reports, it would be extremely difficult for the Ethics Board to enforce the City’s campaign finance law’s contribution limits and other provisions. The bill also would limit public access to the campaign reports because the Board could no longer post them on the Internet.
Dear Philly State Reps... Why, yet again, are you leading the charge against our City to have the power to govern itself? Don't you think this is an issue that the... elected body of our City can deal with?
Is this the way good government dies in Philadelphia? With a knife in the back from our State Legislators?
Dear State Reps:
Leave our damn laws alone.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Computer Illiterate Seniors?
C'mon... they're bullshitting us, right? What happened to hiring competent people who can do the job as required?
We can't let the state gut our campaign finance laws right under our noses. Especially when they don't do much of anything else. We should put pressure on our state senators immediately!
The logic that we have to
The logic that we have to have the same contribution laws as the state is a joke to begin with. As if, when you are asking someone to write a check, it is a really big effort to say "I can accept checks up to x dollars."
Gosh, how will big donors ever be able to deal with such shocking dificulties? I mean, can I write a ten grand check here, or do I have to limit myself to $4600? The agony!
But, this is even stranger. Mandate that the City goes backward because treasurers say it is a pain in the butt?
Philly state reps
Would state reps even be covered under the city's municipal campaign finance laws? Since their state elected officials, it would seem that they'd only have to comply with state laws anyway? Why do they need to go the extra step to kill this law for mayoral, council, controller, DA and row office candidates?
I don't believe so.
Check out the definition of candidate here.
I know someone running for
I know someone running for State Rep. She has to supply campaign fundraising info to Philadelphia.
It seems that it affects anyone that is running a campaign that involves Philly voters.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Lurvely
So, now I know I'm voting against both my State Rep for doing this, + my State Senator for voting to undercut Phila's smoking ban.
2 for 2. Nice work, ladies. Enjoy your time off.
-Z
Who's the one?
Does anyone know who was the one rep who voted against this? I may have missed it in both the Inq and DN stories but I don't think it was in there. Even Vitali, whose votes I usually agree with, voted for this but then claims that he was tricked. Anyway, just curious.
Steve Samuelson
Steve Samuelson (D-Northampton)
Ineptitude
Just one more shining example. These guys are more concerned about how to help or hurt other politicians. After all, isn't that what matters?
I'd call my State Rep. to complain, but I'm still not convinced that Frank Oliver actually exists.
I love it. Because there
I love it. Because there are so many senior citizens doing treasurer work, it means using computers should be prohibited.
Oh and I just looked at the bill. Your democratic progressives Cohen and Payton were two of the people who introduced it (amongst pretty much all the Philly Dems). Amazing how Cohen toots his own progressive horn so much, but votes against expense report disclosure and Payton is put up on a pedestal and he helps to introduce this.
I am sorry to harp on it, but this is a prime case in point of what I keep trying to tell people. Stop being so concentrated on the party and start paying more attention to the officials. I don't know what it takes to finally realize that locally, the dem party has been screwing Philly as much as anyone else.
The only person who said "no" was Rep Samuelson (D) from Lehigh County.
I don't know about you guys, but I am going to contact the Republican majority in the Senate to try to get them to vote against. It is time for some to go to whoever will help.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
By the way, it looks like it
By the way, it looks like it is House Bill 1130, if anyone else wants to read it and see who your Bruti are.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
3 versions
If you have a few minutes, take a look at the three versions of the bill and note the changes.
I made my own attempt over at thenextmayor.com blog. What are other people's opinions about the evolution of this bill?
Yeah, it pretty much went
Yeah, it pretty much went from "you can't make them do electronic copies" to "you can't make them give you reports at all".
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Don't Feed The Troll
Raideradam supported Rick Santorum in 2006 after the Green Party candidate was kicked off the ballot.
Raideradam is a Republican committeeman bound by party rules to support Al Taubenberger for Mayor against Michael Nutter.
Raideradam at least initially strongly opposed my efforts to raise the minimum wage, and has had numerous posts expressing Republican and Libertarian perspectives on many, many issues both here and on phillyblog. He bragged that the candidate he was working for in the Democratic Primary had the backing of the Libertarian Party.
If he is a "progressive," then the word means anyone not to the right of the Libertarian Party, a rather odd definition.
simple question
Why did you vote for this bill?
I Am Against Driving Up the Costs of Campaigns
There are conflicting definitions of reform. One strain of proposed reform--a strain with many different proposals of which the Philadelphia requirement is one--of campaigns is the setting of ever more stringent requirements for campaign staff to meet, requiring ultimately the setting up of full time year around well-furnished campaign offices with full time paid staff. I am against reform moving in that direction. The more staff is required, the more money is required.
Skill in raising money is partly a matter of personality, but is much more a matter of acquiesence to special interests and willingness to make fundraising and searching for areas of agreement with special interests a priority in terms of the use of one's time. The difficulty of passing smoking ban legislation is a tribute to the power of campaign contributions.
I favor reducing dependence on campaign contributors, not increasing dependence on campaign contributors. My sense of what reform should be about--having legislators who represent public interests and not specical interests--is undermined when requirements are proposed or instituted that many campaigns, especially small-scale campaigns, cannot meet without great difficulty without employing paid staff.
People complain when candidates run unopposed. The more expensive it is to run for office, the more candidates will run unopposed. Reforms that lead to more candidates running unopposed and greater dependence on campaign contributions are not the reforms that I am most enthusiastic about.
A Pure Sham
This is ridiculous. You favor reducing access to information, pure and simple, and you have said so before. The only thing this bill does is gut local campaign finance regulation and attempt to keep every critical eye in the dark. The notion that this puts an undue burden on candidates and their campaigns is a total mirage.
In the rare event that there actually is a campaign treasurer who can't do it, there are plenty of volunteers who can do data entry. And I note that there hasn't been any effort or discussion to prove that the additional requirements are especially onerous or to try to make them more user-friendly -- the only initiative is to eliminate them altogether.
I will say it one more time. Every politician who says that regulations on campaigns are impossible to satisfy undercuts every effort at government regulation, from the minimum wage to work safety to environmental standards. It is the so-called progressives in the state government who have become the true libertarian spokesmen in Philadelphia. Your position amounts to "Get the government off our backs so we can do business" -- nothing else.
Some Regulations Are Unreasonable
I favor government regulation in the public interest. But I work to make regulations reasonable. My enthusiasm for raising the minimum wage did not stop me from agreeing to slower increases for small businesses and teenagers for the first 60 days of working. By making small concessions we were able to get a far better deal for low wage workers than the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats in most states were able to get.
Governmental regulations are not sacred texts. Every day, everywhere some are changed. Regulatory schemes have to be reasonable. Would you, for instance, support a regulation that required all salaries of employees everywhere to be placed on the internet along with the hours they work in order to aid enforcement of the minumum wage laws? I would not. I would see that as an unreasonable administrative burden on employers and an invasion of privacy of employees.
Conflict of Interest
The problem is that what Philadelphia's voters and their elected city officials seem to think are reasonable regulations means bupkus to the state legislature. Campaign regulations, smoking regulations, casinos, guns -- you guys cannot keep your hands out of it whenever the city passes a regulation that you or the people who donate to your campaigns don't like.
You (both the legislature and Rep. Cohen personally) also cannot seem to stop passing laws that directly benefit only yourselves -- whether it's eliminating oversight of your campaign's money, raising your salary, or approving your own expenses. There is a major conflict of interest here, when legislators pass laws that affect only themselves.
P.S.: In the false analogy that you made, the salary of employees is legally protected under the right to privacy. Legislators don't have similar protections (their salaries are a matter of the public record); neither does political speech in the form of campaign donations and campaign money spent. In other laws, the lines have already been drawn; you're trying to gerrymander them.
well
First off, to the extent that there are problems with the law, why should it be handled in Harrisburg and not in Philadelphia?
All this law does is require campaigns to file electronically data that they are collecting electronically. A smart entrepeneur can fill the gap with the software and assistance needed to help provide those conversions to campaigns.
More generally, this is a burden which campaigns *should* meet. Otherwise, why require any filing of any kind? That takes effort and time and resources too? And one thing that helps reduce the influence of campaign contributors is to mandate clear and electronic disclosure of how campaigns raise their money and what they do with it. Sunlight, disinfectant, etc.
Why Is Filing In Triplicate Enough?
If filing in duplicate is not enough, when one of the duplicates goes on the Internet, why is filing in triplicate enough? Why not require copies be sent to each daily newspaper in the Commonwealth? Why not require each city department get a copy? Why not require that each candidate must have a website and post each contribution on it?
And why not require monthly filings? Why not require daily filings? Why not require hourly filings? Why not require that each contribution shall be accompanied by a biography of each contributor? Why not require that each contributor fill out a statement of financial interest or a questionnaire about why he or she made the contribution, and post these answers on the Internet? Why not require the District Attorney's office or the Philadelphia Police Department to issue a backround check of each contributor?
Sooner or later, lines have to be drawn. Sooner or later, we have to say "no" to some demand or other. That does not mean we do not support ethics in government. It does mean that we want candidates to actually interact with voters who are not contributors, and we want elected officials to actually do their jobs and not just spend all their time raising money to pay for an apparatus that can handle ever more complex bureaucratic requirements.
If you want people on your side when the forces of big contributors are against you, you need people in office who are not dependent on big contributors. You are not going to get that by using campaign finance regulation in an Orwellian manner so that it is so complex and so expensive that it increases reliance on campaign contributions in order to meet legal demands.
At what point, Mark
is your job as a representative to vote in accord with the opinion of your constituents - rather that on a basis of your personal evaluation?
Is it your job to evaluate what is "enough," or to vote according to what your constituency feels is enough? Obviously, you were asking those questions rhetorically - but in reality you should be asking those questions in earnest and voting according ot the answers you receive.
To quote from Dan's post:
Seems that your constituency, let alone the bloggers at YPP, are not in agreement with your opinion - and that is the real problem here. If you feel that you have a case to make as to how the campaign finance laws create an undue burden, it is incumbent on you to make that case to the voters and see if you can convince them that you're right. To do otherwise is to abuse your power.
I Dispute Dan's View
I do not believe the bill the House passed guts the ethics law. I do not believe it reverses the gains Philadelphia has made toward greater transparency in government.
And I believe the existing regulation increases dependency on contributors by adding to the base costs of running for office.
No constituents of mine have told me they disagree with my position on this issue. And I am speaking on it here because I was dragged into this conversation. I believe that this bill is a minor administrative change and not the major issue that people here have convinced themselves it is.
The quote wasn't Dan's view
it was the quote opinion of the Ethics Board.
Dan's view was this:
And that is where in voting to eliminate a requirement of the Board of Ethics, you have voted to overturn the right of Philadelphians to determine their own campaign finance laws.
This situation falls in line with a series of events whereby State legislators take it upon themselves to dictate to the citizens of Philly what their laws should be. Legally, you have that right - but as with gun control legislation, it is an abuse of power. You are substituting your belief for the legislated intent of Phlly's voters. You're going about this ass-backwards.
Further, seem to be ignoring the larger implications of your actions.
None of your constituents told you that they disagree with you on this issue? Did you ask any? And in fact, there have been constituents on this board that have told you they disagree with you.
Who Are They?
Who are they? Where do they live? No one in this discussion has said he or she lives in my legislative district.
I would recommend the site
I would recommend the site moderators do something about this poster. It is NOT the same handle as Rep Cohen's normal postings, so I would assume he should be kicked to avoid confusion and that hisposts are nto taken to be the actual Mark Cohen's.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Password Problems Blocked Access to Site
From time to time, I have had problems accessing this site due to password problems. That is why I have used my name (my handle in raideradam's phrase) with different spacing at different times. I am though the "actual Mark Cohen." If I appear angrier at raideradam than usual, I am responding to what I view as distortions caused by his zealous Republican partisanship.
I have no objections to his posting here, but I have every objection to him posturing as a progressive leader and denouncing Tony Payton and I for not being progressive enough when in fact raideradam's openly and repeatedly stated views are far, far to the right of the average Philadelphia voter.
He strongly disagrees with me and sides with conservative Republicans on the minimum wage, gun control, Rick Santorum, enabling Pennsylvanians to cast a meaningful vote for nominees for President in 2008, and numerous other issues. He is not a disillusioned supporter of what I stand for, but an all-out opponent of the vast majority of what I stand for.
If that is the case, I
If that is the case, I apologize about assuming that handle was a fake poster. It isn't the first time people have tried it before.
But to the main topic involving you, if I recall, people like DanU-A are the ones that have been attacking you as well about things like:
- Your support of the above bill for campaign reporting
- Your $28,000 in books
- Your lack of returning the illegal pay raise
- Your high per diem rates
Etc.
So, if I am so "anti-your views" why worry about me when the people you think you identify with are going after you for the same things? You might want to prioritize your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
You Don't Attack Your Fellow Santorum Supporters on These Issues
House Republicans unanimously voted for the duplicate filing instead of triplicate filing bill. Yet your attack on them is very muted.
Most House and Senate Republicans voted for the legislative pay raise two years ago, and you don't attack them for it.
You invoke Dan's attacks on me, but you ignore Dan's attacks on you.
You and your fellow Santorum supporters ought to have the intellectual integrity to fight on the right-wing public policy issues that drive you, and not pretend that you are motivated by other things.
Deal with the argument, not the one making it
Rep. Cohen,
Respectfully, your argument confuses me. First you say that the filings would make financing a campaign more difficult. I beg to differ; it would be more expensive to do everything by paper, including collecting donations, making lists of who gave what, categorizing, etc. Then you argue that the law had to go because it was “unreasonable,” but you never tell us what was unreasonable about it. You mention something about filing in triplicate as opposed to duplicate, but if campaigns file electronically, ideally they would only have to file once! Nowhere have you pointed out a legitimate hardship.
Finally, you make a slippery slope argument that is completely inapplicable to this situation. This is campaign finance catching up with technology, and the technology is supposed to make things easier. Even if campaigns had to file daily reports, if they kept their records electronically that would literally only take the push of a button. And I’m sure if there are one or two treasurers out there who can’t figure out an excel sheet, some twenty-something staffer or another would be happy to do it for them.
So in reality, your law really only makes it harder for the city to keep track of all of these campaigns, and to offer information to the public in a timely enough manner for them to do something with it.
That's silly.
None of that pertains to why this particular legislation is excessive -- because it isn't. Don't give me a parade of horribles as to what might go on in the future, or claim that electronic disclosure prevents candidates from meeting supporters.
If you want to lessen the influence of big contributors, allow campaign contribution limits in Philadelphia and pass them statewide, then move on to voluntary public financing like in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine.
What does that have to do with filing electronically?
Filing an electronic campaign report is remarkably easy. Most campaigns keep track of their contributions and expenditures using easy to use inexpensive database software that will spit out an electronic report with the touch of a button. I'd be shocked if your campaign committee does not use such software. But let's say you absolutely cannot afford a database program. The Philadelphia Department of Records provides an Excel file that you can download and enter your contributions and expenditures into, and again, with the touch of a button, it will convert the data into an electronic report.
If there is no one on your campaign staff who can use Excel, then you have a serious staffing issue.
Given the relative ease of filing electronically, it simply sounds like some of your friends in Philadelphia did not appreciate how easy it was for the press and citizens to review their finance reports.
Nope. -----------------------
Nope.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Want the facts?
If anyone is interested in the facts I am open to discuss this bill please email me your number and I will call you as we debate the Smoking Ban.
Thanks,
Tony Payton Jr.
tpayton@pahouse.net
ps Vitali is correctly quoted in the paper
I am telling you, government
I am telling you, government self-regulation is essential to have credibility to regulate anything else. Could you imagine another industry refusing to comply with a regulation because of the age of some of its workforce? Is it really hard to find people who can do data entry in this city?
Sadly, this is and has always been Rep. Cohen's m.o., along with most of the city party. Anything that makes it at all more difficult to do business (in this case to raise money, run campaigns, and get re-elected) has to go.
The Questions is
The question is, who is in a position to stop our reps from screwing us over?. Philly didn't even bat an eyelash over the payraise issue. Dozens of people seem to be working during all spare moments night and day to get some fairness out of the casino issue- and have gotten little to no gain so far (though I'm still hopefull).
What I'm getting at is- there are not enough concerned citizens in Philly about what the state does (and specifically our reps to it). I'm willing to bet that even most people who voted for them- don't know who their state rep or senator is. There has been no citywide movement to clean up harrisburg. I'm not even sure where I could go to get a quick opinion on who from the Philly delegation does something for the city and who doesn't (Philly blog seems to give plenty of opinions of councilmembers). I thought Payton was going to be a change from the status quo- but apparently not on election/ ethics laws. Is there even one person who looks out for this city, insted of cynically voting on career protecting legislation?
Is there anything the progressive community can do about this besides point out the obvious that we are getting screwed by our own? (I don't have any ideas- I'm hoping someone else does.)
Finally- Does the Nutter factor really matter??? At least he is going to be fighting for us- but can he make a difference:
"I will certainly reach out to Reps. Youngblood and Sabatina and see if there's another way to address their concerns," Nutter said yesterday. "To the extent we can avoid these city-state conflicts about issues that are fundamentally local issues, that's what we need to do." *
We are in a position to keep
We are in a position to keep them from screwing us over.
It isn't just about voting and posting on a forum. People need to hit the streets. If you find a candidate you support, volunteer for their campaign. Even if it is a couple hours on a weekend.
Be involved in community groups. Write letters to the editor. Don't be afraid to try to be part of the Ward structure (whether Dem or GOP) to help inform your neighbors of political issues.
And for the big one, do not be afraid to vote across party lines if your current rep isn't cutting it. You don't have to change registrations, but it shouldn't mean you give them a blank check on your vote.
Democracy takes work. We can't expect other people to do it for us.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I have done, and continue to
I have done, and continue to do all of these things- with mixed results, depending on the issue- but with regards to the state government- the people of philly have a blind spot- and it has been there for generations.
Maybe if a group like Philly Aganist Santorum- became Philly for Accountability in Harrisburg- we can get somewhere on this- I don't know what the answer is- but I do think it is going to take more than the usual individual activism stuff. I guess I'm kind of thinking someone with more political ambition and time on their hands could really do some powerfull (and by that I mean funded) organizing on state gov't failures- maybe similar to PA Clean Sweep- only locally focused.
I think alot of people would get involved if such an organization got started- but it needs to be one that really focuses on Philly's relationship with our Harrisburg Reps- and not just a branch of PFC or NN. There is just no watchdog for these people (especially- in my opinion- with voters) and that's why they get away with murder.
Well, I was using a
Well, I was using a "collective" you and not you in particular (since I obviously do not know what you do or do not do :) ).
Groups like PAS, PFC, NN and others are going to have issues spearheading such an endeavor because they have their own individual political agendas that they need to be true to and will inherently alienate people that don't agree with their platforms.
This also goes to what I have said several times about the progressive/reform movement in Philly. Not enough cooperation between groups and candidates because it seems there is a problem on the willingness to concentrate on what they agree on as opposed to concentrating on what they don't agree on.
Another point you said is also true. There sort of needs to be a unifying force, typically a person, that people will be willing to follow. Again, such a person has not seemed to have arisen (Nutter is the closest, but we will have to see what happens.)
The other problem is, such a group needs to be predominantly non-partisan; reform is not a Dem or GOP issue, it is a civic issue. Unfortunately any major non-partisan group in Philly seems to be a 501c3 so they can't be politically active outside of educational or watchdog.
I personally have some plans on how to do something, but formentation is going slow because of the prioritization of house renovations. ;) I also don't want to go into details until I can offer something concrete. Of course I am always willing to chat with people about my ideas if anyone is ever interested. ;) I love feedback and counter-ideas.
In summary, I predominantly agree with you. It is a lot of work and generations to overcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Liz
If you think I represent the status quo you are saddly mistaken!! Please join me in Harrisburg on a typical day and then give your report to the readers of this blog. Are you up for the challenge?
Tony Payton Jr.
I know your backround, I am
I know your backround, I am impressed with other things you have done in your short time in office- and how you got there in the first place- and that is why I'm surprised you were on the wrong side of this one. However, alot of outsiders start playing like an insider once they are in- it happens to pols time and time again. Your support of this bill sends up a red flag- and if you would like to publically defend your choice- I'm sure it's welcome by all. Simply explain how the results of this legislation do not promote politics as usual?
A model of intellectual forthrightness
Rep. Cohen I'm the type of guy who applauded you for championing raising the state's minimum wage. In other words I'm a progressive who believes in social justice. I would bet that my opinions of fair tax policy regarding income are much closer than mine would be to raider.adam but you are simply resorting to the lowest of low in terms of avoiding the issue below.
Yep, Adam is a representative of that new strain of Libertarian-inflected mostly non-partisan "centerist" politics that seems to be "popular with the kids" these days. So what? Your rhetorical attempt at deflection of the issue at hand sounds a little like something our of China's Cultural Revolution or worse one of those "Christian" right-wing groups, denouncing someone not for the point they are making but for being "counter-revolutionary" or "un-Biblical".
What in the world does that have to do with you voting to take away our local ethics laws? Laws that Philadelphia voters approved in huge margins as a ballot initiative, laws that were authored by our next Democratic mayor Michael Nutter - who I should remind you won the primary by impressive numbers. Maybe Adam does not fit the "progressive" mold but Nutter's ethics laws do - and you voted to overturn them on a sham of lame excuse.
Shame on you. There is nothing "progressive" about hastily slapped together state law to overturn the popular will of Philadelphia voters.
This bill is nothing but a transparent attempt to slow down the Ethics Board so that violators can skate through the election under the radar untill the designated "party favorites" get in. Its a pathetic attempt to disenfranchise the "non-professionals" and keep amateaurs from having timely access to the financial information of candidates.
Even the most computer un-friendly senior citizen campaign treasurers STILL have to type of the financials when they submit them in the non-electronic format. Submitting electronically just gives the public access to the information in a more timely fashion, which is the whole point of the law.
As a member of both PFC and NN, I'm disgusted with this move on your part. I really can not emphasize enough how for me this move is the single most "anti-progressive" piece of legisltion to be floated in PA legislature by anyone of any party in quite some time because it directly attacks our democratic process. You can't get to social justice without real democracy - it just doesn't work and this bill is profoundly anti-democratic with a small "d".
And Tony Payton, I'm especially hurt and disgusted by your vote for this bill. If you continue to support it, I will strongly and repetitively push and push hard to see that you never get another "progressive" endorsement in this town - ever. How in good faith can possibly justify this vote stripping the will of local Philly voters to regulate their own city elections away from them? For shame.
Don't you guys get that for us "good government" lefty's this bill is worse than the pay raise was?
Filing In Duplicate Instead of Triplicate Is The Issue
This is about filing campaign expenses in duplicate instead of filing them in triplicate. That is all.
Congressional candidates only file in duplicate.
Legislative candidates in all 66 Pennsylvania counties, including all four suburban counties, only file in duplicate.
Calling this the most anti-progressive piece of legislation in Harrisburg is absurd. Have you ever written to your member of Congress demanding federal legislation requiring filing in triplicate? Have you ever demanded that suburban candidates also file in triplicate? Did you ever even post anywhere praising filing in triplicate instead of duplicate as a major reform?
A lot of people who have talked to Neighborhood Networks about running for office have backed away from that goal in large part because they could not raise an adequate amount of money. This requirement, as applied to small-scale candidacies like those of state legislators, moves in the direction of increasing the floor of money needed to run a serious campaign. Doing so hardly increases the number of minimum wage increase advocates likely to run for, and win, elective office.
So why not try to pass
So why not try to pass legislation that makes PA file electronically as well and standardize that way? why not pass legislation that increases efficiency instead of retards it?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Try the veal!
Mark,
Thanks for the comedy. So... you think the burden of running for office- in a place with entrenched people and money flying around- is less disclosure? I mean, you know the citizens of Philadelphia overwhelmingly supported the ethics package, right? The candidate most associated with 'clean government' won, running away. The board of ethics strongly disagrees with you, too, but that doesn't mean anything to you, right?
And, we have this thing called Philadelphia City Council. Why in the world do you think it is appropriate to substitute your judgment- as a Representative in a body that has long resisted even the most basic campaign and election reforms- over theirs?
When you take away the City's power to regulate even our own elections, you don't think that makes it a little harder to argue that we should, for example, make our own gun laws?
You say you are a progressive, yet you are creating a situation where the decidedly unprogressive PA Legislature gets to kill the laws of the Democratic, and democratically elected, City Council of Philadelphia.
Bottom line: Leave our freaking laws alone.
All state house seats up for election in 2008 primaries
Well said, Mr. Luigi. There is growing movement among progressives (particularly younger progressives) to reject the claim that because an elected official is good on social justice issues, she/he should get a pass on clean government, transparency issues.
Over and over folks on this list have made comments like Liz’s reply to Rep. Cohen:
Philly’s state legislators have been complacent because the outrage over the pay raise did not seem to extend to them. Well, I think Philly voters are becoming a lot less complacent. Michael Nutter’s impressive victory demonstrates there is a constituency for clean, transparent, responsive govern.
All state house seats and half of state senate seats are up for election in 2008 primaries. State house races are very winnable races—-you can walk some of these districts.
Although many of us were disappointed that progressive candidates did not do as well as we had hoped in city council races, it’s clear that part of the reason was that the progressive vote was divided, with too many candidates vying for seats. If that can be avoided in 2008 house races, I think there is real possibility of change and we can elect more responsive state legislators.
My View...
I have two, somewhat differing, views on this issue.
On the one hand I think that the electronic filing was really, really poorly executed, and was unnecessarily cumbersome. As many of you know, I worked for a City Council candidate during the last election. I had to file our electronic filings, and I can tell you they were a COMPLETE mess, and they took me (a computer tech who has no problem with almost any technical related issues) about 10 hours to compile, and about a week-and-a-half to transmit correctly. This was 100% due to the stupid system that they built the the electronic filing system upon, and there is no reason, that I can think of, why campaigns can't simply file a PDF version of their filing, which could be done either by distilling the document you have to submit in paper form, or, if a candidate does happen to do all of their accounting by hand, by scanning the document into PDF form. Maybe this would keep candidates who are breaking the law, like Donna Reed Miller, from simply leaving any shady donations off of one of her reports, while including it in the paper form. Then again, I doubt people like her give two shits about the law when it applies to them, so who knows.
But, given that the problem is technical in nature, and should be easy to fix, why the f-ck do our state reps have to come in and strip our rights to force our elected officials, and those who are running for office, to file electronically with the Ethics Board? If you're so concerned about it, than talk with the City Councilpeople, and the people of the city who actually asked for this (including, I'm sure, many in Rep. Cohen's district. As if he really cares). Instead you act like our city's government is a small irrational child, and you all are the reasonable, responsible adults. GIVE ME A F-CKING BREAK! I'm sure after Nutter's election that the city committee, and those who are intimately involved with it, have been looking for any way to ensure that they can tilt the game in their favor in the future. I just cannot believe that so many of our reps are playing along...
I don't agree with the
I don't agree with the scanning paper copies into PDF format. It doesn't eliminate the hand writing and you still have to have people on the other end, i.e. the government, decipher this information.
Electronic data entry cuts down errors to misspelling and not illegibility.
Again, I worked for a candidate as well and I had looked at Darrell Clarke's paper filings. Over half the names I could not even read. It was filled out in chicken scratch.
This is the year 2007. There is no reason the filings should not be submitted electronically.
I mean, seriously. We're worried about candidates that would be holding public office that can not manage to find someone in this day and age that can fill in computer forms/spreadsheets.
But I do agree with you Alex. The solution is not to eliminate electronic filing. It is to work with the City to make the process easier.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Alex, Thank You For Admitting the Existence of A Problem
The Ethics Board and various posters here have worked themselves up into a lather and denied there is any problem at all. If you would like to set up a meeting with the Ethics Board on a Friday, July 20 or some other mutually convenient date after we finally pass the budget and deal with the related matters, I will be glad to join you and see if the technical problem is quickly fixable or the process of fixing it is going to drag on for many years because of denials or other reasons.
This legislation is about the real problem that you have identified and many others have experienced. There is no grand conspiracy here. If the problem can be admitted, faced, and solved, the legislation will be unnecessary.
You are killing local filing
You are killing local filing requirements- which would kill the effectiveness of our ethics board. And in response, you are willing to hold a meeting?
How about before you do that you retract the law that would make a need for that meeting moot?
There Is A House Bill in the Senate; No Law Has Been Passed
I think it certainly would be helpful to get people who had actual problems with the city ordinance together with the Board of Ethics and state legislators. I would like such meetings to take place both privately and publicly so that we can reach a common mutual understanding as to what the facts are. That certainly would help both houses of the legislature, the City Council, the Board of Ethics, and the City Commissioners office in working out a solution to the real problems identified by Alex and experienced by many.
There certainly is no legislative interest in killing local filing, and the bill kept local filing with the City Commissioners office. Getting the relevant interest groups together in the same room at the same time or times is a traditional and very effective way to iron out disputes.
Don't you think those
Don't you think those meetings would be appropriate for the City Government to be convening? Again, you have already passed the House Bill, so, unless you now take actual proactive efforts to rescind the law, it is out your hands. You, in the Democratic House of Representatives, are now just waiting for the GOP Senate to seal the deal.
Why don't you yank your bill and let home rule... rule.
I Want to Solve the Underlying Problems
The city and state are not foreign countries. We should work together much more than we do. Hopefully, solving this controversy will be a very small example of how state and city government can work together in the interest of Philadelphians, and will lay the basis for greater achievements.
This is not in essence a dispute between the state and the city. This is a dispute between candidates and the Board of Ethics, and people in the Board of Ethics and the City Commissioners office. Reasonable people can often find reasonable solutions that are in the interest of all sides and the public.
Mark, this is really
Mark, this is really ridiculous. If people in the City think the requirements are too onerous, let them deal with it. Pretending like we need uniformity here is ridiculous.
Again, if you are for progressive policies in more than just the abstract, taking away the right of the 80 percent Democratic local body of Philly is a pretty strange thing to do.
So, again, before you ask for a meeting to fix what would probably take hiring a 22 year old for about an hour, why don't you yank this bill?
Get a 22 Year Old to Fix the System
Dan, get a 22 year old computer whiz to fix the Board of Ethics filing system so that Alex and others can use it without unduly burdening themselves and you might be able solve the whole problem quickly. I suspect it is not nearly as easy as you think it is, but I would welcome being proved wrong. I'll be glad to pay for a half hour of computer consulting work by the computer expert of your choice.
You are displaying
You are displaying conflicting stories. Is it that the Philly system is broken as you are now saying or is it as Youngblood is saying and that expecting elderly volunteers to use computers is too much of a burden?
Which is it?
Also, I spoke to the Treasurer of a campaign from the last election. He said the software the City supplies is actually very nice. You input the data (or import it from Excel) and it will spit out the electronic file for Philly AND print the hard copy for the State.
Of course I have not personally used it, this is only from someone that has.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Not like I am much of a name
Not like I am much of a name outside of a select circle, but I am actually trying to get the GOP majority to vote against the bill, as well as my local Dem senator.
It really wouldn't hurt for others to email/call their senators to encourage voting against the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Shouldn't that be done
Shouldn't that be done BEFORE you try to pass legislation?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Fix the Real Problem
The problems with filing electronically have already been fixed. The Board of Ethics gives us a few ways to file. The simplest is to use the Excel template they give you to create the txt files they require. Anyone with minimum computer skills and a little knowledge of Excel can do this. If you use a professional tool to track contributions, like NGP, those txt files can be created with the push of the button.
There have been some problems in uploading data directly. I haven't used it so I don't know for sure, but I have heard that the new tool the Ethics Board created works well. But give that most of us track expenditures and contributions on either Excel spreadsheets or a tool like NGP, I don't see any reason to use it.
And, if some poor ward leader doesn't use computers, then they should hire a twelve year old to help them. That is the kind of jobs ward leaders should like to hand out.
And don't tell me, after all the money they take from candidates, that ward leaders can't afford this or that the cost of campaigns will go up dramatically. I can't believe a seemingly intelligent person like Mark Cohen could even make that argument. You want to cut the cost of campaigns, and reform our politics, then lets start by limiting the amount of money ward leaders can take from candidates so that people can't buy council elections as happened recently.
Finally,there is one real problem and the state legislature can fix it. It really is annoying to have to file twice in two different forms, with the Board of Ethics and the Commissioners office. The only reason we have the double filing is that state law requires that we file to the Commissioners. The General Assembly should require the commissioners to accept candidate's filings with the Ethics Board.
This really is a totally appalling step back from what was beginning to look like real reform. The whole General Assembly should be ashamed of itself.
The one cumberson and annoyin g
How were you recording contributions?
How were you recording contributions both for your own record keeping and for filing the paper report?
There are a number of campaign contribution database programs out there which will spit out the electronic campaign report in the format that the city requires it with the press of a button (and it will also spit out the paper report).
If you did not have such a program, I assume then, at the minimum, that you were tracking contributions in Excel. The Records Department has an excel file/template on their website that you could have used for this, which would have also spit out the electronic report with the press of a button.
Is paying for a campaign contribution program an unreasonable burden for small campaigns? I say no. In theory, you could run a campaign without a computer, but you wouldn't. Campaign contributions programs are an essential tool of any campaign, regardless of size. And the cost is very minimal. You could have gotten one for a few hundred dollars that would automatically generate the paper and electronic reports for you in the format Philadelphia requires, kept track of when you called and mailed contributors, managed your candidate's schedule and much more.
Here, here Alex U-A
I'm willing to accept that perhaps the electronic system is new and perhaps needs some of the bugs to be ironed out. Long term the point of the law is to provide voters with as timely access to who their candidates are taking money from as possible - period. That means if electronic filing as it is now has problems - you fix those problems - and "improve" the technique that puts the information in the voters hands as quickly as possible. In other words you make electronic filing as streamlined and as simple as possible - not eliminate it.
The sane, repsectful-of-the-will-of-the-Philadelphia-electorate and respectful-of-the-Home-Charter solution to this problem would have been for concerned members of the PA State House to address their concerns with Philadelphia City Council, with the Philadlephia Ethics Board itself, with Michael Nutter, our likely next mayor and the author of this ethics law. Its not to do an ill-concieved run around the Home-Charter to overturn a piece of law that was approved by Philly voters as a ballot initiatve in broad, borad numbers.
Being elected to the PA State legislature means you are supposed to represent the will of Philadlephia's voters who have clearly shown they support this ethics bill and its author, Michael Nutter. Being elected to the PA State legislature from Philly means that you are supposed to work to empower the explicit will of the Philadelphia electorate, not undermine it. This bill runs counter to what Philly voters have clealry said they wanted.
Beyond all that, the issue of the electronic filing is actually moot at this point because Dan Pohling's reading of the language of the final bill is correct. What they actually passed in their rush to jam this thing through while noone was paying attention, doesn't just kill electronic filing - it kills ALL FILING AT A LOCAL LEVEL so Philly municiapl cnadidates will only file with the state - and that information will not be available to voters before the election is over at all.
You guys not only passed a crappy, anti-reform, anti-democratic bill but in your haste you actually took a big stinking pooh on the idea of ethics reform in local government at all. Good job!
Mr. Luigi, This Bill Does Not Kill All Local Filing
Mr. Luigi, this bill does not abolish all local filing. It merely limits the local filing to the City Commissioners office. I am told that Board of Ethics personnel already get a lot of information from the City Commissioners office; the information there is available to anyone who asks for it; Controller Alan Butkovitz posts it on the net withour being mandated to do so. Plus the information given to the state is posted on the net.
As I have posted above, I would like--once the legislature passes the budget and the related legislation--to meet with the various parties together privately and publicly to get a common understanding of the relevant realities and attempt to solve the problems that Alex identified above and many others have experienced. The House bill will not pass the Senate before the the legislature returns as a group in
September, so we will have the ability to forge agreements as to what the problems are and how they can be dealt with.
Send a copy to those who actually do enforcement
As the Nextmayor.com notes what actually passed and what was first proposed do not match.
What actually passed is this:
So yes, a Philly municipal office campaign still sends the report in written form (which it has to type up presumably using a computer and some sort of spreadsheet or database program like um . . . Excel) to the County Commissioner's office but the law specifically forbids any law that sends a copy in any format to the folks who actually are charged with enforcement of violations - the Ethics Board.
Bascially the intent of this law is to slow down the public's and the Ethics Baord's access to information about who is contributing to candidate for local office. In intentionally slowing down the process, in sticking politically loyal party officials in the middle of the flow of information - by law, this law intends to put an uneccesary buffer for campaigns who seek to game the system. If you have to submit the info anyway, you might as well require the information to come in a format where it can be distributed to all concerned - the Commissioner, the Ethics Board and the public at large via the internet - as quickly as possible. Obviously the way to do that is electronically.
The best safeguard against fraud is to get the information in front of as many eyeballs as quickly as possible. Any law that contradicts that principle, that intentionally slows down that process and intentionally forbids the timely access tothat information, is essentially an aide to fraud.
This bill is an intentional aide to campaign fraud and those who support it should be embarassed.
To those who say the state budget, including funds for schools and SEPTA, is a "more important" issue for the state legislature to be focusing on - I agree. That is the state legislature's job - and they are currently doing a piss-poor job of it. Instead they are putting their time and focus into micromanaging the process of how Philadelpha (the only "City of the First Class" in PA) enforces its own LOCAL election laws.
Why is that? And why now - instead of after when Nutter the author of the ethics bill being stomped on by the state legislature is in office as mayor when he will presumably be in a better position to make any necessary tweaks or adjustments in LOCAL Philadlephia election law?
Is it because this bill is an intentional attempt to override a popular mandate for LOCAL ethics reform in Philadlephia city government? Is the timing an intentional ploy to defy the will of the Philadlephia electorate during the summer when noone is paying attention? It sure would appear so.
If it was not the case then clearly the smart, fair thing to do would be to let the current LOCAL Philadlephia election law stay in place through one more general election cycle and then tackle the issue when there has been time to analyze it in detail. Its the primary where a mass of unexperienced candidates are rushing about trying to raise money and get name recognition willy-nilly. In the general election, the candidates have already been through the process once and are familiar with whatever pitfalls await them. There are less candidates and the voters have already had a chance to get familiar with them and their stands on the issues. In most cases in Philly due the the Democratic registration edge, general electons are both less contested and dramatically les expensive than the primaries are.
In other words, there was no good reason for the PA legislature to tackle this issue now - except if it was intentionally trying to trample on Philadelphia's ability to govern itself at a time when it would draw the least attention.
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Payton please give one good reason why you had to address this issue now instead of in February of '08.
Shock! Rep. Cohen on
Shock! Rep. Cohen on opposite side of ethics reform.
From reading this article
From reading this article and seeing some of the posts. I am lost as to who this weakens the campaign finance, It doesn't seem to lower any amounts or where the money comes from.
The Board of Ethics is still in place and the Committee of 70 has really stepped up their work. So people don't have to file electronically so what?
It is the same either way. Paper is better then there is less room for error or technological mistakes.
The State can offer bills which has an effect on the City which is why they are the State.
Find it funny that people blame the city for not doing the campaign finance prior, then the state comes and works to modify it, then people complain about what the state is doing,
Some peoople really need to give this petty complaining a break.
There are many more important issues at hand, like the state budget getting passed, transportation funding, the school district deficit, murder rates.
People need to focus on legitimate issues instead of nonsense.
Uh, "modify"?
In related news, over 200 people in Philadelphia have been "modified" this year. Mostly with handguns.
Really, this is quite simple. Electronic filing allows
citizens, the ethics board and the press tremendous ease in reading campaign finance reports. Filing by paper sharply curtails that access. How many private citizens take a day off to trudge over to the city commissioners office to look up someone's campaign finance filings? The people supporting this bill (and their minions) don't want you to see who their contributors are, just as they don't want you to see how much of your tax dollars they spend on personal expenses, the deals that are made with special interests and inserted without debate as amendments into unrelated bills etc. etc. etc. Same old, same old.
This Analysis Ignores State and Controller Office Online Posting
The above analysis by clout ignores the fact that the state and the city controller's office post the reports online. If there was a single article or internet post attacking them for not doing so promptly, I missed it. So far in this discussion, no one has cited any such article or posting. If such an article or posting exists, please add it to this discussion.
What is the turn around time
What is the turn around time for the state to supply, online, the campaign finance information in a searchable format?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
More half-truths from Rep. Cohen
More half-truths from Rep. Cohen. He states that:
Well, the state campaign finance reports may be online, but they are limited to state officials and judicial races. No reports for city council or mayoral candidates are posted on the state website.
When I went to the state website to ascertain that this was correct, I decided to check out Rep. Cohen’s campaign finance reports. Apparently the state allows for less than complete filings.
Here is one of rep. Cohen’s 2006 reports from:
http://www.campaignfinance.state.pa.us/ReportSearchResults.aspx?RequestI...
The report directs the searcher to go to Schedule I –Part C to learn the identity of contributors. When I went to Schedule I –Part C all that was listed was that the contributions were made by PENNSYLVANIANS FOR REPRESENTATIVE COHEN. There was no way of finding out who contributed to this political action committee.
What I found most surprising was how little money Rep. Cohen has raised over the years. I suppose this could be seen as a testament to Rep. Cohen’s support in his district. He can win without financial resources.
It could also be seen as good news for a challenger. A challenger to Rep. Cohen would not be going up against someone who has amassed a huge war chest, although I suppose as a long-term incumbent he has the capacity to do so.
My main point, however, is that the state electronic filings are not a substitute for filing electronically with the city.
The City Controller's Office Posts Mayoral Candidates Finances
The City Controller's office posts the finances of mayoral candidates on a regular basis.
My main problem in raising money has been the lack of opposition. I will have no problem raising considerable amounts of money if a real opposition candidate emerges from any camp.
Is City Controller required by law to post reports?
Is the City Controller required by law to post campaign finance reports?
Is this Alan Butkovitz’s decision to do so, or is he legally required to post reports?
Short Schrift, I don't get
Short Schrift,
I don't get your point?
Your talking about apples and oranges.
Violence is a major issue and it is much more important that Campaign Finance.
Hopefully the state will kick up the level of importance, and realizing that violence is reaching out in Reading and York and other counties in the state it may get more support.
Until that point the comparison to campaign finance laws and violence is what?
The point of comparing
The point of comparing campaign finance laws and violence - is that the primary reason that the policial establishment in Philadlephia has so far been so woefully inadeqate in addressing the problem is that its historically been much, much more concerned with passing or "modifying" laws that promote its hold on power and protect the seats of those already in office. This action fits that pattern exactly.
Instead of spending time and energy on how to better serve the Philadlephia public and stop the epidemic of violence taking away so many of its young men, Rep. Cohen and his frienda are focusing on diminshining the publics ability to hold them accountable for their poor performance on "the real issues".
The point is they are more woried about making some ward leader or row office candidates learn how to email an Excel file than they are about the blood being spilled on the streets of Philadlephia.
That's quite obvious from the priorities they have set up with their legislative agenda, in this case.
I'd Welcome Discussing Violence
I look forward to working with Speaker Dennis O'Brien's recently promised Commission on Crime Prevention as soon as it is appointed. I would welcome ideas as to new initiatives the state should be pursuing in this area. I have voted for countless anti-gun measures, tougher criminal sentences, ending loopholes in various criminal laws, banning guns in schools, setting up more disciplinary schools, adding more judges, using DNA evidence more widely, extending statutes of limitation, setting up boot camps for young criminals, expanded prison capacity, greater treatment efforts for drugs and alcohol addicts, greater inspection efforts of homes where violence against youth or senior citizens is likely to exist, better police-community relations, more police involvement in preventive anti crime measures, etc.
I certainly agree that reducing the amount of violence is a major statewide priority, and I look forward to working with anyone who shares that belief.
But lack of credibility weakens your position
Passing bills like this where you stomp on local self-government to undermine ethics law, passing bills like the pay raise, keeping the pay raise after it was revoked - all of that seriously damages our ability to gather support for the good policies we would to support you on. It feeds the common Philadlephia perception that all policiticians are self-interested crooks and that in turn is the number one obstacle we face in "rallying the troops" to support these wiser social policies.
I know DC residents who say "Marion Berry did some good things too" but the more that you consistantly turn yourself into a Marion Berry on things like this, the more likely it is that we will spin our wheels on these other efforts.
Your position on this is so plainly wrongheaded you turn yourself into a burden not an asset in terms of building a "progressive agenda" that draws regular voters in, instead of repelling them in disgust.
Give one good reason why you and Rep. Youngblood could not have made a good fath effort to fix whatever issue there is with electronic filing (the quickest most flexible way to make the information available to the public - the ultimate aim of all ethics law) within the context LOCAL Philly government. Give one believable reason why this had to be passed at the state level and now instead of after Nutter is in office. So far you have failed miserably at this simple request, Mr. Cohen.
I Would Welcome Nutter's Involvement In Crafting A Solution
I would welcome Michael Nutter's involvement in crafting a solution to the administrative problems at the Board of Ethics. He has promised to talk to Representatives Rosita Youngblood and John Sabatina about this legislation, and I hope for positive results from those conversations.
You're still not getting it
You're still not getting it and still not addressing it.
If you are open to all of these people crafting a solution, why wasn't that the route chosen before writing legislation? Also, is Rosita Youngblood interested in a compromise? Other introducers?
What are the procedural requirements for the bill to be retracted before the Senate vote?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
You Need Opponents To Compromise With
You need opponents to compromise with. Before the legislation passed the House, there were no announced opponents of it.
There is no automatic consideration of House bills by the Senate. House backers or other persons have to ask the Senate to consider them. There is plenty of time to work out a solution if people want to do that. All of the backers of the legislation are willing to work in good faith to seek out a generally satisfactory solution, as they would have been had anyone opposed it after it was introduced, when it was in committee, or when it was considered by the House Democratic Caucus.
There were opponents. You
triple post
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
There Has Been No Nullification of Any Law
There no nullification of any law. All that has happened is a one paragraph change of a part of a complex law that has been poorly administered by the Board of Ethics has passed the House.
State legislators, like contributors to this site, have become weary of endless bureaucratic delay by officials of the City of Philadelphia, and, not having endless hours to lobby and not believing that this small change was a big deal, decided to begin the complex process of passing a state law.
Those who are interested in working to solve the administrative problems at the Board of Ethics are welcome to do so. At least some people appear to prefer to score political points attributing motives and casting blame on people who acted with the intention of trying to solve a problem.
So you are saying that no
So you are saying that no one out of the philly representation that introduced the bill could find the time to discuss with the City your concerns about the reporting guidelines?
And the whole "didn't think it is a big deal" is ridiculous. It is really funny because you manage to post on PhillyBlog and Young Philly Politics asking for opinions on items like a State College in Philadelphia and changing the primary date, but legislation involving City legislation and ethics reform it never crosses your mind to ask input and see reactions (or it did cross your mind and you didn't want to hear the answers).
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I Post On Major Policy Initiatives
This one paragraph change is a hardly a major policy initiative.
To quote Car Talk "Booooooooooooooogus!"
Again the head of the Ethics Board has been been quoted saying that he did not recieve a single complaint from any city candidate about the requirement so as far as I am concerned this whole issue could well be an invention by you and Rostia Youngblood for entirely another poltical purpose. If the issue was in fact electronic filing rather than attempting to urge the city to streamline the electronic filing process you passed a law that specifically tosses out the requirement for local candidate to report their finacials to the Ethics Board. And it is the the Ethics Board that is charged with doing enforcement of violations and fraudulent paper work. The bill you passed specifically nullifies the "teeth" of the agency responsible for ethics enforcement. The above statement is a flat out falsehood as anyone who reads the text of the bill quoted earlier in this thread can plainly see.
Ahem . . . What! Come again. My impression is that contributors to this site are pleased as punch with the performance of the Ethics Board in this Mays primary, pleased that it actually held certain noteworthy violators accountable (Carol Campbell stands out as prime example) and anxious to see this brand new organization move on and expand upon its successes from this first real election it has had a chance to oversee. Most people's complaints about the Board of Ethics' performance - if they have any - from May primary was that it was not aggressive enough and hoping for more of what we saw as the brand new institution gets its sea legs.
Also in terms of "endless bureaucratic delay" #1 your bill insert more of a delay, not less in terms of the public getting the candidates info in a timely manner. It would appear to be your bill's whole intention in fact, so your rhetoric here more than a littel comical.
Also last I heard City Council passed a budget. Can Harrisburg say the same thing?
Again the "administrative problem" largely seems to be a handy poltical invention on your and Rosita Youngblood's part to achieve the aim of intentionally diminishing the effectiveness of the city Ethics Board as far as the rest of us can see. Again not one single candidate bothered to report such a "problem" to the Ethics Board itself. Beyond that for the umpteenth time in this thread, would not the correct venue for dealing with a supposed problem with LOCAL election law be in the LOCAL legislative body? Its called City Council if you are unaware of it.
Look you have not presented a compelling case that there is in fact a "problem" and your post here is full of half-truths and bold-faced misrepresentations as to why the State Legislature had to try and sneak this through in the dead of summer.
The more you post on this Mr. Cohen, the bigger a hole you seem to dig yourself into.
There were opponents. You
There were opponents. You were the opponents of the original legislation in City Hall.
So you are basically saying you welcome compromise as long as it is on your terms after nullifying the reporting law, but you are not welcome to compromise on other's terms and going to them.
Again, why could not the introducers of this bill go to Philadelphia as a group and expound on the issue you have with the system? Is it just because, being state reps, you feel it would be below you to address a City Legislature?
From what you have just said, you did "shoot first ask questions later" legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
The problem here is that the
The problem here is that the "opponents" of this legislation aren't state legislators (who this legislation directly benefits), but the institutions created and officials elected by city government.
In addition to the content (which has no goal other than to reduce oversight of elected officials and candidates), the interference of the state into city government is the most odious aspect of this bill.
The Statement of the Goal Is False
No one acted with the intent to reduce oversight. You are arguing that this is the effect, but it was not the intention of any person to do so.
State government and city government are not foreign entities. The city has paid lobbyists in Harrisburg who work regularly with legislators; not one of them complained about the legislation to any legislator nor did any city elected official or appointed official. Nor did any Philadelphia citizen.
The lobbyists and Mayor Street continuously are in touch with legislators. They talk to us repeatedly about what legislation they support and what legislation they oppose. They do not see the state, led by a former Mayor of Philadelphia, and staffed with many former city officials, as an interfering agency; they see it generally as a source of help.
Am I misremembering things...
Or didn't Mayor Street oppose the campaign finance reform package, and not want to fill the Board of Ethics? Given that, why would he lobby to try to sustain it?
Its true about Street's opposition
The Ethics Board was a tough fight. To get it through Council many of us to push and protest, gather signatures and such. I was myself part of a group called "Stoppaytoplay.info" that was an issue advocacy group urging Council to take action on Nutter's legislation at the time. When it went through council, it was approved in huge numbers as a charter change by city's voters but Street still dragged his feet on appointing Board for almost year. It took yet more chiding and pushing to get him to just actually appoint the Board to do its work.
I'll admit that the level of my response may have something to do with that. Although the no-bid contracts limits were an important piece, I view the arrival an effective Ethics Board as the crown-jewel, the piece-de-resistance, of Nutter's ethics reform package and I remember at every step of the way it took urging, prodding and pushing to get to the next step. I think its actions in May's primary, calling out some egregious violations by players who had been violating the rules in much the same way literally for decades and actually issuing fines to violators, proved the Ethics Board to bee a major step forward in making Philadelphia local elections cleaner, fairer, and more dem