- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
Where We Are [UPDATED]
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 02/02/2007 - 10:06am.
Here is where we are:
Mayoral Candidates Against the Repeal:
1)Mike Nutter
2)Tom Knox
3)Dwight Evans
City Councilmembers Against the Repeal (this will grow, I suspect):
1)Wilson Goode
Announced Council Candidates Against the Repeal (this will grow, of course):
1)Marc Stier
2)Maria Quinones-Sanchez
3)Damon Roberts
4)Vern Anastasio
5)Irv Ackelsberg
6)Matt McClure
And, we have a statement from Jim Kenney that if Bob Brady says "let's not do this," he will pull the bill.
I don't think Jim is a bad guy- quite the opposite. Which is why I think we have a chance here to keep the bill.
The punchline in all of this is that the limits are working well, and making candidates go after small donations instead of only huge ones. That is a big deal.
(And really, any council member who wants to be considered a "reformer" or a "progressive" (YO BILL GREENLEE, YO BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN), is going to have a lot of trouble voting for this.)
I saw a post from Kenney
I saw a post from Kenney saying all candidates would have to agree to the continued limits for him not to push the bill. Did he say elsewhere just Brady and not Fattah as well? I would think it would be rather incriminating for him to say Brady is what will make him decide to stop.
agreed
Last I checked, Jim Kenney represents Philadelphians and not Bob Brady.
______________________________
Phillyville
Well, Fattah has not said
Well, Fattah has not said anything about it either way yet.
The only person who has so far been publicly for it is Brady. So, I think that makes sense. If no one argues for it, especially. If he comes out against it, the measure dies, period.
Again, lets give Council a chance to show that they are listening, and that they will do the right thing.
Fattah
I called him on Wednesday. He was supportive of the proposal then. Brady also. Dwight was not willing to publicly support it, but was not strongly against it. Mike was a no from the get go.
See it was not Brady's doing. It was my concern. I called them, except Knox, before hand. I have seen the Wizard of Oz and I do have a brain.
My brain tells me that Knox can win and that would be a travesty.
I have no doubt that you got
I have no doubt that you got some nods in private.
But, Evans has come out against it, Nutter has come out against it, and we are waiting for Fattah. If Fattah comes out against it, then I think this will be pretty hard to justify.
Evans?
Has Dwight come out against the repeal? He's sounds like he's hedging a bit with this "sliding scale" business. Also, Councilman Kenney...I'll shout again so I can get your attention...DON'T YOU THINK THAT BEING A CONGRESSMAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY BOSS GIVE BOB BRADY AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE? Thanks. I'll stop shouting now.
I agree
then it will be gone and you can enjoy your morning, afternoon and evenings of Tom Knox as "Jimmy Stewart Goes to City Hall".
Those remaining and qualified candidates who may be against this proposal, which by the way, is totally transparent, will be left to tussle over scarce resources and hope for the best.
All fighting aside...
I have to say that your (and Goode's) participation in this highly emotional debate (and despite what appears to be "politics as usual" from city hall) is very encouraging for the future of our city's government.
Agreed. Thank you.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Scarce resources? You bet-
Scarce resources? You bet- this is a City that is largely poor, so that makes sense.
What doesn't then make sense is to have a system where a few rich people can cut checks. That is why I want public funding, because we do have scarce resources, and the average person can not afford to cut big checks, and so, the system is not really run to help them.
You are basing all of this pessimism on a poll that 1)did not even show Knox winning, 2)had a margin of error higher than any reasonable poll would have, 3)that came out before the Brady campaign- Knox's main danger- has started to get rolling, 4)before anyone else has gone on TV, which is surely going to end.)
Don't make Knox a victim... pull this bill.
I do
represent all of Philadelphia. That is why I am so concerned.
We have four good candidates for mayor and one who is not. The one who is not has 15 million to spend. When was the last time a Philadelphia mayoral candidate was willing to spend 15 million of his/her own money to get elected? I remember it was.........well........
Council has, with good intention, reduced the access of the 4 good candidates to money needed for message and the bad one is out there unfettered.
Not good.
Ultimately, the voters
Ultimately, the voters determine who the "bad one" is.
Councilman--don't you think this sets a bad precedent for ethic reform?
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Explain
to me what is ethical about using your career earnings based on predatory lending and mortgage forclosures to run for mayor of Philadelphia. You then use the money to package yourself as a product of public housing and a rags to riches success story.
Meanwhile, four other candidates with real public service records are hamstrung by a council enacted law limiting their ability to respond to the surging "outsider" whose network fraudulent fairy tale goes unchallenged to date.
102 days to the election and the four good candidates are not yet on the tube. I hate the fact that TV is the major conduit for voter communication, but it is the reality.
Why are they not on the tube? Money! Knox has plenty. They are all scraping for scarce dollars.
So, if you want the voters to decide, as I do, then level the playing field and let me watch my TV at home and see all of the four qualified candidates both telling their own good stories and debunking the payday lender.
Time is running out.
Saying they are hamstrung
Saying they are hamstrung because rich people, and rich unions cannot give $100,000 checks seems disingenuous to me.
It isn't like they cannot raise money, they simply cannot get ridiculous sized checks that certainly give the appearance of a government funded and run by the well-off and the well-connected.
Knox
is the anomaly. Yes, they can raise money, but the four of them will be competing for the same money with artificial constraints.
You can argue about union checks and other usual funders, but using one's predatory lending proceeds is no problem for you?
Come on, Jim, that is
Come on, Jim, that is getting ridiculous. Who was the first person to scream (at least six months ago) that Tom Knox made money off of payday loans? Me. Of course I care about it. But, I don't think killing the campaign finance law is smart ethically, or tactically.
In fact, Jim
Google Tom Knox, and, see what comes up.
So
how can we keep the four qualified candidatess close with the money?
Have matching funds that
Have matching funds that emphasize small dollar donations. Have millionaire penalties, etc.
You are not going to make even the difference between an obscenely rich guy, and never will. But, with 102 days left, each candidate will have plenty to compete.
I mean, Bob Brady announced one week ago... And, again, Knox, all alone on TV for months, wasn't even winning!
Raise the limits, don't eviscerate them
1. Under federal law, if you're running against a self-financing millionaire, it triples the amount you can raise per-contributor.
2. The four other candidates have had decades of public service, with the attendant free media coverage. They don't need as much money to let people know about their fine records.
3. Money isn't everything. If races were won on money, we'd be saying farewell to Mayor Weinberg (or Mayor Katz) this year.
Agreed
If you want to move it to the federal limits, where they triple (instead of their now being doubled), I don't particularly have a problem with that.
The fact that this is 102 days away, and happens so fast in Philly is great, in my opinion. Our finance laws have stopped the incredibly dangerous explosion in money that we have seen in both the Governor and Senate races.
I could be down with that
I could be down with that too.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
The Feeling of being Disempowered
Councilman Kenney-
What you seem to be saying is that you think the candidates won't have a voice, and so, the best ideas will not win.
I just hope that guiding principle stays with you as we look for more solutions to fix problems in our City. Because frankly, I think that feeling- where rich donors and the well connected get the power, not every day citizens and good ideas- is one that a lot of us have when we think about the way business is done in the City.
Trying to get an Answer from Kenney
Councilman - do you think it's a level playing field when a candidate is a party boss and a congressman are running for Mayor? Why didn't you care about this issue weeks or months ago? Answer: your guy wasn't in the race yet. Stop being disingenuous; it doesn't suit you.
You're not answering the question . . .
Knox is perfectly able to spend his own money--he has no real message and he likely will not win. Let's assume for a minute that his business practices were unethical, then that is all the other candidates need when they do get on the tube--and these guys are not having trouble raising money. And, leaders like you need to get out in the community and tell people, educate them. And, we all know that what happens on TV in this town is no reflection on what happens in the polling places and wards come election day.
But, responding by gutting a part of ethics reform is unethical regardless of the motivation. Like I said before, it sets a bad precedent and, perhaps even more importantly, it advances the argument that, yes, two wrongs do make a right.
The onus must be on the other candidate to spread their message--not on giving them training wheels to do it at the expense of everything else.
Councilman, you know I have always given you much credit for the things you have done. I strongly disagree with you on this position. I respect your opinion and respect you. But, I hope you change your mind.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Knox
Why is Tom Knox a bad candidate? Can anyone justify this statement? No?
UNFAIR! DON'T TALK ABOUT FAIRNESS!
Councilman,
Do you think it is fair that Evans, Brady, and Fattah all hold their day jobs and use their political offices to their advantage in this mayoral race? Do you think it is fair that Bob Brady still holds his position as chair of the democratic party?
Do you think it's fair that Michael Nutter had to quit his job to run while none of the others did?
C'mon; this is not about fairness. This is about protecting Brady from Knox. It's not right.
"the bad one"
If you believe that the qualifications for mayor should be raised from the Charter ("The Mayor shall have been a resident of the City for at least three years preceding his election and shall be at least twenty-five years of age at the time of his election"), then amend the Charter; don't twist the rules to disadvantage one guy.
And I think you need to have more faith in voters to make up our minds as to whether someone is qualified. Everyone else will start getting his message out soon, and we'll decide. We've got a fairly decent record of sorting out the lessers from the meritorious -- four months before the 1999 primary, Marty Weinberg had $2.4 million in the bank compared with Street's $1.7 million, after all.
In order
to get the message out you have to have the money. Do you not concieve what 15 million dollars can do. He is currently outraising everyone else 4 to 1.
Look, you may know better and this proposal well may fail, but I have at least tried and Mayor Knox is on you.
Of course I know what $15M can do
I also know that it often doesn't work. Rick Santorum outspent Casey by a ton. There are ways of levelling the field that don't require eliminating the limits altogether -- there are better things to try.
Casey
was a very close second in fundraising. It was also a two way race. Not a five way race with some candidates sharing the same constituentcies.
Actually, no
Casey was outspent by $10 million dollars.
Again: why eliminate the limits altogether when just raising them has worked on the federal level?
Dwight?
Isn't Dwight's opposition to the repeal a little squishy?
Remember New Coke?
Yeah, me neither.
You can tie yourself in knots all you want equating Tom's money with inevitable success, but the fact is, the public rejects expensive ad campaigns all the time. (As Adam says, Rick Santorum is one. "Gigli" is another.) It doesn't even seem to occur to many of you that voters simply like Tom's message - because they do. I know; when I'm out on the street with him, I'm astounded by how much people come up to tell him they identify with him and want him to win. He's attended over 300 neighborhood meetings and forums in the past year - maybe people actually like what they hear!
I wonder why? Gee, maybe because he makes it clear that in his administration, no one will be left behind simply because they're poor and lacking in political connections. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?
I'm not saying these things about Tom because I work for him. I went to work for Tom Knox as his press secretary because I thought he might be the real thing.
And Mr. Kenney, I'm so happy that your soul's Baltimore Catechism milk bottle is still so pure milky white. Good for you!