COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:45 p.m. - - - BILL 000505 - An ordinance amending Title of 10 the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by adding a new Chapter 20-800, 11 entitled "Campaign Finance," providing for the limitations of contributions to municipal election 12 campaigns, all under certain terms and conditions. 13 14 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Vice Chair 15 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE 16 COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO 17 COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH 18 COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER 19 COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ 20 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 12/12/2000 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I N D E X George Burrell, Sec'y of External Affairs. . . Charles Pizzi, Phila. Chamber of Commerce. . . 51 Kay McKenna, Phila. League of Women Voters . . 65 Lance Haver, CEPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fred Voigt, Committee of Seventy . . . . . . . 89 Liberty City Representative. . . . . . . . . . 120 Alec Meltzer, Common Cause . . . . . . . . . . 123 Betty Lefavi, ACORN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Dina Mendros, Citizens for Consumer Justice. . 130 Kevin Murphy, Philadelphia Green Party . . . . 136 3 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill 6 No. 000505. I would as Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill.
An ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled 10 "Officers and Employees," by adding a new Chapter 11 20-800, entitled "Campaign Finance," providing for 12 the limitations of contributions to municipal 13 election campaigns, all under certain terms and 14 conditions. 15
Thank you. 16 Our first witness is Mr. George Burrell 17 of the Mayor's Office. 18 (Witness comes forward.) 19
Good afternoon, Madam President. I've spent a number of years always trying to -- always trying to avoid having to come back to the Council to testify; it brings back a 4 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 lot of old memories when I'm in this chamber. I think in the now ten years --
I won't answer that, I'll take the fifth on that question. But in the now ten years since I was actually a member of this body, I think this is actually only the second time I've testified. But I'm happy to be here and good afternoon. For the record, my name is George Burrell, Secretary of External Affairs in the Street Administration. " Unfortunately, the Mayor is unable to attend today's hearing but asked me to testify on behalf of the Administration. Anyone who followed Mayor Street's mayoral campaign in 1999 knows that he consistently supported comprehensive, meaningful, and effective campaign finance reform during that 5 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 campaign. It is impossible not to be concerned with the rising cynicism in our electorate concerning the relationship of money and the overall costs of elections to electoral politics. If one reviews the testimony from your June hearing before the Committee on Law and Government on Bills 356 and 357 and Resolution 380, it is clear why campaign finance reform is on so many agendas. That being said, it is the Administration's current position that Bill 505 falls short of achieving comprehensive, effective, and meaningful campaign finance reform. The continuing debate about campaign finance reform in the Congress and during the almost-completed presidential election highlights the complexity of this issue and how difficult it is to resolve. This is not an issue which can be resolved merely by adopting campaign contribution limits. They exist at the federal level, yet we routinely multi-million-dollar campaigns in Congressional and Senate elections. In fact, one of the frequent complaints from federal elected officials is about the time 6 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 they must spend raising money because of the increasing cost of holding elective office, combined with low contribution limits. The legislation before this committee will not reduce the cost of local elections but it will increase the time by you and others raising the money required to win election or reelection. If your real objective is campaign finance reform, then I would encourage this Council to take the time to work with Republicans and Democrats, both here and in Harrisburg, and with respected political watchdog agencies like the Committee of Seventy, to tackle this issue in a comprehensive way. Comprehensive, meaningful, and effective reform must address the issues of soft dollars, the cost of elections, and the role of public financing as well as contribution limits. Parenthetically, we must also focus on how campaigns can be adequately financed so that voters in fact get the information required to make informed choices. It is often said that one of the chief goals of campaign finance reform is to level the 7 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 playing field. Actually, that phrase masks the target of campaign finance reform; it is really about improving the odds for some candidates and worsening them for others. The goal is to achieve the advantages that those candidates with greater access to money would otherwise enjoy and to make it easier for candidates without access to money to run for office. That is a laudable goal, but the bill before this committee misses the target. In addition to ignoring several key elements of campaign finance reform, the limits in the proposed legislation are simply too easy to get around. The ultimate result of the bill would be not a level playing field, but a distorted campaign process that favors power brokers who extort and raise more money for candidates than they contribute; independent political committees; State elected officials; candidates willing to obey the new rules; and individuals with personal wealth, willing to spend to it get elected. Also, the failure or inability to address the issue of soft dollars further strengthens the role of organized party structures at the expense of independent candidates.
8 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 We all know that when comes to raising and spending money to elect a mayor or a member of Council that if one door is closed by law, money will flow through whatever door or doors remain legally open. Indeed, the experience at the federal level and in other municipalities where campaign finance reform has been implemented confirms this position. For example, Rule G-37, promulgated by the SEC, prohibits investment banking firms from contributing to local candidates, but I would suggest to you that it has not reduced the investment of the financial community and in local political campaigns. Section 20-802, Paragraph 1 prevents contributions to any candidate in excess of $1,000 per year, whether the contribution is made directly. . Oh, I got it all confused here. Section 20-802, Paragraph 1 prohibits contributions to any candidate in excess of $1,000 per year, whether the contribution is made directly or not to a political committee, and the subsequent section limits the contribution to $5,000 annually to any candidate. But it is critical to realize that these provisions do not 9 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 prohibit a person from contributing an unlimited amount to an independent political committee so long as that contribution is not intended to be a contribution to a particular candidate of more than $1,000. Furthermore, the provisions do not prohibit a political committee from spending millions in support of a candidate, or a slate of candidates, so long as the money is spent independently of the independently of the candidates and there is no contribution to any candidate of more than $5,000. Given these new rules, it is inevitable that so-called independent political committees will be formed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money directed at influencing the outcomes of elections in Philadelphia. Existing political committees, including those established by the major parties and by other elected officials also serve as excellent, wholly legal ways to circumvent the restrictions in the bill. These political entities will be free to solicit unlimited contributions in unlimited amounts so long as they are not earmarked for particular 10 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 candidates. How does this represent an improvement in the fairness or credibility of the electoral process in this city? Perhaps even worst, this bill could encourage subterfuge by some candidates. It would establish a powerful incentive for candidates to evade the contribution limits by collaborating with political committees that were independent in appearance only. We have seen this type of subterfuge at the federal level time and again, and it only compounds the public cynicism about the electoral process. Moreover, even if candidates do not take advantage of such subterfuge, Bill 505 is an invitation to power brokers to dominate the election process in Philadelphia. The hard truth is that candidates will continue to do everything they can to build large campaign war chests. By making that task harder than it is today, Bill 505 enhances the value and influence of those who have the connections and relationships necessary to harvest vast numbers of $1,000 and $5,000 contributions. It encourages candidates to build relationships with those individuals so they will 11 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 make the calls and collect the checks. I have two final concerns with Bill 4 505. First, notwithstanding the provision for injunctive relief contained in Section 20-805, it is not at all clear how the bill's prohibitions would be enforced in any meaningful way. Section 8 20-802, paragraph 1 would prohibit a contribution of more than $1,000 per year to any candidate, including contributions made to or through one or more political committees. How would this clause be enforced?
For example, if ten contributors each gave $5,000 to a political committee without specifying its purpose and the political committee subsequently makes a contribution of $5,000 to Candidate X, what is the reporting mechanism that will be used to determine whose money went to X? In the absence of such a mechanism, how do we know whether or not paragraph was violated? In fact, the limitations in the bill are not enforceable without new disclosure requirements that go far beyond what is currently required by State campaign finance law. This, in turn, raises my second concern, that there is substantial risk identified 12 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 by the City Solicitor that any foray into campaign finance law by the City of Philadelphia could be preempted by State law. I recognize that other municipalities are experimenting with campaign finance reform, but I think it is important to note that the Committee of Seventy, having reviewed such efforts in numerous other cities, remain skeptical that contribution limits would be effective mainly because of the possibility of major increases in soft money and the resulting difficulty in identifying pay-to-play conflicts. This is an extraordinarily complicated and important area of reform and one that is ill-suited to piecemeal change. I do not believe that the cause of campaign finance reform is well-served by Bill 505, which, by addressing just one aspect of the problem, creates a series of unintended and, to me, wholly undesirable outcomes. Before addressing campaign finance reform locally, it might be far better to see how the federal government comes to terms with the profound flaws that its campaign finance law, flaws that exist despite the presence of 13 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 contribution limits akin to those called for in Bill 505. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start from the beginning of Mr. Burrell's testimony, but let me go to the end. I may be reading the opinion of the City Solicitor dated December 2000. And correct me, but unless Mr. Burrell could -- did you read it, Mr. Burrell?
Then how do you know that the City Solicitor that said it wasn't legal for us to do it?
I've had some conversation with the City Solicitor; I have not read the opinion.
I recommend the opinion to you, because let me read just one sentence of many. "Under the First-Class City Home Rule Act ('The Home Rule Act'), the City 14 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 possesses all powers and authority of local self-government and complete powers of legislation and administration in relation to its municipal functions, which includes municipal elections." I don't know how -- I'm not a lawyer and I know you are -- how that could be any clearer as to the City's ability to in fact do this. As a matter of fact, the former Chief of Staff, who had your position former -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
The former Chief of Staff, Stephanie Franklin-Suber, issued a similar opinion in 1999 saying in fact that also this was a totally legal act of the City government, to supervise and to oversee and to place restrictions on these municipal elections. And I would recommend that you take a look at Mr. Trujillo's opinion of December 11th, 'cause I think it makes it very clear.
I will be happy, Councilman, to read that opinion, but notwithstanding the opinion, I still would believe 15 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 that this is not the legislation that effectively gets at campaign finance reform.
Well, you know, I agree with you there. And I was wondering if you knew how many bills had tried to get themselves through the legislative process in Harrisburg in an effort to do any type of campaign finance reform over the history of, say, the last decade.
I probably couldn't answer the number, but, you know, I, like most people, who have been involved in the political process have watched this unfold in public debate in the United States Congress and in public debate in the most recent presidential election, and it is obviously a very, very important, but also a very, very difficult issue of resolution.
You say in your statement that anyone who followed Mayor Street's mayoral campaign in 1999 knows that he consistently supported comprehensive, meaningful, and effective campaign finance reform during that campaign. Could you explain to me how that happened -- 16 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
-- considering the fact that the entire mayoral campaign for 1999 raised and spent $27.5 million, the largest expenditure for any mayoral election in the history of this country?
I think that the issue of campaign finance reform, which has come up also in the most recent presidential election that has spent more money on a presidential election ever in the history of this country, it was a fundamental issue in that election, one which Vice President Gore said he supported and which Governor Bush did not. I think that in every debate that was held in the 1999 election and in the several public forums, the issue of campaign finance reform was raised, debated, and discussed by all of the candidates and particularly -- and by Mayor Street, and that in every one of those debates, to my recollection, the Mayor said that he would be willing to participate in a productive and meaningful discussion about how to achieve campaign finance reform. But like every other 17 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 candidate running for public office, he played by the rules that he was confronted with in 1999.
Yeah, and I have no 5 fault with that, 'cause I played by those same rules, and no one would expect anyone to unilaterally disarm in the course of an election. But he was the only candidate who was, in fact, successful and is now currently the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. Can you explain anything done by this administration in the last 11 months to initiate, discussion, interface with any members of the legislature, the Governor's Office, or any members of Council relating to comprehensive and effective campaign finance reform?
Well, Councilman, other than -- and I'd give two response to see that. I am only aware of a meeting that you and I and the Mayor and, I believe, Councilman Ortiz had some discussion about this issue before the public hearings that occurred in June, where we met in the Mayor's Office. But beyond that, this is an important political issue, it is an important public-policy 18 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 issue, but the plate of this administration has been pretty full for the past months, and in 4 dealing with those issues that are critical to the 5 lifeline and the lifeblood of this city, the Mayor 6 has not, of his own political initiative, staked 7 out campaign finance reform as his issue for the 8 moment. 9
Can you give us an 10 idea as to when it might be an issue? 11
I think that the Mayor would always be prepared to participate in a bipartisan way on the issue of campaign finance reform in an appropriate forum. I have not spoken to him about what that appropriate forum would be, but I believe, in the meeting that we were in, he indicated a willingness to participate in those discussions, and I think he would going forward.
In your statement, you're quoted as saying, "That being said, it's the Administration's current position that Bill 22 505 falls short of achieving comprehensive, effective, and meaningful campaign finance reform." Could you tell me what the 19 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Administration's position on the last effort this Council made to in fact have an expansive -- I'm sorry, a comprehensive, effective, and meaningful campaign finance reform in Bill, I believe, No. 6 356, which included public financing, annual limits on fund-raising, a board to oversee the public financing of elections, voluntary campaign spending limitations? I believe the Administration opposed that expansive effort and now criticizes 505 for falling too short. Could you explain to me the duplicity there?
I believe that the Administration's request with respect to the earlier legislation was to not move it on a fast track, that we would prefer to have the time that we believe would be necessary to discuss the issues that impact upon campaign finance reform in a thorough and a comprehensive, and the time-consuming way that was necessary, we believe, get it to war it would be effective, to address the concerns both of limiting the amounts of money that perhaps are involved in electoral politics or how those dollars get into electoral politics, but 20 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 also addressing effectively how you have a system that makes sure that voters have the opportunity to get the necessary information that they need to be able to make informed judgments. I don't believe that the Mayor's position last June was, in fact, in opposition to the concept of campaign finance reform; it was in opposition to moving a piece of legislation that seemed to be moving more quickly than we believed it should and that it was deficient in ways that required further discussion and explanation.
How long does it take to get a comprehensive campaign package? I mean, what -- if that was a fast track, explain to me a medium track and a slow track? I mean, how long should it take?
Councilman, I really can't define that to you. I can refer you to your earlier comments how long it's taken and been unsuccessful to achieve at the State level, we've all witnessed very publicly how ineffective it has been at the national level. We are witnessing around the country that the municipalities, though having elected -- having adopted some campaign 21 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 finance reform mechanisms, have not reduced the limits of money and the influence of money in their elections. There are still running campaigns that are costing more and more with each election cycle, where the public is increasingly cynical about the influence of money in politics. So that we would be willing, I believe -- and I think I could speak for the Mayor -- to explore a process that allows us to discuss this in some detail. This is a very complicated and complex issue of which we can all agree, I believe, that we are concerned about the increasing cost of electoral politics and the influence of money in politics, but we also understand that without those resources, voters are unable to get the information that they need without the media and other outlets cooperating to make that information available.
That's curious. Did people get elected before television? How did they run campaigns prior to TV? I recognize TV is a fact of life, but what you're telling me is the only way that the electorate can get information about candidates is through 30-second and 22 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 60-second slickfully-done, artfully-done campaign ads, that there's no other way to go out into the community, to neighborhood organizations, to debates, to other issues where you need to raise millions of dollars to package yourself in a way that you couldn't do by simply going out on the stump? This city isn't a -- this is a nation -- it's not even statewide. The City's big it's but not that big.
Well, Councilman, I think that for most of us who are at least my generation, the advent of public campaigns goes back certainly to John Kennedy in 1960, so it's been since 1960 that the use of television has had a substantial influence in an election, in public elections in cities and national elections around the country. But the balance that we have to fight to achieve here is, we would hope that there are ways in working in cooperation with media outlets, whether they be print media or broadcast media, to find some middle ground. But I remind you that as critical as 23 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 people are of the influence of money in electoral politics today, they are equally critical of our elections of judges, of row officers, of people that they are concerned that they have to elect because they don't have enough information and they don't know enough about the people that they are going out to vote for and are concerned about the influence that organized parties perhaps play in leading people out to vote for their candidate. So there's a balance here, and I think we all are aware that money is an important resource in being able to communicate messages effectively to a very busy public. You know, 20, 30, 40 years ago, you know, we had lots of mothers at home with their children, paying attention to the news and reading the newspaper. Today, we have, you know, two-parent working families. People get their news on the go, they get it from every television and radio, and you've got to communicate with them in that way.
Could you explain your comment "Campaign finance reform is really about improving the odds for some candidates and worsening them for others"? Could you elaborate 24 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 on that. That's kind of confusing to me.
There is a huge element in the campaign finance reform movement that supports the efforts of independent candidates. Independent candidacies are defined historically by the absence of resources to be able to run effective campaigns. And many of these particularly publicly financed campaigns are ways that are designed to reduce the amount of money that people who raise it in large chunks in the traditional way and who have to rely to some extent and to place -- and who are willing to place some limit on how much money they will spend if they accept public funds. It also gives an advantage to people who historically have not been able to raise the big money.
Every issue that I've been involved in here in Council in the last nine years that dealt with governments helping development -- bond issuance, issuance of bonds, things like stadia, TIFs, all of those kinds of controversial issues that involve the use of taxpayers' money for certain projects, every one of those stories that I have read in the Daily 25 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 News or the Inquirer or the Tribune or even in the local papers, the Weekly and the City Paper always have a paragraph in there that discusses the amount of money that an individual has given to a particular candidate, whether it be mayor or a councilmember when that item or that piece of legislation sits before this Council. I personally think that's a bad thing for the public. I think that when we talk about TIFing parking garages that may be a particular good use to a project or to a community, the acquisition of land as it relates to things like building new stadiums, that when the public reads that in the paper, it reinforces a believe -- whether it is accurate or not -- that, in fact, you need to get in line with a check around campaign time in order for you to get your issue, your development, your vote considered and passed. I'm not saying that that is always the case, I'm not saying that it's ever the case. But isn't important that people in the community who pay taxes, who work every day, who struggle to stay in the City, have some belief that political 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 contributions should play no role in these issues? For example, in any of the things that I have mentioned, under Bill 505, any of these developers or any of these people who have come before this body would have only been able to give Sam Katz and John Street or any other candidate who ran for mayor $4,000 in a 4-year period. If that were the case, we would never have this tainted discussion about people who have to pay to play. And I think that one of the things that this bill does, more than anything else, is rachet down the numbers, limits people's ability to have to get in line with a check, and perhaps takes away some of the taint that the public feelings and some of the cynicism that the public feels about every time we cast a vote, is it not in some way a political payback for campaign contributions? which, I will readily admit, I've taken as much as anybody.
Well, I will give you two responses, Councilman. I think that the objective that you've defined is an objective that we would 27 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 all pursue. I think we are all oftentimes offended by the notion of reading a paragraph in an article that suggests that the action that we take is driven by the money that someone may have given to a particular candidate. Unfortunately, I think that through this legislation, we may limit the amount of money that individuals may give, but we won't limit the amount of money that the traditional political fund-raiser who are volunteers raise. And many people who are in elective office have people who go out and raise a 100,000, 500,000, whatever the number is for them, they are going to continue to be identified in those news stories as a strong supporter of the Mayor, a strong supporter of the Councilperson, and suggesting that they used undue influence to get things done. And secondly, and most unfortunately, when you read those stories, they don't always say that someone gave 5,000, 10,000, 25,000, 100,000 to a mayor or a councilperson, they reduce it and say they gave $750 to The mayor in the recent -- and their suggestion is that any amount of money that is given to a candidate is a given with the 28 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 intent to influence the outcome of some decision or to create some access.
I don't know, I'm just a guy from South Philly, Second Street, but when I read a 30 or 50 or 75,000 or a $100,000 number, that gets my attention more than the $750 check.
I don't think it does the public, Councilman, with all due respect.
As a 42-year-old member of the public of Philadelphia for my entire life, and I'm telling you right now, if you think that you can convince me that a $100,000 contribution for one person doesn't have the same effect as a $750 contribution from one person, then I think you're trying to sell me a bridge or something like that.
With all due respect, Councilman, I grew up not in South Philadelphia but in a community with 300 people and where $100 was a lot of money to me, and I think there are a lot of voters in this city, there are lots of educated and sophisticated voters who deal in thousands of dollars. There are lots of voters in 29 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this city who, the ability to give $750 on a voluntary basis, just reach in your pocket and give somebody $750 is a lot of money relative to the position that they find themselves in. And I think that they do read the papers and they do think that people are influenced by that giving.
But I would argue that that $750 contributor does not come before this Council to seek a TIF or to seek any kind of public assistance from the government. Generally, the people who come before this Council are the people who have given 25, 50 and $100,000. And that in the end is really the problem. I mean, if you're going to tell me that power brokers -- I mean, I'll me give you an example. A gentleman said to me recently that the City of Philadelphia isn't run for the 1.487 million people who live here; it's run if for 100, the 100 inside people who are the power brokers, who raise the money, who bundle the checks, who contribute big amounts, and who then come before this particular body and this government and expect help in assistance in getting their development projects done. I know them all 30 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 personally. I think they're all decent, wonderful people, and I think they're doing a good job for the City. But I also would think that the public would think better of them and better of the project and better this development that you're trying to sell us to do as a policy issue if they haven't given any candidate, not just Mayor Street or Mayor Rendell -- and Mayor Rendell was artful at it -- any candidate for public office in this city, mayor or Council, unbridled amounts of money. And I think that that would go light years into improving the attitude of the general public about what we do in this body and what goes on at the second floor.
And, Councilman, again, I think that the Administration and the Mayor support your objective and the goal, but --
But I do not believe -- I do not believe that the process in a serial way of beginning to address campaign finance reform by saying taking the first step of simply limiting 31 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 campaigns, limiting contributions to campaigns, gets us to where it is that you want to go. We have a disagreement on that. I think people are smart enough to see through the veils. Those limitations exist at the federal level today for United States Senators and United States Congressmen. People still believe that they are unduly influenced by people who are their contributors, their fund-raiser, and by the people who come before them, looking for things to be done. It is simply a process because people are supporters of a party, they are a supporter of friends of friends. This is a comprehensive issue that requires us to take a comprehensive look at it, and there is no easy way, and it's going to be very, very difficult to get to the end of the road.
There is no easy way when you stand still. I mean, was it a trip of a thousand -- a journey of a thousand miles starts at one step? Well, if we continue to wait for Washington or Harrisburg or a bipartisan commission of whoever to make this happen, I can 32 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 guarantee you, we'll be sitting here next year and the year after and the year after that, with no 4 improvement. And let me tell you, I mean, you said that the Administration is interested in this kind of a reform but, you know, I got to read a statement from -- that was quoted in the Inquirer back on September 21st of '99 from the Mayor himself: "The people who support me in the general election have a greater chance of getting business from my administration than the people who support Sam Katz." Now, if you think that comment makes people believe that government works for everybody equally, I find that hard to believe. And unless the Mayor was misquoted, I think that's a real telling statement about what the situation and what condition we are in right now as we discuss the issues and policies of the day.
I was not there when the Mayor made that statement. I do, though, think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the decisions of this government are not made based upon who made contributions to the Mayor. The 33 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 access of people to the Mayor is not defined by who made contributions to the Mayor, and the decisions made by this administration are not those that favor any particular individual or group or what the Mayor and the Administration believe are the best things for the 1.6 million people of the City of Philadelphia.
Well, I wish it were 1.6, George, to tell you the truth. I think it's about 1.875. And may I say -- and shrinking, at an alarming rate. Well, all I can do is read the statement. If the statement is incorrect, then maybe I could be corrected, but the statement is clear and unless our mayor was misquoted, then I think that there's a real problem here as far as what telling me here today and what may be the belief of the Administration.
I don't -- again, Councilman, I don't want to -- I've given you my response to that.
I think that we would -- we would -- all of us would be naive if we 34 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 believed that the public doesn't believe, regardless of the element of money in the politics, that people have relationships and friends and others who have access to them. I think people believe that. I have that conversation in my church on Sunday mornings, I have that conversation with people. There is a cynicism about politics in this country and in this city that goes well beyond, well beyond just the influence of money. If you want to deal with that at some point in time, we can.
But there is a belief out there in the "old boys network" that doesn't relate to dollars and cents; it just relates to relationships that have existed over time and have been handed down from generation to generation in the political community in this city.
I've been in my New Year's Club for years and I've got a lot of 23 good friends that I've had for my whole life, and 24 I've done some of them favors. There's not one of 25 them in there that's written me a $25,000 check, I 35 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 can assure you; nor does anyone in that room have the ability to write me a $25,000 check. And that's the problem, that's the problem.
But the point -- you've just made my point, which, I think Councilman, and that is that people in this business do favors for friends of theirs, whether they give them money or not -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
With all due respect, people believe -- but somebody believes that if you picked his trash up and didn't pick mine up, he got it an advantage that I didn't get. It's the nature of the business, Councilman.
Favors getting an abandoned car removed favors, favors getting the trash picked up -- not favors buying somebody's property for millions of dollars, not favors giving someone a tax increment financing legislation when it could arguably be said that the person shouldn't get it or doesn't deserve 36 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 it. So, I mean, I'm not saying that there's a difference between doing favors for people and then doing favors for people when it involves large amounts of campaign contributions.
Let me be very clear for the record that my original comment, I think, responded to that, but I don't -- now that we've gotten into this conversation about favors and you've broadened the scope of the definition of a favor, let me be very clear that this administration has not done any favors for individuals with respect to the acquisition of property or any of the other issues that you have just described, that the decisions of this administration are based upon the merits of the situation in front of us.
I don't think that they have. I just think that the press reports it and people believe it. And that's the problem. Perception in this business, as you know, is a very important issue, and I think the perception of our government, that it might be for sale, is a bad thing. 37 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Thank you very much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
There have been great philosophers that have discussed governance in many ways -- Aristotle, Socrates, Plato.
Councilman, we're having difficulty hearing you.
Talking about pillows philosophers discussing governance, from Plato and Socrates and Aristotle. And one of my favorites, one of my favorite ones is a South Philadelphia politician and a great philosophical statement made in which he stated that money talks and that that walks. And it's interesting that -- I think, as the statement made by my colleague Jim Kenny, there is a perception that this government is for sale, that there is a culture in Philadelphia that exists, and I believe the Inquirer and the Daily News -- the Inquirer wrote extensively about it a couple of years ago about the pay-to-play syndrome that affects a lot of business people, and I have had conversations with business folks that have 38 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 come to us and stated that they're sick and tired of being held up for campaign contributions and then being threatened, in essence, in many sophisticated ways, that unless the money is not forthcoming, certain things will not be done. And whether it's true or not, the perception -- and I would like your comment on it, the perception that there is a pay-to-play culture in this city is real in Philadelphia.
Councilman, let me try to answer that carefully. I have been closely associated with the Mayor as a candidate for mayor, having worked a number of years on his campaign and with the people who raised the money to support that campaign, and now having worked for the last year as a part of the Mayor's administration, and I would personally be appalled and amazed if there are people who are saying that they have been held up to make contributions to Mayor Street. The reality is that in a campaign --
If I may interrupt you. The stories that -- and I asked you about a perception, not about this office or this mayor, 39 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 because I think the culture permeates this, and it transcends whoever it is in office.
But I have to -- but with all due respect, Councilman, I have to answer it first in a personal sense because I'm not sure that in the characterization that you gave that it was clear that you were not making a reference to this mayor. And so I want to be very clear that --
So we're not talking about something that is brand-new to the political reality or the political culture of Philadelphia.
The stories in the Inquirer came out three years ago about pay-to-play.
We all understand that the cost of getting elected to be mayor, the cost of getting elected to be a member of this august City Council, the cost of getting elected to State elected office, the cost of getting elected to 40 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 every office in the political spectrum is increasing precipitously and dangerously in the society that we live in today. But we are partly captives of that, as I said to Councilman Kenney, in trying to find the balance between how to get an appropriate amount of money into political campaigns so that voters can be truly informed. And what we want are voters who are truly informed to be able to elect responsible people to public office. We would prefer that the perception, which is written about and often held by people in the public, were not there. I'm not sure that we are ever going to get to the point where we can remove that perception completely. I do think that we can get to a place where we have comprehensive and meaningful campaign finance reform so that people believe there are some very clear rules and guidelines by which people are bound.
So let's get to that, let's get to that. Meaningful campaign finance reform. Before we had my bill and that was too comprehensive, going too fast. Bill 505, 41 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 you say, falls short. Tell me, in your opinion, what would make Bill 505 right now a important step, moving forward to bringing in and reining in the ability of money to influence political elections? What needs to be added to this bill? Let's not -- since you are in favor of campaign finance reform and the Mayor is in favor of campaign finance reform, tell us now, let us begin the dialogue now. Tell me what the Mayor and you would suggest that we add to 505, or to my bill that's still in committee, but to 505 that is in front of us so that we can make it a meaningful step forward.
The unfortunately, Councilman, I'm not in a position to go that far with respect to detail today. I think, as I said in my --
I think what I said in my testimony is that we need a process that allows us to get to that. What is clear is that if you create a $1,000 and a $5,000 limitation on the contributions to local elected officials -- the 42 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Mayor, Councilmembers, the District Attorney, and the City Controller -- there is abundant evidence, abundant evidence at the federal level and in the other municipal jurisdictions that that doesn't do anything to reduce the amount of money being invested in political campaigns or reduce the costs.
Let me just finish, Councilman, please. Almost $40 million was spent in a Senate campaign in the State of New York this year, almost $40 million.
Okay. George, over $500,000 was probably spent on a District Council race in Philadelphia, probably in one of the poorest districts not only in the City but maybe in the country. It is most abominable that we have to spend that amount of money in districts. But I'm not asking -- I am asking you, 43 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 because you say a process has to get started. I believe that this is the process. I believe that we should get started here. I believe that this is the body to begin moving this forward. If a process is what's needed, according to you, let us then begin and make a commitment that during the next few months, this Committee of the Whole will begin, and we are beginning, a process of developing comprehensive finance reform. Because it can't be done outside of these walls. This is the legislative body of the City. Whether some people believe it or not, we are the legislative body of the City. And if there's a process to begin, I think this is the process.
So I am asking you to look at the legislation that is in committee, both the comprehensive bill that I put forward, the 501 -- the 505 bill that, you say, falls short. And instead of saying let us not approve it, come back to us with your recommendations so that then we can hold a meeting and we can say the Administration is for campaign finance reform, and 44 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this is what they're recommending. Not that it cannot be done, not that it's been futile at the federal level, but that we, here in Philadelphia, are not the federal level, but that we are going to be committed to beginning a meaningful process. So that if you say 505 falls short, give us the Administration's point of view and see where we go from there.
Councilman, as I responded to Councilman Kenney and remind you, I believe the Mayor, when we met in June, in advance of the last hearing, said that he would be prepared, as part of those discussions, to have a discussion about campaign finance reform.
We also asked for something in writing, and we never got it.
Councilman Ortiz will yield. My offer today would be to let this 45 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 bill out of committee as is and I will commit to keeping that bill on the calendar until the Administration comes back with changes that they think is appropriate. I'd be happy to entertain those changes and let the Council make a final decision. I do believe that if we let this thing go today, we won't see any movement in any effort in any way to get this thing resolved. But if there's something sitting on the calendar that focuses the Administration's attention on dealing with it, I'll be happen to deal with them as long as it needs to be dealt with.
But I believe, and I testified to this earlier, that there needs to be a process to do this. I think you are going to hear testimony --
I think you are going to hear testimony today from a number of interested parties who ought to be a part of that process, who ought to be a part of that dialogue as we frame and shape what campaign finance reform does 46 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 here. We ought to try to bring some of the interested State parties. Whether we can bind them or not, we need to have some discussion with State parties about campaign finance reform.
-- like the steps that we are about to take increases the ability of State elected officials to have influence on our elections in the City of Philadelphia. It's not a good outcome.
Just view you 505 as a vehicle, between now and the time we pass it, while it sits on the calendar, as a vehicle to get that accomplished, because all of us, as you know, elected officials all need their feet held to the fire. This will be the fire being held to our feet and we'll then get it done.
Mr. Burrell, if I may, if I may. I believe -- I believe that the City Council of Philadelphia is the body, is the process. We can bring all of the interested 47 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 parties to a process of discussion and debate and get it down, but we need -- we need from you at this time, because I don't want to go forward -- we need from you at this time something in writing. You say you support it, that you support campaign finance reform. We have two bills -- one that is, as you say, falls short and one that is perhaps more comprehensive. We have -- we have two areas already submitted to this Council. We need something in writing, in writing to see where it is that we begin to go and move on. If you are willing, if the Administration is willing to give us something in writing based on 505 or based on my bill --
Our bills, our bills. That we could begin to structure a process and a bill that will be -- that will be sound, not that will be acceptable to everybody, but that it will be sound and constitutionally viable --
Councilman, I will take your request to the Mayor, but I will go back to 48 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 the discussion that we had in June, and I believe that it would continue to be the preference of the Mayor and the Administration to sit with you and Councilman Kenney and other members of the Council, if that be appropriate, that the President would designate or otherwise, and have a discussion around the issue of campaign finance reform. The request then -- and I make -- as I recollect, the request then was to hold the bill 12 and that we would work with you through the summer on the issue of campaign finance reform. The decision then, the fully appropriate decision, was to go ahead and hold the public hearing. We opposed that bill then, we oppose this bill now. We are opposed -- we are not opposed to having meaningful dialogue and discussion about the issue of campaign finance reform.
But I think the meaningful dialogue begins with a position. If you say you're for it, then you have to have a position as to what you are for. I have stated what I'm for, I have put it in writing. Jim Kenny and I have worked on this for over a year. We 49 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 have tried to bring a process together that nurtures, nurtures debate. We need something from you in writing that states, one, what can be done to 505 or to the other bills to enhance and to make them viable, make them constitutionally acceptable, bring them together, and enact comprehensive and fair campaign finance reform. Because we cannot continue -- look at this -- look at this chart from the Daily News, okay? Over $400,000. Another District Councilperson spending over 250. Another District Councilperson spending over 200. Another District Councilperson spending over 200. A Republican spending over $300,000. I mean, look at this. This is not -- this is just what --
With all due respect, Councilman, neither this bill, nor the bill that was proposed and discussed last summer would limit the amount -- would prevent people from being able to spend that amount of money on campaigns.
Mr. Burrell, we are not saying that these are the bills that are 50 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 perfect, but we -- it is a beginning. So if it is going to continue and we're going to be able to -- I request and I'm sure Councilman Kenney joins me in this, give us something from which we can begin a meaningful dialogue in writing. If you're for it, put it down and say what it is in campaign finance reform you are for. If it is public financing, fine; if not, say why not. Go down. Give us something in writing because it is -- it is easy to say "I am for this" if you never are ever going to have to stand up for it at one point or another. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
The Chair recognizes Mr. Charles Pizzi. 51 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 (Witness comes forward.)
For the record, my name is Charles Pizzi, I'm President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. And I'm pleased to have the opportunity to testify on Bill 505. I, first of all would, like to commend Councilman Kenney for his leadership on this issue and also acknowledge the cosponsors of this bill. Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with the escalating costs of elections. As you know, last year's municipal elections in Philadelphia were the most expensive in the nation's history. What we all know is that money involved in political campaign is growing out of control. The Chamber feels that Bill 505 offers a reasonable start that will reduce or eliminate perception of a pay-to-play system. But most importantly, the concept would be to shift the focus from the chase for campaign dollars back to 52 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 public policy-making, where it should be. Ultimately, this bill could restore the health of our election process and reinforce the authority of the voting public. As a representative of the business community and someone who manages a political action committee, I can tell you firsthand that the corporate community is growing increasingly concerned about the amount of political fund-raising. While we accept that this has become an important component of our political system, it is difficult not to become weary of the many requests for political contributions. Unfortunately, the effect of interest -- with increasing fund-raising has drawn attention away from issues and on to money. We as constituents deserve representatives who best address our issues and concerns, not those who simply win the money battle. While the Chamber supports the concept of Bill 505, we do so with qualifications. For example, I would ask the members of City Council to consider tightening up the loopholes that exist to assure that the intent of the bill would not be 53 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 circumvented. Thanks for the opportunity to testify of, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other members of City Council might have.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
I would like to respond to -- my question is related to your last few comments. You suggested that there's loopholes in the bills, that's one of the qualifications upon which the Chamber may be comfortable in supporting the bill. Can you cite an example for us?
The loophole would be concerning PACs and the creation of PACs and how you could funnel money through those PACs to the candidates. That's one loophole that we would 54 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 have to see how to shore up.
So you believe that though this may be viewed as a piecemeal approach, it will feed or contribute to the big picture?
I think it's a good -- I think it sends a good message coming out of City Council that we think about campaign reform. I think it has to be -- you know, there needs to be worked on it, but I think it's a great starting point and it sends the right message, that we're trying to shift away from raising dollars to raising the importance of public policy positions in a campaign, as opposed to just raising money.
But I think it is a very difficult task. I mean, remember, we all thought finance reform happened in the federal side but we -- you know, this fall election, we had an onslaught of soft money.
And so then you agree, then, that the bill, at least as it's currently written, needs to address the fact -- the reality, that being that there becomes this balloon effect of soft money that's legitimate but dampens it -- dampens the --
Thank you, Mr. Pizzi, and thank you for waiting. I appreciate your patience. 56 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Without naming names obviously, could you talk a Liberty about the attitude and things that maybe members of your chamber have said to you about this process, both from the aspect of being hounded continuously for money from every level, not just from municipal candidates, but from the Governor, the Congress people, U.S. senators, and everybody running. And, secondly, the exposure that they feel when doing a legitimate development project or a legitimate issue before the City government and having in their mind to almost be compelled to participate in a mayoral election or in some other election, where then their issue comes before the body or through the office that, in fact, they contributed to. In my mind, it can't be a very comfortable position, although it seems to me, that's the rules of the game and so they have to play by those rules.
Councilman, I think on all levels, there has -- there is a saturation point. Just as public officials who are running for office don't like to make the phone calls, the 57 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 people on the other end don't like to answer, but they do, and they do because they feel as though right now, this is the way in which the process is made up and they want to participate in that process. I, frankly, don't get involved with the people who give the amounts that you were stating before. Frankly, for the most part, I don't even know sometimes if they are members of the Chamber. But the fund-raising we do, we do because we want to support candidates who really want to create a better environment for all of the constituencies. I can tell you, Councilman, we do not take a contribution on a specific topic or issue; but rather, when we go and we support our candidates, we don't ever -- and this is because it's the filter that we provide. We don't ever go and say, Geez, we want you to remember this issue or that issue. We'd just rather say, We're supporting you because we think you're the best person for the job. It does get clouded with major contributions, though. And so, I think that's the best way to frame it. 58 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
And just one comment on the soft-money issue. While I recognize it's been a tremendous problem on the federal level, I think, because of all of the competing interests on the federal level, I think anyone would agree that when it comes to national policies, whether they be environmental policies or gun policies or child-care policies, they do affect a larger group of people with a larger potential number of interest groups. I don't think the same thing exists on the city level, although I do think it potentially could be a problem. However, I would not have as much of a problem with the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL-CIO or the teachers union or any trade association providing money to put on a television commercial that explains their position. I think, in many ways, that's a First Amendment privilege. And I think that's where the soft money issue gets a little cloudy, because on the one hand, it looks as if that particular trade association or group is sponsoring or promoting one particular candidate, when in fact, what they're trying to do is get their position across 59 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 to the public in a very clear and understandable way. So the Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia doing a commercial about an issue that relates to a particular campaign, to me, is not as much of a problem as it is an individual candidate, whether it be the executive candidate or a legislative candidate, who actually has to cast a vote for an issue or against an issue, clouded with the potentiality that someone in the public could argue that you're casting -- you're against -- you're for something because of something that was done for you during the campaign.
So while the soft-money issue, I think, needs to be addressed in a wholistic way, both in the federal level and the State and local level, I am not as much offended by organizations raising money to profess their First Amendment rights as I am on particular candidates taking large chunks of campaign cash and then making decisions later on, six months later, on that particular person's situation. 60 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
Well, I agree with you because there is a responsible organization behind that. It's --
Right. It's when -- I mean where there's tightening that needs to be done, Councilman, it's where you don't know who's behind that particular advertising or promotion, that's where the worry comes in. And as I said, Councilman, I think this is the right message to send out from our Council chambers, that we, you know, you're taking the time as the Committee of the Whole to listen about campaign reform. That's an important message to get out. I just think once we get out, we want to make sure that the bill is tight and it is a clairvoyant to everyone, and not just to the sophisticated lawyers, who read -- how to read the small print, as it were.
Whether there -- passes or not, there will still be sophisticated lawyers in the world, often getting bond work. 61 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 That's the problem.
But I understand, and just like you, everybody should have the same rights. I mean, every citizen should have the same kind of access. I truly believe in the process, and we all come to these chambers having those noble goals. I just think the legislation is in the right direction. I just think it needs to be laser-focussed once it's completed so that you don't put one party ahead of another.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Pizzi, in the last couple of sentences in the testimony between 62 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 yourself and Councilman Kenney, there was a reference to organizations similar to -- such as the teachers union, the Chamber of Commerce. And when we talk about a level playing field, I'm concerned that if those organizations are able to raise money to whatever degree and get their message out in terms of the candidates that they support, how could we have a level playing field if, say, for instance, the North Central Block Captains Association wanted to get their message out?
Well, that's -- that was -- that's precisely the concern, to make sure that the legislation provides for them to have the opportunity to do that. I mean, ultimately --
Because it's one thing to provide and one thing to have the ability to raise money. I mean, realistically, the North Central Block Captains Associations, which is a very good group that I work with on a consistent basis, does not have the wherewithal to raise money to get their message out like the Chamber of Commerce.
Yes, but then they have the 63 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 necessary foot soldiers in order to really make sure that they get it out by word of mouth. I mean, there's all different kinds. I am not saying that -- that they -- that we should have a better right than them. I think everybody should have equal rights under the law. That's why it should be a very tight law. I'm -- and the reason why I say that, Councilman, is at least you know who we are. If PACs were just made up and you didn't know who were in back of those PACs, that's where the real danger is.
And I know who the North Central Block Captains Association is.
Right. And so they should have the right to take part in the process as well. I mean, we should not provide barriers to any group, any group who wants to participate in the process. And that's not what I said. I do not believe in setting barriers for any group, any group. This is a democracy.
It's one thing setting a barrier, but it's one thing to 64 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 realistically assume that that organization could be on a parity with other organizations.
The reality is that that group would probably be very dependent on me that they want to get that message out in 2003, to give them the resources to get that message out.
I agree that the block captains in North Philadelphia should be able to participate in this process. And if for any reason they shouldn't be able to participate, then we have a problem.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
Kay McKenna, Philadelphia League of Women Voters. (Witness comes forward.)
The League appreciates very much the invitation to testify before the City Council Committee of the Whole on Bill 505.
Please identify yourself for the record before you begin.
Yes. I am Kay McKenna and I am the City Council Observer for the League of Women Voters. I'm speaking for Heidi Gold, our President, and the Board of the League of Women Voters. As I say, we really appreciate the fact 66 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 that the bill exists and that you are holding these hearings, especially in the Committee of the Whole. The League of Women Voters of the United States and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia support the improvement of methods of financing political campaigns in order to ensure the public's right to know, to combat corruption and undue influence, to enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office, and to promote citizen participation in the political process. The League of Women Voters of Philadelphia is very pleased that City Council has begun the effort to eliminate undue influence of large contributors to candidates for City office in this bill, 505. In order to enable candidates to compete more equitably and to promote greater citizen participation -- and by "citizen participation," we not only mean citizens interested in voting but also the interest in running for office. We think it's very important to add voluntary spending limits for candidates to 67 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this bill, and this is the way we can truly level the playing field for candidates running for office. Very often, when we've talked to Councilmembers about campaign finance reform, people will say, Well, I'm doing all right in the present scheme of things, but reform is all right as long as the playing field is level, as long as we have a level playing field. Well, voluntary spending limits for candidates really do limit the -- level the playing field. From 1969 through 1998, 77 United States cities and counties enacted campaign finance legislation affecting their local elections, according to a study done by the National Civic League. New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Oakland, Tucson, Arizona, and many smaller municipalities have included both contribution limits and voluntary spending limits in their reform. Each city decides on its own reform; they're not all alike by any means. We were particularly happy today to hear of the Mayor's interest in a more comprehensive plan, and we really look forward to 68 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 seeing what the Mayor would add to the current proposal and the proposal of Councilman Ortiz last spring. We're very grateful for this opportunity. Thank you very much for letting us appear. And in regard to the National Civic League's book on campaign finance reform, this is it, and I do believe we gave it out to Councilpeople last spring. Thank you.
Would you wait a moment. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Miss McKenna? (No questions.)
Yes. Miss McKenna, have a seat again, please. I'm sorry.
Councilwoman 69 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Reynolds Brown?
Did you have an opportunity to hear the testimony of the former witness, Mr. Charles Pizzi?
He indicated -- my summary of his testimony is that he supports the bill with qualifications. What is the position of the League of Women Voters? The content of the bill as is currently written is completely satisfactory, there are components of the bill 13 that don't sit well?
As I said, Miss Reynolds, we really do think it's a great start, because it really helps eliminate the undue influence of large contributors. It really goes a long way to eliminating pay for play. But it would be a much more satisfactory bill, in our estimation, if you had voluntary spending limits for the candidates. Because as you have it written now, it is rather a rich candidate's dream. You get the pay-to-play business off your back as a candidate but you're free to spend as much as you want. And if you 70 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 have a great deal of money, particularly in your personal resources, you really have a much better chance.
What's your reaction to the perceived loophole that soft money, meaning those organizations that are created outside of the realm of the candidate?
Soft money or money that can be given to the party, limitations on that would be very, very welcome. That is very complicated, it's a very complicated issue to do it fairly and right and not limit the rights of other organizations and movements, but it has become a very serious loophole on the federal level. And it needs -- it really should be addressed.
Are you familiar with the fact that campaign finance reform has been attempted in other cities? And apparently, based on information I've read, New York is the only one that is beginning to make some headway. Are you aware of that?
Oh, there have been 77. As of 1998, there have 77 United States cities and 71 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 counties.
But the question is, which one -- it's based on my understanding that New York is one of the few that has had success, because you can attempt anything. The question becomes, where has there been extensive success?
No, I'm talking about 77 cities have actually enacted local campaign finance reform successfully, successfully, and are operating under their own campaign finance reform laws. New York has -- has experienced two campaign finance reform laws. The first was in the '80s, and I believe the second was in the early '90s. And the other cities that I named in my testimony are cities around the country that have done both voluntary spending limit and limits on contributors.
This is the book that will tell you a great deal. It was published in '99 and it was written in 1998. I believe the League gave out several copies -- 72 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
-- late last spring. And if you don't have a copy available, let me tell you where to call and get one.