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.
The National Office of the National Civic League is in Denver, Colorado, and this is its telephone number for your record: 303-571-4343. You can fax them at 303-571-4404. And I'm sure they'd be very happy to provide this to you and also to tell you if they've done any follow-up on those cities. After all, the book is now two years old.
Thank you very much. Miss McKenna, we have two more colleagues who would like to ask you questions.
Councilwoman 73 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Tasco?
Yes, I was just going to ask you, has there been a follow-up on those cities in terms of the impact on local elections? Did any independents or any people who would not have run for office run for office, and when?
It's hard to believe that those stories aren't there. I don't personally know the history of it, and I'm sure the National Civic League knows many more examples of what's happened as a result of campaign finance reform. I am sure the League of Women Voters would be glad to spend a little time looking into that and report back to you.
I think it's very important. I will just say to you that in 1987, when I ran for Council, unless we find a way to control the soft money and to limit the spending of independent groups, those of us, particularly who run in Philadelphia, run as independents and not endorsed by the party have a very hard time if we are limited and they are not. They have an 74 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 organization that they can pull on the street for their candidates, and they can spend on behalf of the candidates, and independents have a very hard time competing. In 1987, when I ran for City Council, I was not the endorsed Democratic candidate. I was able to raise money and spend money, and you spend money to get your message out. This literature, TV time and all of this is not free. The media is not giving away free time, they're not giving away free advertising. You have to pay for it.
In order to pay for it and get your message out, you have to raise the dollars. And I had to be able to compete with a party that had an organization in place and everybody supporting someone else other than me. And I look at it as a way if you don't level the playing field for all of the parties involved in the campaign spectrum, then someone is going to lose, and it ends up that those people you want to enter into the political arena who are, quote, (unintelligible) can't get elected otherwise won't get elected at all. 75 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
Yes. I certainly agree with you and sympathize with your situation. The very notion of leveling the playing field is because there are a good many people, no 6 doubt, who are qualified to run for office would make good candidates and good public officials who simply can't enter that money race and really do not want to. So I think -- we think that government on all levels would benefit from a good system of campaign finance reform.
As you know, the television media has been the most serious opponent of campaign finance reform on the federal level all through this decade through the many attempts and many different bills that have been proposed.
You're welcome. 76 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Yeah. Marion, there are two that I know of in terms -- in New York City, independents. Guillermo (unintelligible) on the upper west side of Manhattan, he ran as an independent against the machine, really was outspent. But in New York, they had public financing plus campaign -- voluntary campaign limits.
No, campaign -- and term limits too and term limits. But -- and he won. And Marguerita (unintelligible) in the Village ran against the -- actually the Chief of Staff of the Speaker of the House, and she had every power broker in the City of Manhattan and New York City with her. And she managed. She was an independent, progressive, liberal Puerto Rican woman, lesbian, and she got elected. So there is two individuals that were -- very well benefitted by campaign finance reform against huge outspending by a machine and 77 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 otherwise. In the 77 cities with campaign limits, the tragedy of it is that we don't look at other cities. We don't -- whether it be for stadium financing or anything else, we just don't look at other cities. And the experience of those other cities really can be of great help to us.
I'm almost afraid to invite anybody to come and speak to us from those other cities, after the experience we had. But we don't learn from other cities, and they are very similarly situated as we are.
I think Boston and San Francisco, other cities along those lines, share the same ethnic makeup that we do and the same working-class background.
But of all the large cities in the country, I think we're the only ones without some sort of mechanism to limit campaign contributions. And I think it's about time that we started at least talking seriously about it 78 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 before another ten years goes by. Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Our next witness is Lance Haver. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Lance Haver. I am a former candidate for mayor, and I am here today to urge Council to pass this bill. There is something truly obscene about our current practice of allowing campaign investors to help candidates by elected office. It violates our most basic concept of democracy, one person, one vote, and replaces it with one dollar, one vote. The practice of holding auctions instead of elections strikes at the very heart of our democracy erodes people's faith in 79 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 government, and creates not the illusion but the reality that political influence can be bought. More directly, the current practice of allowing a handful of wealthy investors to dictate what issues will be raised in an election has a result of limiting our democracy's ability to solve the problems that we face. Even a cursory reading of history shows that it is those without great wealth organized in seeking political power that have forced the changes that have enriched our lives. From an end to slavery to a 40-hour work week to the right organize a union to Social Security and unemployment compensation, issues that represent the great majority of the poor and working people have been raised by political candidates and political parties that were not supported by the super-wealthy and the corporate elite. Since the Buckley case, the political discussion in America has narrowed and our ability to solve problems has lessened. No longer do we have a new frontier, a war on poverty, the Civil Rights Acts, or other great program that have changed people's lives for the better. As 80 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 campaigns have become more expensive, they have relied more and more on the campaign investors who, because they can already afford to attend a $5,000-a-plate dinner, are seeking to keep the status quo and not make any changes. After all, if you can afford to spend $5,000 for a single meal, why would you want to change anything? In some ways, what is worse is what it forces our candidates to choose between. Either they make the decision that I did, to be ethical and not accept contributions larger than $100 and be considered a candidate who cannot win, or they make the decision to allow people to buy a part of their campaign, lessening their ability to be independent and thereby be considered a candidate who has a chance to win. It is a horrible choice and one that no person should be forced to make. There is no question in my mind that something must be done before the next municipal election, and there is no question that public financing of all elections is what should be done. But at the very least, pass this bill so that the for-sale sign that hangs over City Hall can finally be removed. 81 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions of Mr. Haver?
Mr. Haver, as a person that's been out in the neighborhood and working with community organizations throughout the City of Philadelphia -- and I know you've done work in my district and in North Central Philadelphia -- you would have a sense of what can influence individuals and organizations to support candidates; am I correct?
All right. There is this unspoken of way of influencing organizations and individuals that we don't talk about necessarily in this bill and during the 82 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 discussion, and it happens throughout the term of an elected official. Individual groups and particularly in some of the areas where people aren't as affluent as they are, they're very dependent on being able to have small fund-raisers, they're always coming in the Councilmember's office and saying, You got to buy a table, you know, because we need to get a roof on the community building that we have. You're familiar with that.
And realistically, they are very dependent on the local elected official's ability to buy that table or to assist them or in some other way --
Absolutely. Without Councilmembers' support, many of the community organizations would cease to function. Absolutely.
Right. And because we no longer -- you know, this was before I was 83 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 around -- have the Class 500 -- it was also called other names that I'm not going to mention here today -- we increasingly find ourselves in the supporting organizations through campaign funds, and there's always some question about whether or not that's a legitimate use of funds, but the reality is, you know, you got to be in a position to help organizations. You agree with that?
Well, I'm not sure that that would be the best way. I think there are other opportunities, but I certainly don't see any problems with an elected official raising money to support community groups. That's what foundations have done, that's what wealthy people have done throughout the modern history. So to have a candidate set up an organization to raise money for the public good would be welcomed. I can't imagine anyone objecting to it. I think the distinction to me is very clear.
No, I'm not necessarily talking about setting up an 84 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 organization. I mean, the reality is that, you know, some candidates have a campaign fund -- well, all of us do. And you are inundated by community organizations and individuals who are requesting that you buy tickets or you support this cause and that cause, and people, you know, use their campaign fund 'cause they might not necessarily have some other entity or some other elected official that's also in their district that has the opportunity of raising money through other methods.
Well, that's where I probably part company with you. I would strongly recommend that Councilpeople like yourselves who are well-known to the neighborhood and are fighters for the people set up separate organizations so that can fund-raise into those nonprofits, and those nonprofits can be driven by a board and make decisions based on what's going to be effective use of the money. I don't see why it has comingled with an elective attempt.
I know, and I -- my preference would, in fact, be to have a separate 85 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 entity, but the reality is that when you're talking about setting up a separate entity, you're also talking about setting up a structure. In some neighborhoods, it's relatively easy, some not. And you still have to maintain some level of control over that. And in some neighborhoods, frankly speaking, people just don't come to you at all for support as an elected official for purchase of tickets or purchase of anything. I mean, would you agree with that?
Well, certainly, there are some groups that don't approach Councilpeople --
Or they make a political decision that they don't to take any public money. For many years, I was the Executive Director of CEPA. As you know, CEPA never has taken any money from the City. That was a political decision that Mr. Weiner came up with when he started the organization, and the organization continues to believe that it's inappropriate for an advocacy group to take money from the City. 86 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
And I agree with that, but I'm not speaking of advocacy groups. I'm talking about the mom-and-pop -- the groups that you know that I'm talking about.
Yeah, absolutely. If I may be so bold, it would seem to me that one of the things that your technical staff could help all of the Council people do is set up --
To come up with a boilerplate to help District Councilpeople set up a nonprofit foundation to do all of the good work you're doing so the funds don't have to be comingled so that people don't find themselves in that awkward position.
I mean, one boilerplate for all of the District offices would be sufficient.
The issue with 87 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 respects to setting up the organization is probably something we could do relatively quickly. The question is getting individuals to contribute to that organization. Sometimes individuals feel more comfortable in contributing to a particular candidate because they know the candidate, as opposed to contributing to some organization that was set up and the people don't have the sense of who the board members are and how money is being spent. So it's a little different.
Well, I would agree with you it gets trickier, but it's very clear to me that most of the people -- and I know Mr. Burrell for many years, but I don't believe Mr. Burrell was speaking from his heart when he said that most people don't think that someone making a $10,000 campaign contribution aren't trying to buy favor. I believe he knows that --
Right, but I'm just saying that rises to the issue of what you're talking about, where a small campaign contribution is 88 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 obviously not a problem. It's the large campaign contribution where people start to have the belief that what they're buying is favor as opposed to supporting a candidate.
I believe that people do believe that, agree with you on that. But my question is, the fact that there are numerous communities throughout the City of Philadelphia that are very dependent on their elected official directly and contributions from individuals will probably go to that elected official before they will give it to some nonprofit organization. I mean, that's just the reality, particularly given some of the things that were brought up in the past about certain nonprofit organizations. And that's just the point I'm trying to make.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions of this 89 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 witness? (No further questions.)
The Chair recognizes Ed Schwartz? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to leave.
Fred Voigt. Did Mr. Schwartz leave a copy of his testimony? (Witness comes forward.)
Fred Voigt, Executive Director of the Committee of Seventy. We're not here to oppose or to endorse 90 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this legislation. We agree with what underlines it, which is a recognition that we have a national problem. It's not simply limited to Philadelphia, It's all over. It's at the presidential level, the Congressional level, the senatorial level, it's at the level of electing judges. For example, the State of Ohio attempted to impose a limit on contributions in judicial campaigns, statewide campaigns quite recently because it's out of control. Our campaign finance system is out of control everywhere. The problem is, how do you solve it? And some solutions yield worse results. Many of the things we're talking about today, as horrible and nasty political action committees, were products of a reform, that which came after Watergate. And if you had -- I was active at the time in the organization I'm currently with, and I would go to corporations who had never heard of a political action committee, they didn't know what one was for years after the reform created that instrument. And then they woke up, as many of these things do, lawyers in pinstripes figure out 91 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 how to make it work for them. The limitations on contributions. Without any question, there is common agreement that the federal limitations which were imposed back then and never raised are impossible. They create -- in fact, many people would argue that those very limitations created the need to circumvent, created creative attempts to get around it. Because it's like toothpaste in a tube: if it can't come out the top, it starts to come out the sides. And while -- and you have another problem, and this is a problem that you're particularly faced with, which is a question of preemption. Now, I know that there are two Solicitor's opinions that say that whatever you do is defensible. Unfortunately, we have an election code. It's an election code not for Philadelphia; it's a State election code. And much like the problem with the assault weapons bill, I'm afraid that that preemption may preclude you from doing whatever it is you want to do. Now, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do it. What I'm simply saying is, do it with care 92 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 and do it with some comprehension of the level playing field idea. Television is the most expensive means of communicating. We're the forth most expensive market in the country. Who uses television? Does anybody in this chamber campaign on television? I don't think so. I think the Mayor does, the District Attorney does. Maybe cable. But I'm talking about commercial networks. We had the most competitive race for mayor last year that we've had in 50 years. It was amazing. Now, it was also the most expensive. There's a trade-off there. Would Marty Weinberg have been a viable candidate? Would many of the candidates in the primary -- some of them your colleagues -- have been viable candidates if they couldn't have gotten jump-started? I can't answer that; I think you have to answer it. You're all fundamentally politicians. You understand the political system, you understand how it is you go to get elected. And money, without any question, quote, is the mother's milk of politics. You'll never able to 93 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 eliminate it. What you have to try to do is control it. And you also have the United States Constitution as a guardian and increasingly the Supreme Court's decisions defining money and speech make it much, much more difficult. When we look at the Congress, when the McCain-Feingold bill comes up and all that federal legislation is going to be debated next year, some of those questions are going to get answered. And I think, unfortunately, as Bill Bradley said during his campaign, unless you can amend the First Amendment to make a difference, a lot of these things will be found to be unconstitutional. Now, again, we're all imperfect.
I commend the people who are looking at this issue. They're far wiser than I if they think they've found an answer, because frankly, we haven't.
Thank you, Mr. Voigt. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
So in many ways, 94 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 your testimony reflects those of others that come before you. You support the bill with qualification.
No, I don't -- we don't support or oppose the bill. I can't figure out how you solve the qualifications. Okay, the problem is that in those places where -- and we have looked at this for years. When we have seen people attempt to impose limits -- Ohio's a classic example. Four years ago, they imposed limits on contributions to statewide judicial campaigns. Almost immediately, there sprang up third-party organizations. So the money -- what formally went to the candidates directly went out to these independent organizations, who are protected.
I mean, those limits were stricken ultimately as violative of the Constitution. I'm not saying that these limits would be. They are different -- those are different kinds of limits, but the point I'm making is, I can't answer your question. I don't know how to 95 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 solve that constitutionally, and I don't think you can. But that doesn't mean -- I'm not suggesting that that should mean that you shouldn't try to do something. It's a problem. It's just a matter of your expectations for solving it and leveling the playing feel. I don't know how you do that.
Would you be willing to be a part of a think tank, for lack of a better word, of individuals who care about coming up with a comprehensive bill?
I would be delighted to. However, I had a conversation with an old friend of mine. You may recall Paul Taylor, who was a reporter here at the Inquirer? And he heads that foundation in Washington, the Free Media Coalition. And I talk to him because I'm very concerned about this issue, as is my organization. And his answer is free media. And my answer is, Well, that's one way to skin the cat, except who's going to watch it? You know, talking heads -- talking -- I just don't -- I don't have an answer. And I keep raising this 96 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 First Amendment problem. And Paul was a longtime reporter at the Inquirer, he was at the Washington Post for years. And now he's doing this Free Media Campaign. And I keep going, Paul, how do you solve this problem and not violate the First Amendment? Can you tell me how to do that? 'cause I think I'm smart but I'm not that smart. So I have asked these questions continuously, and each time -- the Supreme Court has ruled recently in the Colorado case, where the party -- the question was, could the party continue to use soft money? Every time they've answered that question, they've gone further and further, not towards allowing restrictions, but in terms of the First Amendment. And every time I talk to an editorial board, I go, Excuse me, would you mind telling me whether you favor amending the First Amendment? because if we're going to have -- well, of course, they say no. No editorial board will say they're going to risk amending the First Amendment because it is likely if you try to do that, you'd lose it.
Final question. 97 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 This is my personal opinion, and we all have one. I would certainly consider you an expert, I mean, someone who lives and breathes this whole notion of campaigns and elections. Can you point to any city in the country that passed campaign finance reform that, in your best estimation, is working successfully?
And really what you get down to -- and small contests. Or where you have -- I mean, the biggest piece is where you have incumbent's advantage. Okay, if you want to talk about a level playing field, incumbents -- and this should give comfort to all of you in this room that are elected officials. Incumbents have is an enormous advantage. Incumbents very rarely, whether they be at the Congressional level or any level, get knocked off. So where do you have different kinds of political dynamics, whether it's term limits you have or it's something else, but where you have a real competitive environment -- for example, it's 98 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 worked pretty well in New York, except New York has never been faced with what they're going to be faced with next time the Mayor gets elected, the next time Council, because there aren't going to be any incumbents. They're going to have trench warfare of the likes of which they've never seen before. When they had it in San Francisco, for example, the soft money starts piling up. Oakland, it worked pretty well, and then they had a competitive environment, and suddenly the soft money starts to stir. Now, again, I'm not saying that any of that is sufficient reason, whether you're preempted, whether it's only a step, you shouldn't do it or you shouldn't consider something, because it is obvious and it is not new. I can think about a famous phrase from Richardson Dilworth about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. In fact, I can think back in our political history, all the way back, and I can't think of a time when that kind of money, when money being in politics hasn't been a driving mechanism, from the founding of the nation. And 99 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 there has been a continual struggle to try to come to grips with it. And with the advent of television, if you talk about going out of control and exploding, television more than anything else has done that. You know, and when we talk about -- Councilman Kenney and I were talking about statewide stuff and the need for change, you know, when you talk about -- Councilman Kenney raised 300-some-odd thousand dollars.
Sorry, 4. There was a Common Pleas Court campaign, Common Pleas Court campaign. Now, you know what they spent here. In Scranton, the loser spent $500,000. The winner spent $200,000. Now, that's absurd. But why did that happen? It happened because it was a TV campaign. Whoever heard of a Common Pleas Court TV campaign? It was a Common Pleas Court in Scranton for a seat on the Common Pleas Court. Television has done that, television will increasingly drive the cost of campaigns. Thank God none of you have to run those kinds of 100 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 campaigns, because when you, when we saw in this presidential campaign, both sides spent more money in Philadelphia than anyplace else in the country. And that's really quite amazing.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. Mr. Voigt, Mr. Voigt.
I believe Councilman Clarke has a question or comment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I see Mr. Warren has left us. You referenced Councilman Kenney's -- is he here? I just wanted to correct something. On the money list, Councilman Kenney was first but I was fifth, and I want to say a substantial portion of that money was used in legal fees to keep this job, so -- 101 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
Well, Councilman, you are well aware, I was, last week, in the Circuit Court of Appeals, where that case is still being argued.
I thought I'd get it on the record now. Mr. Voigt, you -- you are very knowledgeable about elections. Can you -- would you guestimate -- would you say that the person, from a percentage standpoint, the person that wins the primary 80 percent of the time wins the general -- it maybe even higher in Philadelphia?
Well, if you look at the numbers, I mean, when the gentleman next to you ran for mayor, the face of this city was very different. This time out, it's 4 to 1, 4 to 1 Democrat. It's never been that strong. What appears to have been happening over the years is when we lost that 150,000 an awful lot of them were Republicans. So yeah --
For the last 50 years, when the Charter was first adopted, when the triumvirate flipped, the Republican committeemen, 102 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 actually that's what happened. The Democratic organizations, which did not exist at that time, they went out and they got the strongest Republican committeemen and they flipped them. Once that process began, it was virtually impossible for a Republican to win citywide. There have been very few examples of that -- Arlen Specter, Tom Gola, and the closest yet, Sam Katz. But as to the rest, the demography has changed. It is -- look at your chamber, look at the number of Republicans who used to be here when there were more Republicans in the City. That's -- there are some still here.
Well, I'm not necessarily -- and I agree with you. I'm not necessarily talking about the party of the individual. I'm talking about --
Okay, that's where the battle is. And while there are exceptions, incumbents particularly have an advantage.
So if the -- nine times out of ten, if the Democratic candidate who wins the primary is probably going to end up winning in November.
Yes, even for the District, and for the citywide pretty much, except when you get to the top, okay? And when you get to the top, had Sam Katz not been able to raise the money that he did, he would not have been competitive. Just simply on the basis of the demographics.
That's not normal. So what's the timeframe associated with a primary when you have to file as a candidate? 'Cause I'm assuming that as the spending limits would be on you as a candidate.
No, this bill is a 104 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 yearly --
For any person out there. As soon as you file as a -- you file your committee to run for that office, not as an incumbent.
Right. You could file the committee -- excuse me, Madam President, I'm sorry. You may file the committee, organizing committee at any time. It's the petition process that's timely. You can decide you want to run for Council-At-Large now and file a committee, appoint a chairman, appoint a treasurer, and begin the process of raising money.
I'm saying under 105 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this bill.
And theoretically under the current state of the law. One of you, a member of Council who chose to run for mayor, could raise money without declaring it for mayor, okay?
That was an issue that was raised against two of your colleagues, who ultimately did run for mayor.
And that decision -- the Court of Common Pleas decided that that not apply.
(Unintelligible) did not apply, and that Happy Fernandez and John Street.
Right. So if a 106 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 State Rep or a State Senator decided that they were going to run for mayor in their mind.
And they didn't file a committee, they didn't announce formally, they didn't do any petitions. Up until the time of the formal submission as a candidate, they can essentially raise whatever amount of money they want to raise as a State Representative.
That is correct. And there's no way that you can preclude them from doing so.
So realistically, a person can have it in their mind, I'm going to run for this office, they can raise $2 million, and it's a short window. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And unlike the Charter prohibitions, State Reps and State Senators don't have to resign. 107 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
Exactly. So there's really only a two-month window till the time that they ask you file that petition. 'Cause till you file your petition and file your campaign, your committee, then you're not officially a candidate.
If they are raising money for their preexisting campaign committees.
Where it does apply is to your ability to raise money and the Mayor. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Unless you raise $2 million while you're a State Rep, and we're capping it at a certain amount.
Absolutely. And there's no 25 way that you can -- they can do that now. And you 108 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 can't preclude them from doing that in future.
Right. But now, we can raise as much as -- we have the ability to raise more under the existing program if --
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County decided that issue. George Bochetto raised it, and he lost. Now, I don't -- I don't know what higher -- and since it wasn't appealed, that's the state of the law in Philadelphia County.
Right, and he could have chosen to do that if he wanted to do.
I'm talking about 109 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 running for reelection. I'm saying running for reelection not for mayor. I'm saying --
Councilman, I want to tell you what the law is not. I'm not disputing the spirit of the law; I'm just telling you what the law is.
All right. I just wanted to get clarity. You know, hypothetically, I have a very ambitious State representative who decides he wants my job in 2003.
No, don't start rumors, please. He could start raising money, and up until two months before the 2003 primary, he can raise as much as -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.) 110 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
I know, unfortunately. I'm laughing but I think that you're right. Okay, I just wanted to get some clarity on that. All right, thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It wasn't not so much a question, Mr. Voigt, and if I missed this in your testimony, I apologize. There's obviously been a lot of attention and discussion around this particular issue and this bill. I guess what I wanted to get a little better understanding of is if the Committee of Seventy believes that there are either pluses or minuses or, you know, more minuses than pluses with a particular bill, is there a -- either a recommendation or a suggestion as to, one, what should be done, or what could be done; and, I 111 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 guess, three, any ongoing active commitment to further working on this particular issue to get it to a point where, whether it's in the Committee of Seventy's mind or other political people or average citizens, that some level of reform would take place that anyone would consider legitimate.
All right, Councilman Nutter, I have personally been working with members of my committee, who actually do make the policy for the committee. I don't. And I get as many different points of view as there are points of view. And I said to my board this past Monday, I said, Well, you know, I've been invited to testify, it's a an important issue, its been of vitally importance to us, but will you tell me, what should I say? What conclusion have we reached? And the answer is, Well, we haven't, other than that it's a vitally important issue. Now, I would be -- I have filing cabinets of materials that I've gathered from all around the country.
You didn't have to have a board meeting to come to that conclusion. 112 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
And I would be delighted to work with any member of Council to try to figure out something that works, but which also is not so restrictive as to force the toothpaste to come out of the sides of the tubes. Because inevitably, remember what happened with the Watergate reforms. These limitations have never been raised since they were adopted back in the early '70s, and they were never adjusted for inflation, they were never adjusted for anything. And gradually what happened was, people began to try to find ways around it, and they did. They found increasing ways around it until, in this last presidential cycle, what was a freshet became a flood. I mean, we spent last year -- I mean, this past year -- well over a billion dollars nationally. Where did that money come from? And it just didn't come from your friends and relatives. That money came in a whole host of different ways. In fact, the 567s, that other -- the master stroke that they had, where they didn't even have to identify where the money came from, where you had those issue ads in New York State. And who did it? Well, no one knew. 113 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 At least there are disclosure requirements that currently exist. If you were going by way of -- it may be, again, if you're not preempted -- if you're not preempted for this, you're not preempted for other things, such as putting in disclosure requirements that are more stringent an rapid than the State currently has. There are things that you can do, my point being, there's a law of unintended consequences out there. And that is, when you try to do good, when you think you're doing reform, what you wind up with is something that is worse and something that you didn't anticipate. And that's all I'm suggesting. I don't have an easy answer, I don't know of one. And so long as the Supreme Court increasingly rules -- and there's some major cases in front of the court this term, not the smallest of which is the one that they're going to decide today. But there are some major campaign finance cases that they're going to decide this term that will help guide us in terms of what the future holds.
Okay. But what 114 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 happens going forward on this particular issue here in Philadelphia and the variety of issues? Again, the good, the bad, the indifferent that have been raised in the course of this process?
Well, as I understand it, this bill is going to get voted out of committee or not out of committee. It will come to the floor of Council, and at least to this bill, you're going to make a decision. That's as I understand it. Now, what --
What does the Committee of Seventy, or any other organization, anticipate doing going forward on this particular issue?
Well, I think what we're looking towards is major decisions by the Supreme Court in this term that will provide guidances to what you can't do or what you can do. We're going to be looking to the debate that's going to take place and has been promised on the McCain-Feingold. We're going to look to those 115 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 events for guidance. Because, quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to have the answers to those questions. And it's like over the last five weeks, people have asked me, because of my perceived knowledge, about Florida, the hanging chads, about election procedures, to predict. And the one thing that I have done consistently is say, We determine voters' intent all the time in every election I've ever seen. And it's not defined, but we kind of figure it out. So that has never troubled me. Apparently, it troubles the Supreme Court a lot, because they have never been involved in an actual election.
But the point is, if you had asked me to predict -- and I didn't -- any of these events, from the decisions to count or not to count. All I can tell you is that at one point, this city was entertaining the idea of buying punch cards, and this was not too long ago. And we go no, no, no, no, no, we don't want to go that way. Fortunately, we're in the process of getting electronic machines, which while not 116 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 perfect, are legions ahead of where they are in Florida. That's a long way to say I don't have an answer.
All right. But, I mean, now you have kind of touched on a topic that I have actually been somewhat involved in. I mean, can't let you leave the record with whatever machines we're going to get, and obviously, I was not involved in that process, nor would it have probably made much of a difference. But you've said the machines we're going to get, while not perfect. . . Does that mean that there are some perfect machines that we're not having access to, or are there no 17 perfect machines that exist?
Okay. And as long as you have people involved, you're going to have mistakes. You know, one of the ironies of this election in (unintelligible) County, there's an 117 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 instruction that comes with a sample ballot. And the instruction is, punch every page.
The Gore campaign did -- there was a huge voter registration turnout, and they actually were very successful, and what they instructed their voters on the way to the polls, as they were driving them to the polls was, punch every page. Well, in this election, there were two pages of presidential candidates. So if you followed the instructions of the campaign, you punched your candidate out.
Now, all I'm saying to you is, you know, how many campaigns have you seen yourself? I mean, I just saw one where we're talking about a State Rep, a State Rep. We're not talking about (unintelligible) votes. A State Rep who happened to be the majority leader, and that ultimately came out to be a 92-vote difference. Well, when we were going through that, what we found was no problems with the absentees, no 24 problems with any of them. And then we got to this one return sheet, where the judge had written 118 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 down instead of 100. So that dropped John Perzel's return down.
How did that happen? Did 6 somebody conspire to do that? Were they really 7 trying to do him in and steal votes from him? 8 No. It's what we call "the duh factor," okay, and 9 all this (unintelligible), it's always there, it 10 was there in this election. Where is my polling place? I mean, half of these people who had problems with motor voter actually had problems knowing where their polling place was.
But you're not putting on the record that there is already some known problems with the machines, that's all I'm asking you.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Andrew Altman? Is Andrew Altman here? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Mr. Altman had to leave, and I was asked to read his testimony. I'm reading his opinions on this, not my own. This is -- okay. Hello, my name is Andrew Altman. I am Secretary of the Board of 120 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Directors of Liberty City Lesbians and Gay Democratic Club, and I'm here to testify for Liberty City on behalf of the co-chairs, Mike Marsco (ph.) and Denise Kulp, and Denise Kulp had testified on the earlier bill back in June. Liberty City, Pennsylvania's larger and most active gay political organization, is committed to electing candidates who are sensitive to gay issues, electing qualified lesbian and gay candidates, and strengthening the Democratic party. Liberty City works primarily through field campaign activities, including voter registration, get-out-the-vote organizing, and voter education. Each election cycle, the club publicizes its endorsements to its members, to the media, and to the general public. Liberty City fully endorses Ordinance 19 505 to limit campaign contributions in City races. Philadelphia is in dire need of such legislation and is far behind most comparable cities. Of the ten largest cities in the nation, Philadelphia is one of just two that do not have any limits to the level of contributions one can make. Examples of other cities that have taken action include Tucson 121 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 in 1985, New York City in '88, Los Angeles in '90, and San Francisco in '95. Liberty City sees this bill, although not perfect, as an important starting point. This is an important point. Liberty City does not want to go this bill fail just because it does not go far enough. This is the beginning. More is needed but this legislation will lessen the perceived image of pay-to-play in City politics. Heavy financial contributors have an inordinate amount of influence over the electoral process. The money corrodes the actual working of the municipality, its heavy influence reaches to municipal contracts, employment opportunities, and developing and directing legislature. If a contributor is legally able to give any amount he or she can afford, it does not stretch the imagination that the contributor would have too strong of a claim on the direction of government. The last election here in Philadelphia has the dubious honor of being the most expensive city election in the nation's history -- over 27 million spent. Large contributions spanned from $10,000 to $150,000. Wouldn't it be great if some 122 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 of that 150,000 would have given to the library system rather than going to buy self-serving ads or to pay overpaid campaign consultants. The amount of money involved tears down the confidence the average citizen possesses in the City. They don't believe they have an honest shot at a contract or have a significant say in a piece of legislation. And with the tens of millions of dollars involved, can anyone say with any certainty that they do? In many other cities, candidates are still able the get their message out adequately to the voting base with the types of restrictions before us today. Especially in New York City, which is being closely watched, there don't seem to be any problems with these restrictions in promoting candidacies. The need for this bill seems so self-evident that it's hard to believe that there are still reservations about it. Liberty City urges all members of City Council to vote yes for this bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 123 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your patience. Alex Meltzer. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And good afternoon to other members of City Council. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to be here today to talk about Bill 16 505.
I live and work in the City of Philadelphia and I'm also a member of the State Governing Board of Common Cause Pennsylvania. I'm going to read today from some prepared remarks, copies of which I have made available at the front desk. Common Cause Pennsylvania is a 124 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 nonpartisan citizens organization committed to achieving open, honest, accountable, and responsive government at all levels. With 1,000 active members in Philadelphia, and nearly 10,000 members statewide, Common Cause has spent more than two decades working toward these goals, with a network of engaged citizenry. The time has come to implement real campaign finance reform in Philadelphia. Last year, we achieved the disgraceful reputation of having conducted a mayoral race which broke the national record for the most money ever spent in a municipal election. You must realize that accompanying this sort of achievement is the perception that our City government is for sale to the highest bidder. Compound this with some lucrative business deals the City has recently brokered, and that perception grows even stronger. Bill 505, the campaign finance reform legislation under consideration today, proposes a good first step toward alleviating Philadelphia's dire problems with outrageous electoral fund-raising. Shortly, I will offer some friendly amendments to this bill, which can make it even 125 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 more effective. Let me repeat, however, that this is only a first step. Common Cause supports the far more robust earlier legislature presented to City Council, which would have addressed even more problems by instituting voluntary spending limits and providing public financing for candidates who abide by them. Putting such campaign finance reform measures in place will help to establish Philadelphia, along with other major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, as a leader in the movement to establish clean and ethical municipal government. Common Cause urges you to consider the following amendments in an effort to tighten up some of the ambiguous language: Number 1, definitions. In Section 19 20-801, number 1. Broaden this one language to include all elected offices in the City of Philadelphia, except for judicial candidates, which are considered to be part of the unified State judicial system. Number 2, definitions. Section 20-801, number 6. " This section could reflect language introduced last session in the Pennsylvania Senate by Senator Conte in Senate Bill 232. I have included similar language in an attachment to this testimony. Number 3, definitions. In section 8 20-801, number 7. Add a definition for "volunteer labor" as an individual who works for or on behalf of a candidate's campaign committee, but who receives no compensation from any source for the work he or she performs on behalf of the candidate's political campaign efforts. Number 4, contribution limits. Section 15 20-802, numbers 1 and 2. Political campaigns that are less than citywide in nature should have lower contribution limits. Under subsection 1, dealing with personal contributions, we suggest limiting contributions to $250 for campaigns that are less than citywide. Under subsection 2, political committee contributions to races that are less than citywide should have a contribution limit of $1,250. Number 5, add an additional limitation on total contributions by any single entity, 127 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 similar to the $25,000 limitation for all federal-level races, but scaled down for a municipal race. A new subsection, number 4, would limit aggregate annual contributions by any individual to all candidates running for office in Philadelphia to $10,000. Similarly, this section 8 should limit aggregate contributions by any political committee, except for bona fide party committees to all candidates running for office in Philadelphia to $50,000.
And lastly, add a section banning any candidate committee from making contributions to an independent expenditure campaign. That concludes the amendments. Common Cause supports Bill 505 with these amendments. Though a far cry from a complete reform package, these long-overdue campaign contribution limits offer a solid foundation on which to build a house of good government. Other cities have done much more for campaign finance reform, advancing their reputations as great places to live and establish businesses. If Philadelphia is really serious about becoming a city in which public policy is 128 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 developed with the high degree of integrity we deserve, then it must at some point also enact campaign expenditure limits and public financing of campaigns. Otherwise, we will continue to fail in our efforts to attract and retain a more responsible and engaged citizenry, new businesses, and much needed industry. Hopefully, City Council will work with Common Cause to restore Philadelphia's once-proud reputation and take a step forward into the 21st century. Thank you for allowing me to present the position of Common Cause on Bill No. 505, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions that Council may have.
Thank you. Are there any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Our next witness is Jeff Ordower from Pennsylvania ACORN. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Council. 129 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 I'm saying this -- I'm with ACORN, and Jeff had to leave. So I appreciate your time. Hi. My name is Betty Lefavi, and I live at 2028 East Tioga Street. I am a member of ACORN, a 500-member family organization of low- and moderate-income residents of Philadelphia. On behalf of ACORN, I am testifying in support of this ordinance, setting limits on campaign contributions. I have always believed that one person's equaling one vote, but if wealthy individuals and corporations who do not ever live in the City can give as much money as they want to politics, then we create a system where one dollar equals one vote. We must begin to limit big money in politics. We want to thank Congressman -- Councilman Kennedy (sic) for introducing this ordinance and taking a first step in taking the big money out of politics. People like me want to know that their votes count as much as anyone else, and it doesn't matter where they live. Thank you very much. Please support campaign finance reform.
Are there any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Dina Mendros, Citizens for Consumer Justice. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. My name is Dina Mendros, and I'm here representing Citizens for Consumer Justice. I'd like to thank members of City Council for allowing me to speak today about such an important issue. And I'd particularly like to credit Councilman Kenney and other members of City Council for taking the initiative to address the issue of limiting campaign contributions, which is a systemic problem in our democracy. Citizens for Consumer Justice has become the State's largest consumer organization and coalition working on preserving and strengthening Social Security, Medicare, lowering 131 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 prescription drug prices for consumers, passing a strong patient's bill of rights, preserving access to our civil justice system, winning (unintelligible) elections, and more. Working on these issues forces us to regularly battle the influence of special-interests dollars on the political process. And the problem is getting worse, it's spiraling out of control. The past election cycle was the most expensive in history, costing billions of dollars. S. cities without any restrictions on campaign contributions, Philadelphia's latest mayoral race was the most expensive in the nation to date, at a cost of approximately $27 million. If that were not scandalous enough in and of itself, a large portion of the individual contributions for the mayoral race were over $5,000, many over 25,000. As we know, most individuals cannot afford, nor should they have to afford, to spend that much money to see that their candidate has a fighting chance at the polls. In addition, a 132 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 significant portion of the money came from sources outside of the City. So not only were voices of most City residents muted by those financially better off, they were also muted by outsiders with a financial interest in the City, those who do not necessarily have the best interest of residents in mind. It's obvious that the system is broken, and it's up to government to fix it. In other parts of the country, some are taking up this challenge. A small but growing number of states are attempting -- and some have already succeeded -- to change the laws regulating campaign contributions. Voters in Maine, Arizona, Massachusetts have passed clean-money proposals, and the Vermont state legislature passed similar laws. Each of these states has established alternate financing systems and grant full public financing to candidates running for state office who reject special-interest contributions and agree to campaign spending limits. And the benefits of these laws were reaped in the last election, according to a November 18th New York Times article. 133 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 While Citizens for Consumer Justice prefers clean-money elections with full public financing of elections, where candidates run their campaigns entirely with money from a public fund, we do support Bill 505, which sets contribution limits. As we see it, this is an important first step on the road to more comprehensive reform of the City's campaigns finance laws. If passed, this proposal would help to level the playing field and give more Philadelphians equal opportunity, regardless of their economic status, gender, or the color of their skin. I mention economics, gender and race because when the vast majority of Americans stand outside of the political process all together, with roughly 95 percent of the adult population making no political contributions, it's a no-brainer to look at what's going on and see the situation for what it is: money, not democracy, is the name of the game. I'd also like to make a response to the comments by the Mayor's representative, who spoke earlier. We, of course, want a more comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, but we must take 134 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 this first step. It seems highly hypocritical to argue against this bill on the basis that it doesn't go far enough.
We've already seen a bill 5 which tried to do more but failed to move in this Council. If the Mayor really wants to show good faith that he feels campaign finance reform is an important issue, he should have been meeting with Council for months about this coming instead of coming in at this late date to stall or defeat this bill. While we recognize the Mayor has many issues on his plate, such as the stadiums, it is these vary issues which makes campaign finance reform so important. Today's system of financing political campaigns rewards large contributors by amplifying their voice at the expense of ordinary citizens. It is special-interests campaign contributions that effectively determine which candidates will have the resources to run serious election campaigns. This leaves out good candidates without money or connections to contributors. Once more, under our present campaign finance laws, politicians are first to spend too much time 135 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 raising campaign money instead of devoting their full energies to the duties of public office. With this in mind, I urge you to move forward in your efforts to level the playing field by supporting Bill 505. And despite its imperfections, we must start somewhere. I strongly urge you to vote Bill 505 out of committee today. And also, the Mayor should take up the suggestion to let this bill move out of committee, while working with Council to come up with a more comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. A truly vibrant democracy is one in which average Americans and grassroots organizations are shaping public policy, not large contributors and corporations. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you. I believe our last witness is Kevin 136 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 Murphy from the Green Party. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. I'm Kevin Murphy, and I'm on the Student Committee of the Greens of Philadelphia, which is the local chapter of the Green Party. I'm not going to bore you with stuff that you've already heard. I just wanted to state the position of the Green Party on this issue, or actually myself representing the Greens of Philadelphia. And I wanted to make a couple of many comments about what I've seen here today. I wasn't planning to testify today, so I hope that Council overlooks my sartorial shortcomings. And I would hope that Council might be willing to overlook or work to address the shortcomings of this bill. Needless to say, the Green Party is fully in favor of campaign finance reform, and this bill, possibly with amendments such as those suggested by Common Cause, would be a welcome first step. I think the shortcomings of this bill 137 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 should not be used as excuse for further inactivity. One thing that I've noticed from the proceedings here, and from the language which occurred in the bill, is that there seems to be -- there seems to be a lack of research done within the Council on this issue, and I've noticed on other issues in the past. An issue of this importance really requires hundreds and hundreds of hours of research before you should feel yourselves capable of evaluating the subject matter intelligently. So I would hope that there would be some way of addressing this in the future. Regarding the education of the voters, which was a concern raised earlier, I just thought I would take this opportunity to plug public access cable television, which is used in other parts of the country for this purpose, public educational and government cable access. Finally, I wanted to address the comment by Councilman Ortiz that we don't learn from other cities. That's really a part of the overall problem of Council doing inadequate 138 12/12/00 - WHOLE - BILL 000505 research in order to make responsible decisions. And I'm going to continue to follow, you know, Council proceedings in the future, and I'd really like to see what I would consider more of a good-faith effort and a responsible effort to make responsible decisions on behalf of the citizens of Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate all the Councilmembers' attention in listening to all of the testimony today. I've had numerous conversations with members of Council and have listened to the 139 12/12/00 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING testimony from the Administration. While I recognize that today, as we here, there are not enough votes to finally pass this piece of legislation as is, I do appreciate Councilmembers' support in allowing it to get out of committee and on the calendar. I do believe that from a position of the calendar, the Administration and others will take this situation seriously, will begin then the process of offering amendments and ideas on how it can be improved. And I also intend to speak specific input from various members of Council, any member who has an interest in supplying an amendment or ideas so that we can have a consensus bill sometime, you know, when we come back after the Christmas break into the spring, and get something passed that we all can live with and be proud of. But I do believe that from a position of it being on the calendar, it creates the necessity to deal with this as opposed to simply ignoring the issue into the future. So I do appreciate people's support and attention. And I make a motion that Bill No. 505 be reported off out of this committee with a 140 12/12/00 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
I believe it ought to be possible to develop a bill that meets both the Administration and the City Council's ideas on campaign finance reform. I believe this bill 13 represents a distinct step forward and it ought to be supported, but I hope we achieve what Councilman Kenney says is a forum that can put together a bill that's effective. And just one word to the Administration, and I'm taking the advice directly from the Mayor. When he said to us in the stadium deal, Don't nitpick it to death, it's not perfect, the same thing has to be thought about a campaign reform bill. The Administration successfully in its testimony nitpicked. You can find lots of flaws, but the campaign finance situation is very, very serious, and I think Council intends to get 141 12/12/00 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING something passed. And I believe before the debate is over, there will be votes in Council, if necessary, to override a Mayor's veto, but I hope that it's going to be possible to get a bill 7 passed 'cause it would be in the interest of all Philadelphians. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the place to discuss this and improve this bill is in committee, and I would hope that that's where this bill would stay, rather than try to vote it out with so many loose ends. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 142 12/12/00 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING I would like to go on record to say that there's value in having others who care about this issue who are outside of this committee, to be invited to be a part of the discussion, and I've made it exceedingly clear to my colleague that I do have serious concerns, and I will nitpick because I think it's okay to do. And to the extent that those concerns are addressed, therein lies my movement once the bill moves out of committee should it move out today.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just want to suggest -- strongly suggest -- regardless of what happens to this bill today, that any further dialogue incorporates the State. I just have a serious concern about the lack of parity as it relates to the State-elected officials versus the municipal-elected officials, so without any real input on that level, I don't think that we're going to get what we need out of this bill. 143 12/12/00 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Thank you.
Thank you. Any other comments from members of the committee? (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 505 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (Some Councilmembers respond "no.")
I believe I heard three nays. Were there more than three? I think the majority --
I believe the ayes have it, and Bill No. 505 has been reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Applause.) (Adjourned at 4:45 p.m.) 144 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 12, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHILE BILL NO. 000505 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter