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.