COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO RESOLUTION 060070 - Resolution authorizing the Council Committee of the Whole to hold hearings regarding campaign finance reform and public financing of municipal elections. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Resolution No. 060070. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 8 authorizing the Council Committee of the Whole to hold hearings regarding campaign finance reform and public financing of municipal elections.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Good morning. Thank you very much, Madam President. We thank you for calling the hearing today so we can begin to discuss the whole possibility of public financing for campaigns in the City of Philadelphia, and I do have an opening statement, if that's all right.
Thank you. Twenty-five million dollars, that's the amount of money that was raised and spent in the 2003 Mayor's race by candidates from the primary to the general election. Twenty-five million dollars, a record not only for Philadelphia but at that time for any municipal election in American history. Twenty-five million dollars, a huge amount of money that is expected to be topped in the 2007 Mayor's race. A principal reason why candidates must raise these sums of money is the high cost of media. More and more the media focus less and less attention on elections. To the extent that campaigns are covered, the story is the horse race and not the issues that the candidates are debating. Consequently, candidates talk in sound bites and strive to stay on message while raising huge sums of money. Due to this focus on fundraising, the public has become disillusioned with government and has 4 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 stated the need for campaign finance reform and possibly public financing. In a recent national survey conducted for a public campaign by the Melman Group, more than two-thirds of the public favors comprehensive reform of our campaign finance systems. This call for reform is proportional to the number of people that participate in our elections. More and more people demanding for reform and less and less people voting. Locally, this trend has also emerged in our last election when less than 15 percent of registered voters voted. There are other reasons for that also, I can attest to that. The public's call for reform is also fueled by the path that money and fundraising can lead to fraud and corruption. The current and ongoing federal corruption investigations and pay-to-play trials and convictions have served to further erode the public's 5 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 confidence in City government. Accordingly, this call for reform provides an opportunity to restore the public's faith in City elections. However, the public must decide if they want their tax dollars spent on political campaigns as opposed to City services. That is why we need an open debate and dialogue among citizens, City officials free from partisanship and special interests, so that we can develop public financing legislation that can achieve this goal. As we learned with the anti-predatory lending ordinance and tax reform, this initiative will require time to review and analyze the complexities of this issue and time to craft possibly a bill that works for the City. As we move forward, I would like to thank Representative Dwight Evans and you, Council President Verna, for your support and leadership as we come together to address the issue of public financing of 6 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 City elections. I also would like to thank those individuals and organizations that have joined us today, and we invite others to join us in our quest to change and eliminate the pay-to-play culture in Philadelphia and provide a new standard for civic and political leadership in our City. Thank you very much, Madam President.
You're welcome. Thank you very much, Councilwoman. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our first witness. MR. McPHERSON: The first witnesses are a panel, Angel Ortiz and Sue Ellen Dodell.
Good morning. Welcome. Who is going to testify first?
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. I'm Sue Ellen Dodell and I'm the General Counsel of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and thank you for inviting me to speak today about New York City's Campaign Finance Program, which has been called the model for the nation. I'll tell you a bit about the history of the program and give you an overview of what the program is and, of course, have time for questions. info, which has a lot of publications on it and it has a lot of candidate information on it. The Campaign Finance Act was 8 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 adopted in 1988 after a number of corruption scandals in New York City that had nothing to do with campaign financing. They involved an elected official who was alleged to have solicited bribes to influence City contracts, but because of those scandals, a series of ethics reforms were adopted to strengthen the integrity of New York City government, and among those were the Campaign Finance Act, which was signed in 1988, and later that year in a City-wide referendum, the voters approved inclusion of the independent and non-partisan Campaign Finance Board in the City Charter and added to its mandate the publishing and distribution of a non-partisan Voter Guide. The program is designed to limit the role and influence of private money in the political process. Candidates who participate in the program can qualify to have their private contributions matched with public money. 9 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 In exchange, these candidates agree to full disclosure of their campaign finances, as well as to strict contribution and spending limits. The program is voluntary, and candidates who participate agree to a full audit of their finances. There have been a number of changes, of course, since 1988, a number of very significant changes. As a result of law signed in December of 1996, candidates who join the program and run for City-wide office are required to participate in a series of public debates as a condition for receiving matching funds for their campaigns. Other significant changes are a number of reductions in the contribution limits, a ban on corporate contributions, a requirement that contributions from PACs be accepted only from those PACs that have registered with the Board and a change in the public matching rate. Prior to 1998, contributions had been 10 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 matched at a rate of one-to-one, up to a maximum of $1,000 in public funds per individual New York City contributor. That rate is now four-to-one, up to $250 per contributor, also for a maximum of $1,000 in public funds per individual contributor. And in December 2004, the New York City Council passed legislation which expanded the jurisdiction of the Board to all candidates running for City office. So all candidates, whether they are program participants or non-participants, are required to file 16 disclosure statements with the Board, and they have to adhere to contribution limits and a ban on corporate contributions. But the non-participants, of course, are not eligible to get public funds and they're not subject to the Board's expenditure limits. I want to briefly tell you about all of the mandates of the Board. The Debate Program: There are 11 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 two sets of debates held for both the primary and general elections. The Voter Guide: The Board publishes a Voter Guide and distributes it to all registered voters in New York City, and the guide contains a picture and a statement from all candidates and it's on the Board's website so that people can view it there. The Campaign Finance Program, as I said, is completely voluntary. Candidates agree to maintain complete and accurate records. They abide by the strict contribution and spending limits, and they have to provide full disclosure. Candidates have to certify to join the program. There's a strict deadline to certify in the program of June 1st in the year of the election.
And once the candidate certifies, they become legally bound to adhere to the program's requirements. The Board gives candidates software, which we call C-SMART, 12 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Candidates' Software for Managing and Reporting Transactions. We provide free software to candidates, and they use that software to report their contributions and their expenditures. The key aspects of the program, of course, are the contribution limits, the spending limits, the public matching funds, record-keeping, disclosure, but really as the General Counsel, I really emphasize also enforcement, enforcement by the audit unit, the legal unit to make sure that taxpayer money is being used appropriately. You can see from the brochures that I distributed what the contribution limits are, and going forward, the Board has some recommendations for even reducing them further. The candidates can receive monetary contributions of cash, although cash cannot be more than $100. They can get checks, money orders, credit cards, but in order for contributions to be 13 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 matched, they have to be from individual residents of New York City. And candidates can also get in-kind contributions, but those, of course, are not matched. Spending limits: Again, you can look at those spending limits in the brochure that I gave you. And candidates have to show that they've made qualified expenditures. Those are expenditures that are used for the purpose of nomination or election to office, and they have to be incurred in the election year and paid for by the committee. Things like rent for the office, campaign literature, advertisements, fundraisers, mailings, these are the things that are qualified for reimbursement with public funds. But other things are not qualified for reimbursement: Payments above the fair market value of goods or services, spending that's not reported in disclosure statements, payments to family members, expenses paid through advances. 14 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 We give candidates a handbook. I'll just hold it up to show you how extensive it is. This is the 2005 handbook that explains all of the different record-keeping requirements. Candidates have to keep deposit slips, copies of checks, money orders, signed cash money order and credit card contribution cards. For their expenditures, they have to keep copies of bills, invoices, receipts, salary payment records, bank statements, the front and back of cancelled checks. They have to have a checkbook register and credit card billing statements. They have to keep a petty cash journal. So all of these things are really critical to make sure that candidates are spending money, public money, appropriately. So in order to qualify for public funds -- and, again, it's not an entitlement program. You have to qualify for the funds -- candidates have to comply with all the 15 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 program requirements. They have to be on the ballot and they have to face an opponent on the ballot. And they have to meet a two-part threshold of a dollar amount raised from a certain number of contributors. And those thresholds differ for different offices. So for a City Council member, candidates have to raise $5,000 in total, at least $5,000, and they have to raise it from at least 75 contributors in their district. And, again, only the first $250 of the contribution counts towards meeting the threshold. And these 75 people in the district have to contribute at least $10 each. The contributions are then matched at a rate of four-to-one, up to $250 per individual New York City resident, and the public funds are not distributed until after ballot status is determined by the City Board of Elections, which is a different City agency. 16 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 We do have provisions for a bonus situation.
If a program participant is running against a non-participant and the non-participant spends or raises more than 50 percent of the applicable spending limit, the participant may qualify for bonus money, which would be either a five-to-one or a six-to-one matching rate and an increased expenditure limit and an increase in the maximum public funds. We found that there are a number of violations that can result in financial penalty to candidates; for example, if they fail to file or they file their disclosure statements late, if they accept prohibited contributions or they exceed the contribution or expenditure limits. And all of the candidate information is made available to the public within hours of being submitted to us. Candidates file disclosure statements every several weeks and they 17 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 file it on the C-SMART software. It's uploaded to our website, and the members of the public, members of the press have access to that information almost immediately. So one of our most important mandates is public disclosure, and we take that very seriously. We have a searchable campaign finance database. And so I encourage you as you're considering legislation in Philadelphia to look at the website. We do what I consider a lot of hand-holding of candidates. We have a Candidate Services Unit that deals directly with candidates. We do seminars for them. We provide the handbook. We send them reminder e-mails. We telephone them before disclosure statements are due. But nevertheless, some campaigns do accept prohibited contributions, exceed the expenditure limit or they may use money inappropriately, and that's where enforcement is critical. In order for the public to have 18 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 faith in the program, we have to enforce the law and rules to protect these taxpayer funds and to ensure that the public gets what they bargained for. They bargained for low contribution limits so that more members of the public could have an influence on their government so that big contributors won't control government, and to some extent, they bargained for a leveling of the playing field, enabling small campaigns to go to their neighbors, get the 75 contributors and then qualify for matching funds. And I'd like to just talk briefly about challenges for a campaign finance program like New York. The New York City Act provides that after every election the Board is mandated to do a post election report, and the report on the 2005 elections -- we had our mayoral elections last year as well as City Council elections. The report is due this September, and so I 19 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 can't talk about what conclusions we'll draw from the elections, but there were a number of issues raised in the 2003 election. We had just a City Council election in 2003, and I just want to raise for you some of the concerns that the Board put in its post election report for 2003, because it may give you some ideas of things to watch out for as you enact your own legislation. One thing the Board expressed concern about was that significant public fund payments were going to candidates who won or lost by large margins. And so there were newspaper articles saying, Well, why is the public giving so much public funds when the races are so lopsided. That's a difficult area to deal with, because if you have some opposition, you do qualify for public funds. But we've proposed legislative changes to try to deal with that, perhaps to limit the amount of matching funds that a candidate gets, unless his or her 20 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 opponent raises or spends a certain amount of money.
We've also found that apart from the 2001 elections, which were elections for the first time when term limits were in effect, so that virtually all the City Council was term-limited out and we had a mayoral election, we had Borough President elections, Controller elections, a lot of very new faces, apart from 2001, where there was an incredible amount of competition. The Campaign Finance Program has not been as successful at the Council level as it has been at other levels of office. And at the higher levels of office, the program's goals of promoting competition while leveling the playing field among candidates of different means and creating access to financing has been realized for many candidates, and although the four-to-one match has had a positive impact on Council candidates by engaging contributors, by encouraging 21 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 competition, the large amount of public funds available combined with relatively high spending limits have created an uneven playing field in many cases on the Council level. And we found in 2003 that there were not that many open seats at the Council level and there were not significant competitive races, notwithstanding the availability of large sums of public matching funds. And this appeared to be consistent with our data from past City Council elections, which had not seen very much, meaning full competition, except for open seats, that incumbency is, unfortunately or fortunately, a great predictor of success in an election. The Board also remains somewhat concerned about the availability of substantial public funds through the program somehow itself driving up the cost of campaigns to a level that's not necessary in order to fulfill the 22 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 program's goals. So I would caution you to be sensitive to what is the amount of public funds that really is necessary to ensure competition, to ensure that the public is getting the access to government that they deserve. We found that incumbents or experienced candidates who have run before are very well equipped to take advantage of the program's generous matching funds and to spend the maximum even if the candidate they face is not a serious threat. So it's something to think about. And also being on guard -- and, again, this is part of enforcement -- to make sure that campaigns are not just springing up to be in the business of collecting matching funds. We have our staff conduct site visits to every campaign to determine whether they're really legitimate, and we go out, we look before we give out any matching funds to make sure that they're 23 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 really running a campaign. But, of course, with any amount of public money, there is an incentive to try to get that money to even engage in fraud. So, again, enforcement is really critical. The Board has also suggested a number of changes to City Council. I'll just briefly say what they are going forward. We really want lower contribution limits. Right now for City Council it's $2,750. We're recommending that it go down to $250. And 250 is really the most commonly received amount of money for City Council races anyway and it is the amount that's matched, and we think that it makes more sense to lower the contribution limits even more. We are also on record for proposing banning any organizational contributions. I mentioned that corporate contributions have been banned since 1998, but other organizations, unions, LLCs, partnerships, can make 24 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 contributions, although they're not matched, and the Board believes the intent of the voters would be better achieved if only individual contributions were permitted. We also think that only contributions made during the election year should be matched, because that, again, encourages perhaps insurgents to run during that period and may lessen the impact of incumbents who raise war chests during the few years before the election.
And in addition, we're suggesting reducing the public fund's maximum, reducing spending limits, and we also are dealing with the whole pay-to-play issue. In the 1998 Charter revisions, the voters asked the Board to look at the possibility of doing rules on contributions from those doing business with the City, but the Board found that it was very hard to define who was doing business with the City and that the City Administration did not have a good 25 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 database on that. But we have been trying to work with City government to create a better database so that we know exactly who is doing business with the City, and right now our New York City Council is considering legislation to ban matching funds from being given for lobbyist contributions. That's pending right now, and that would be another change to our law, so that anyone who is a registered lobbyist could not have their contribution matched. Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about our program.
Thank you very much. We have several members that want to be recognized. Does anybody want to ask questions of this particular witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President, and good morning. Do you have a written statement 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 of your testimony?
I don't. I gave a CD of sort of the bulk of it, but, no, I didn't -- I was asked rather recently to testify, so I threw something together. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because you had a lot of information. I was trying to follow you, but maybe I'm just having a bad day. I was not able to keep up. We'll get the transcripts.
It will be on record, and I would encourage you to look at our website, because actually a lot of the information that I covered is actually right on the website. We have the history of the program. We have description of the program, all the limits. It's a very easy-to-follow website, and I encourage you to take a look at it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You mention the Board, I believe, looks at the viability, I guess is the best way I could describe it, of potential 27 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 candidates so that people just don't get in for the sake of getting in, maybe getting some name recognition but using the system as a way of raising money for some campaign that really is not ever going to amount to anything. What's the criteria? How do you determine who is a serious candidate versus a non-serious candidate?
No. I don't want to give the impression that we determine whether someone is serious or non-serious. What we try to determine is whether they're running a campaign. And so we go out and look in, let's say, a Council district. Are there posters up there? We go to their headquarters. We see their financial records. Have they spent money already on literature, for example? What we're concerned about is people who pretend to run a campaign but really potentially could be just taking the money and not running a campaign at 28 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 all. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand what your concern is. That's what I'm trying to figure out, how do you make that decision. I mean, if someone who is serious about running for office but may not have the financial wherewithal, may not have enough money to open up a campaign headquarters and purchase literature because they do not have any means and the only way they're going to get the money to do that is to go out and raise money, there has to be some --
That's why under our program you have to have raised some money. You have to have raised the $5,000 from 75 people. So you have some money already. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's part of the criteria, then.
Yes. Right. You can't get public funds unless you've raised some money from individuals. And 29 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 that contrasts to programs in other states, which are entirely publicly financed. Here, you have to meet a threshold before any public money is given out. But we are -- yeah. We do take the job of making sure that the public is not giving out money mistakenly very seriously and we do audit even before any public money is given out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there any limit to the amount an individual can put into his or her campaign personally?
Yes, there is. It's three times the contribution limit for that particular office. So that for City Council, it's approximately $9,000, I guess. But, again, it's listed on our website and it's provided in our statute, so if that's something that's of concern to you, it's something you may want to put in your statute, that an individual candidate can only contribute a certain amount to their own campaign. That's if 30 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 they want to run in the program. Obviously if they're self-funded, they can contribute as much as they want to their campaign. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because your current Mayor --
Yes, but he didn't participate -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- and no 11 disrespect to him, he put about $80 million or something.
Yes, he did. Right. He didn't participate in the program. He didn't ask the public to contribute to his campaign. So although he reported those contributions to us, because under a new City Council law, even non-participants had to disclose, he would disclose these multi-million dollar contributions right on forms that we had and it would be reported on our website. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess the concern for me is, and I think we're all trying to get to that place as best 31 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 we can, although people individually will make decisions whether or not their vote will be influenced by either campaign contribution or for some other reason regardless of whether there are limits or not, it takes a lot of money to run a campaign. There's no question about it. And I think even for those who have the best intentions, if a limit is imposed -- and we're going to be probably faced with a similar situation in our next mayoral election as New York did. We have an individual who is a very wealthy person, who has already committed $5 million of his own personal money towards that campaign. He can probably put another 5 million in of his own money and not blink an eye. How do you compete with that? And I'm not suggesting that -- again, the objective here is to minimize any money that may or may not be considered to be used as some way of influencing an individual's vote. Again, my personal 32 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 feeling is, if someone gives me 10,000 or gave me a thousand, it's going to be my decision whether I think I'm influenced by that money or not. I mean, people will make the decision. But how do you compete with someone who can, as Mayor Bloomberg, put in $80 million of his own money? Elections today are pretty much won through the media, how much air time you can get on TV and radio and print. It's not the old days that I grew up with. Door-to-door campaigning really is almost a thing of the past in most neighborhoods in the City of Philadelphia. So how do you control that from becoming a situation where it's only the have's have the ability to run for office and get elected?
Well, I guess I have a couple of answers. One is, I don't think you can ever give as much public money as $80 million, because I 33 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 don't think the public would stand for it. But what we have seen in New York is that the people running for Mayor who did run against Mayor Bloomberg certainly ran very competitive races. The first one, which was in 2001, was extremely close. I think it was only 50,000 votes separated the two candidates. And even the most recent one in 2005 where, as you said, the Mayor spent about $80 million, certainly voters knew who was running. We have the Voter Guide. We have the Debate Program, which I think is a nice addition. So that anyone participating in our program had to be in debates. And we had something new added in 2005 where Mayor Bloomberg, even though he wasn't participating in the program, was invited to one of the debates, and he did not come, and the media really made an extremely big issue out of it. It was really days and days of it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But he was successful in getting reelected. 34 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
He was successful, but it's hard to also -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I assume he bought about $60 million worth of air time to cover up for that debate. And I'm not being critical, by the way. This is very serious.
It is a very serious issue, but I guess what I would say is, the candidate who ran against him who got the public money certainly benefited from getting that public money, getting the air time on TV, got his name out. You're never going to solve the problem, if you perceive it as a problem, of self-financed candidates who have unlimited money and under current law are permitted to spend unlimited money, but all you can do is perhaps ask the media to have debates. You can have a voter guide so that people know who is running. And I guess the other thing I would say is, incumbency is a big issue. 35 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 So it's hard to tell whether it is the $80 million or is it the four years that the citizens of the City saw the Mayor in action. And if they thought he was doing a bad job, I think -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand, but you're not born as an incumbent. You have to start somewhere, and my concern is that a guy like Bloomberg and the guy who may be running for Mayor in this City, who has untold amounts of money, could miss a debate, which is a one-night event or two-night event, but have enough money to be on TV seven days a week, hours a day for as 17 long as the campaign is going on. So 18 they can make up for that debate, and no 19 matter how much the media tries to make 20 that an issue, they basically could buy 21 their way through that. 22
Although recently 23 your question has come up a lot more, 24 we've seen candidates with a lot of money in New York City run and not succeed. So 36 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 I think the history of self-financed candidates, if you look throughout the country, has not been uniform. I think that sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand that and I'll agree with you there.
But I certainly understand and appreciate your point, and it's something that we've had to -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just trying to figure out what you all were doing about that, because we're going to have that same problem here.
Yeah. We listen to a lot of different points of view about what possibly could be done, and I think -- I don't want to pre-judge what the Board will conclude, but there are ways to try to deal with it, either give more public funds, either trying to get more air time for candidates, and we are trying to explore different options. 37 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you.
You actually answered in part one of the questions I had written down about the incumbency rate within City Council, but I'd like some other numbers. How many Council members do you have? In the last election, how many new Council members were elected?
Well, we have 51 Council members. In the 2003 election, I mean, all of them were up for --
My recollection is that only one was defeated, one incumbent, and there were a few open 38 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 seats, which obviously didn't have an incumbent. But I believe every incumbent, except for one, was reelected.
Virtually all candidates participated. The numbers were a bit down in 2003, and, again --
How many of the new members participated in your program?
You know, if you want, you can take my card and I'll be happy to get back to you, but offhand, I don't know. Let me think. I think that probably all of 39 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 them did, but, again, in an abundance of caution, I'd be happy to let you know.
How many mayoral candidates participated in your program since the program has been initiated?
I think every candidate, except for Bloomberg, has participated.
Actually, we found that participating in the program has helped people win or at least come very close to winning.
My question was, how many mayoral candidates that participated in your program and how many have won?
How many have won that participated in your program? 40 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
I think everyone except for that year, because in other years --
That's not my question. My question is, how many mayoral candidates have participated in your program and how many of them won?
I know what you're saying, but that's not the question I'm asking you. Has anyone who was not an incumbent participated in your program and actually won the Mayor's seat?
And was not an incumbent but was well known? 41 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
How many political parties do you have in New York City?
And how many different parties have won political office?
Yes; working families, democrat and republican. And in New York state, I don't know how it is in your City, but in New York candidates can run on more than one line, so it's very common to have cross endorsement. So people run on the republican and conservative line and the democrat and liberal line frequently in the past or, more recently, in the democrat and working family party line. So they get multiple endorsements. 42 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Is the City preempted in any way from making its own laws by the state?
Some people have argued that, but last year the City Council did adopt the law that requires non-participants to file with us and be subject to contribution limits. Some people had argued that that was preempted by state law, but no one challenged that.
Lastly, exactly how do you measure success in your program?
Well, that's a very difficult question. I guess success could be measured by candidates running a competitive race, either winning that race or coming close to winning. Success is candidates getting a lot of small contributions. We think that it's 43 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 successful when candidates run campaigns where they get, let's say, thousands of contributions as opposed to hundreds of contributions.
Let me backtrack and ask you a question. What role do you think Giuliani participating in your program helped his election?
Oh, it definitely helped his election. I think participating in our program, I think most of the people who participate think that it helps their election because --
The question was in what way do you think it helped Giuliani?
Well, it helped Giuliani just like it helped any other candidate, because they don't have to go out and do as much fundraising.
I'm about finished. Really what I was looking for was whether there were newcomers and challengers that participated in your 44 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 program that have actually won in terms of mayoral races or City Council races --
Yes. The answer is yes. And I'd be happy to provide further information about that.
My question was centered around how successful newcomers and challengers have been overcoming not just incumbency but whatever you measure in terms of the impact of your program, how effective it has been, and really some solid examples of how the program has actually worked, not so much anecdotally or how you believe it may have worked but hardcore, how has it changed the political culture in New York City. I didn't necessarily find that in your response. I actually do like the program, but I have been and remain skeptical about public financing. I'm not against 45 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 it, but skeptical as to whether in the end it overcomes things like incumbency and all the other flaws within the political system and why I think this is an effective program that's been set up, be it voluntary, which I think it, to a certain extent, would have to be. I'm not sure that we can conclude from what you've told us that basically it has helped newcomers or challengers basically come into the system in an effective way. Thank you.
Well, you certainly raise concerns that the Board and commentators in New York have raised for a number of years. The Board is very self-critical and tries to see whether the program is working. One thing that inhibits newcomers in New York City is ballot access. It's very, very difficult to get on the ballot in New York state, and that's been something that we've heard from insurgents, from challengers, that 46 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 they can't even get on the ballot. That's incredibly difficult. In fact, New York state has half of the election litigation of the country. That's how strongly litigated ballot access is. But I'd be happy to provide you with reports. You can actually look on our website where we have our post election reports after every election. And we do do very detailed analyses. In fact, I have the 2003 report with me. In every report, we have appendices that we place on a CD-ROM with all of the statistics that may be helpful to you to show that challengers have found that it's made a difference. Obviously not in every race. Obviously incumbency is very difficult to overcome, but they certainly are better off with a public financing system than without one, because without one, they'd have to spend even more time dialing for dollars. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Tasco. 47 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Thank you very much. Councilman Goode asked some of the questions I wanted to raise. I know you said you don't have the ability to figure out who is doing business with the City, but has there been any analysis to match the contributions that were given to Mayor Bloomberg and who might be doing business with the City, who contributed to his campaign?
Actually, Mayor Bloomberg did not accept any contributions. He entirely self-funded his campaign.
But the question is, do you have any notion because he is self-campaign -- because one of the issues is that you give money and then the pay-to-play culture comes in. Those persons who give the most money get to access the government. Even though he did not participate in your process, the issue 48 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 is, how do we get rid of pay-to-play. So he used his own money to get elected. So can you calculate who or identify some of the contributors who gave to his campaign who are still doing business with the City?
Right. Well, more generally, we can calculate based on -- our database is all computerized. So any member of the public, any member of the press can compare people who are doing business with the City with people who have contributed. It's extremely easy to do that. What we found, though, is, the City Administration has been kind of slow in creating a database of everyone doing business with the City. Right now there's a database of virtually every contractor with the City and the amount of the contract, and you could compare the owners of that company who are listed on a City public database, compare those owners and put those names into our 49 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 database. And so it's pretty easy to tell whether someone contributed and also is doing business with the City.
I'll forego my questions to Councilwoman Miller and maybe we'll let Councilman Ortiz speak and we'll come back to Ms. Dodell.
Thank you. I just have one short question, because actually Councilman Goode and Councilman DiCicco asked some of those same questions I originally had. How much money is put aside in New York? How much is available for public campaign financing?
Well, the unique thing about New York City is, in the City Charter, it provides that whatever money is needed will be spent, that the City Treasury will pay for the Campaign Finance Program's public fund's disbursements. So that although we estimate every year for purposes of the 50 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 City budget and for purposes of planning how much money we think we're going to need, there is no limit as to how much will go out. It depends on who qualifies for the matching funds and who has shown that they qualify for the funds. So that the money is --
The most that we spent was in 2001. I think it was about $42,000 and -- $42 million, excuse me, and in 2003, I think it was around $23 million.
Oh, gosh. You got me there, but what our former Chair of the Campaign Finance Program, Father O'Hare, said was that the amount for public financing is like a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of a percent. It's so tiny compared to the City budget that 51 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 it's really minuscule. The City budget is billions of dollars, I think.
Thank you. My name is Angel Ortiz, former City Councilman. In 1982, Sam Grillo was in a meeting in the City Committee and Walter Mondale was speaking to City Committee at that time, and Vice-President Mondale spoke about nuclear disarmament, Middle East peace, the fact that nuclear weapons had to be contained, and somebody from the back kept raising their hands, and it was Ward Leader Sam Grillo, may he rest in peace. And finally Walt Mondale asked who is the man and why is he raising his hand, and finally he called on him. And this is a great story of folklore that we have. Mr. Grillo said, Nuclear disarmament, whatever you're talking about, I just want to know how much street money are we going to have. 52 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 And I think part of the situation in terms of what we label as reform in terms of the ethics and campaign finance and public financing of campaigns comes down to how do we limit the amount of money that can come in from outside other sources to influence certain campaigns. In the mayoral campaign in this City, Councilwoman Tasco said the last time we spent over $25 million, and that's an obscene amount of money at that point in Philadelphia. However, it is at the lower levels, because City Council, the Register of Wills, commissioners, state rep, judges hold races and run races at the same time, and they have to raise an inordinate amount of money to just be able to compete, and it is that cost that is rising in an exorbitant manner. In 1981-'82 when I first ran, I think I spent $15,000. Of course, I didn't have to pay the money to City 53 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Committee. I didn't have to pay the outside consultants that crop up during election time in the City of Philadelphia and which we have refined in this City, in terms of pay-to-play in the City takes different connotations at different times, and candidates have to look at and plan to spend money and raise money to meet all of those contingencies. One of the things that public financing might do is eliminate some of those contingencies, bring the transparency that is needed in terms of auditing, reporting, being able to have access to who and why and when and what for candidates, one, receive money and, two, pay out money to whom and for what. And I think if the methodology is reform and brought into the 21st century, that campaigns for City Council, judges may become much more transparent and less expensive. I think Jim Kenney was talking about the other day that he may have to 54 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 spend over $750,000 to be able to run for City Council in the next primary. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine that? Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a City Council seat? Not too long ago, Julie Walker and Darrell Clarke spent each over $300,000 to run in a district. And in order to be able to raise that money and probably in the poorest district in the City of Philadelphia, that's an inordinate amount of money to be needed to be able to raise to run a competitive race in the City of Philadelphia. And who gives those monies? Obviously the people who give the monies are not the residents of those districts. When you had to raise some money, you went to individuals that could give you $5,000, $10,000 contributions. And there are many people out there who are willing to give you that in order to have access and be able to exert some influence. We have given the name and 55 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 defined the term "pay-to-play" in the City of Philadelphia. I think we have taken a step with some of the ethic reforms that we have approved in this Council during this term.
I think the campaign finance bill that we approved the last term was a step forward, and I think the next step that we have to take in order to have the transparency, the ability to be able to run races in this City that leave no shadow of doubt, that every candidate is receiving money and spending money in a manner that is conducive to running a political campaign and able to run a race directed at the issue of his own agenda and being able to inter-spit (ph) that agenda through the money that is raised and perhaps also the money that is complimented by the public. Media is an issue. Obviously it is very expensive. But you don't have Council people, you don't have judges, you don't have a lot of individuals raising money to buy media in the City of 56 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Philadelphia, although that is becoming more and more prevalent in the last few years. We need to be able to structure a system -- and, Councilman Goode, I know two people in New York who ran and won, and they were newcomers, but they could not have run if there had not been any public financing of campaigns. So I am here to be able to say to my former colleagues, I think we've taken a step with the campaign contribution bill that we passed. I think the next step forward is to get a bill, one that I introduced eight years ago, very similar to the New York and actually modeled after the New York bill, and pass that and be able to put it before the voters of the City of Philadelphia so that we can change the Charter and we can have public financing of campaigns in the City of Philadelphia. I hope that this hearing leads directly to that. Thank you. 57 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Thank you. I am not against public financing for several reasons, for the same reason that I did the campaign contribution limit bill, that I believe it will help in terms of voter participation. I believe that it will increase competition. I believe that it will increase debate particularly structured the way it is in New York. I'm still not convinced that it helps people win. So I still think that there is a purpose that is served by it. But I want to go back to a few different points just to get to what I think the real problem here is and how campaign public financing may or may not help. We cite the fact that $25 million was spent on the Mayor's race. I'm not sure why $25 million was spent. There was no primary opposition, and the 58 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 general election generally did not focus on issues. It was not, in the end, a competitive race, and so I'm not sure what the $25 million was spent on. When we talk about City Council races and who wins and who loses and how much money people spend, I still don't see a direct correlation between the money and the victory.
I'm sorry. I want to direct my comment to what you just said.
I'm still -- in the end, my ultimate point and/or question is mostly based upon Councilman Ortiz's experience. In reality, in terms of Council races, what is the money actually spent on?
In Council races, one of the problems that we have 59 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 is that an inordinate amount of money that a candidate raises does not go to literature or otherwise. It goes, in essence, to disburse funds to a great number of groupings that get together during election time. And candidates have to go before those groups that are outside of City Committee or that are separate groups and you have to give some money to or hire those groups to do certain political tasks.
I think the reporting, the transparency that would be instituted in terms of the ordering process, in terms of who gives money, how 60 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 you spend money, I think the more transparent that the process becomes --
That isn't my question. My question is, if the bulk of the money in Council races goes toward paying people off, how will public financing change that?
Because you will not be able to -- I hope you will not be able to use those monies to pay people off and that there will be transparent mechanisms put into place so that those type of activities will no 15 longer be feasible within the context of an election process; that there be a reporting mechanism; that there be expenditure limit; that there be a whole auditing process that is instituted and put into place.
Is that to suggest that if there was a public financing system in place for 2007, that I wouldn't buy the support that I need?
I'm officially recorded and say, I gave money to whoever I want to give money to in order to get the political support that I need?
Well, it's how you get the public support and what is established as political expenditures that need to be made.
What I said is, I can support public financing in order to increase voter participation, in order to increase competition, in order to try to increase debate, but don't necessarily see it as a vehicle toward winning. And even when people talk about the issue of the cost of the elections and cite the Mayor's election, the last Mayor's election or City Council races, I mean, I've already concluded that the $25 million was poorly spent in the Mayor's race, because I don't think it made a difference one way or the other. In terms of Council races, I 62 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 pose the question, how do people win and what do they spend their money on to win and how does public financing impact that? And if the bulk of the money does go toward, quote/unquote, buying the requisite political support, how does public financing change that?
I think if you put it in and you have challenges that are made and I think the arguments and the debates that will take place under the system will be very different, because you will have to be openly engaged in that and you will have to be openly reporting and you will have to be openly saying who it is, how and when and why. It depends on the mechanisms.
I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm just trying to have a discussion go where it needs to go. In the last primary election, I spent roughly $50,000. Forty-three thousand dollars of it went to ward 63 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 leaders. I don't have a problem with that because I won. How does public financing change that?
Councilman, you begin in any race with an advantage. Your father is still one of the persons that I admire most in this City, and his name has great value, and you begin with that advantage. If you were not Wilson Goode, you would have to spend more than $43,000.
Well, that's not necessarily true, because my question really is, to be perfectly honest about it, is that if I can pay $15,000 to City Committee, which is what is required as an assessment, if I can then gain additional support from roughly to 30 20 ward leaders in this City, how is public 21 financing going to beat that? 22
I don't 23 think public -- I think your challenger 24 or the individuals that may be able to 25 challenge may -- 64 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
One final point before you fully respond. Because to 30 ward leaders are not necessarily 5 going to take everybody's money. So it's 6 not just whether you have the money to 7 give them. It's whether they want to 8 support you. 9
The 10 experiences of ward leaders is something 11 that needs to be explored and talked 12 about, but -- 13
But I am 16 quite sure that with public financing, 17 challengers will be able to mount 18 campaigns to challenge the established 19 structure. I actually believe that that 20 can happen. And I think it would allow a 21 more competitive process to begin to 22 emerge in the City of Philadelphia. 23
I definitely 24 believe it leads to a more competitive 25 process. I believe it leads to more 65 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 debate. I believe it leads to increased voter participation. I'm not sure it leads to victory.
You know, if you can buy it. Victory can never be assured, but I believe a system that can begin to establish a way in which candidates --
-- and people can come into the process and challenge the status quo is beneficial to the system and the City.
Councilmember Goode, I wanted to mention another race, which was the 1989 mayoral race in New York City. As you may recall, the incumbent, Ed Koch, was defeated by David Dinkins. They both participated in the 66 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Campaign Finance Program. There was some thought at the time that if Mayor Koch had not participated in the program and not limited himself to the expenditure limits, he might have gotten reelected. But he did choose to participate and David Dinkins did defeat him, and that may be another example of where someone who was not an incumbent, someone who really benefited from participation in the program.
I understand the young people that are walking through the room are on tour and there are students from Canada. We certainly want to welcome you and certainly hope that you have a very nice visit. Enjoy. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco. 67 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Dodell. Susan. Has voter participation increased in New York as a result of this campaign finance?
I don't know if you can really say that, honestly. The participation has not been that great throughout the country and even in New York. So I'm afraid I can't say that it's increased.
Do the candidates have a difficult time raising the match, the money from their district, particularly the Council members? Do they generally get more than the required participants?
They generally do get more. Up until the 2003 race; in other words, in 2001 and before, they had to get 50 contributors, and usually 68 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 people could get 50 people. And, honestly, if you can't get 50 people to contribute --
Yeah, at $10. If you can't get 50 people to give $10, you may want to wonder about whether you should be running. So I think the answer is, generally people can get the contributors.
Who audits the candidates, all of the candidates? Is that part of your department?
It is. The Campaign Finance Board has auditors on staff, and these auditors either go out and visit campaigns or frequently get documents from campaigns. Before the election, I described how they go out and do site visits. After the election, we ask candidates to submit all documentation of their expenditures, and we review that documentation to make sure 69 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 that they've spent public money on things for the campaign. And then what the auditors do is send out a draft audit to campaigns. Campaigns get a chance to respond to it and show perhaps that they made other expenditures that they, for whatever reason, didn't report before. So they get a chance to respond. And then we do a final audit, and that is publicly disclosed. All of our final audits are on the Board's website so you can see what kinds of issues campaigns may have had. And then if the audit concludes that money is due back to the City, the candidate must return that money or we sue them to get the money back.
One other question. What is your administrative costs for this program?
It's fairly low, and, again, I don't have that with me. Since I'm a lawyer, I tend not to be that great at the other side of the office, 70 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 but I'd be happy to send that to you, because it's all public, obviously. But the cost is fairly low. Perhaps a couple of million dollars a year, but it's pretty small.
You talked about the Council races and not having a lot of challenges in the Council race. What other municipal offices run at that time and what is the rate of challenge?
Well, there are races for Mayor, for Controller, Public Advocate and Borough Presidents. We have five boroughs or counties in New York City. And then we have the Council districts. So we found that the mayoral races do tend to be the most competitive and the ones where I think we can see the effects of public matching funds very clearly. The City Council level, as I said, unless there are open seats, incumbency does tend to predict success generally. But on, let's see, the 71 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Borough President and Controller and Public Advocate races, again, not a lot of competition there unless it's an open seat.
Let me ask you, you talked to me on the side earlier and you talked about the program failing in Suffolk County.
I think the problem there was lack of funding, and so it shows how important it is to put something in the statute that provides for funding and doesn't depend on an appropriation by the legislature. So it's better to have something in there that says that money will come out, that whatever campaign finance agency automatically gets funding for its functions. And, similarly, speaking of our administrative functions, not only does the Charter provide that public funds have to be given when the Board determines that they should be given, but 72 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 it also provides that our administrative costs must be included in the City's budget and can't be challenged by the mayoral side. So that's another good protection for the program, that our administrative costs are also -- I mean, they can be changed by the City Council as part of the budget process, but the Mayor can't change our proposed budget for administration.
Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for coming down. You'll probably come back with someone else.
Good 73 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 morning. I have a follow-up question to Councilwoman Tasco's question that goes purely to the definition of "reform" that you put on your brochure here, which it says, "A movement that attempts to institute improved social and political conditions." So to her question and to your stated goal on , which says "increase opportunities for citizen participation," as of yet you have not been able to determine if there has been an increase of citizen participation. Is that what I heard you to say?
When you say "citizen participation," do you mean voting or do you mean --
I don't think we can show that there's an increase in voting. What we can show is that more and more people are contributing to campaigns, which is a goal of the program and certainly part of participation, that 74 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 the program because it matches small contributions encourages voters to contribute to campaigns. And we've heard over and over from candidates, particularly on the City Council level, how energized people have felt in their districts when they've been able to tell a particular citizen, If you give me $25, it will be matched by $100 in public funds. And, similarly, if it's even $10, it will be matched. For that matter, even a dollar will be matched. So we found that citizens are contributing. And you'll see if you take a look at our website that there are a lot of campaigns where people get very small contributions.
Is there any interest in looking to see if campaign finance reform, as outlined in New York, makes a difference with regards to more voters showing up at the polls? Is that a goal going forward?
That's certainly a 75 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 very interesting question. The Board also, as I mentioned, administers the Voter Guide, and we think that that has certainly informed voters and has probably increased their interest in elections. But, unfortunately, I don't know if you can really show a direct correlation, or even how you would do that, to show whether the Voter Guide or whether public financing actually gets people out to the polls, but I personally don't know of any real correlation in New York. I can go back and see if we have any data on that, but it's hard to show, I think.
Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. 76 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Ma'am, in Philadelphia, we have a person in our neighborhood that is a highly regarded person and sometimes underappreciated. This person is called the committee person. Do you have someone called the committee person in your neighborhood, in New York City?
A precinct worker? This is our person that is elected by the people in the neighborhood to represent his or her respective party. We call them committee person. Do you have someone in your neighborhood --
I don't know if we have something like that. Some parties have district leaders, but I don't think we have something equivalent to that.
Okay. In Philadelphia, we have this underappreciated person out there, and this is the person that goes to an election -- we're having an election here 77 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 on May the 16th, and these people are running in our neighborhoods to be elected as their representative of their party in their respective neighborhood. Once they get elected, everyone in their neighborhood is knocking on their door. There's a pothole here, there's noise at 1 o'clock in the morning, my kid wants to go to college. And this is the person that everyone in the neighborhood runs for. This is the person that we depend on to help us win an election, because this is my local leader in my party, this is the person that the people in the neighborhood know very well. That person is 99 percent of the time a very sacrificing person. This person has to take off on Election Day to get the faithful of his or her party, in my case the democratic party, to come out and vote on that day and vote for their candidate in their party. A lot of these good committee people in our City have to take off from work on that day, and a lot 78 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 of them don't get compensated for taking off. In other words, their employers are not going to pay for them to take off on Election Day to do a civic thing but, nevertheless, a very partisan thing. Would a person that is a candidate that is getting public financing money, would that person be able to compensate in your system this committee person on Election Day? If I got public financing dollars, could I compensate these committee people, in my case as an at-large member, all over this City? And I do it through the ward leader, because the ward leader is elected by these committee people to be their leader of the whole broader neighborhood. Would these financed public dollars be or would we be able to use these public financed dollars to compensate this type of person?
It would depend on what exactly they were doing. 79 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
They're getting people out to vote of their political persuasion, whether democrat or republican in most cases in Philadelphia. Could we use those public financed dollars to help compensate them for taking a day off of work to work in an election?
Well, you couldn't compensate them for taking a day off from work, but --
Can I give them some money of the money I get from public financing?
I mean, in general, in order for public funds to be used, it has to be in furtherance of your election, and under our system, we would require that detailed records be kept. A written agreement would have to be made with the person. Details in writing would have to say exactly what he or she was doing. Time sheets would have to be kept. So there would have to be a lot of 80 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 detail.
Would I need to do a record of every single individual committee person that in my case it's well over, I don't know, 2,000 or more, more than that? 3,000. I mean, it's a lot of them.
Yes. You'd have to have records for every expenditure that you make.
For every single individual, all 3,000, or whatever the number may be?
I could not with good accounting give that the total amount of committee people to the ward 19 leader so he can then give back to me 20 receipts on -- 21
That would 24 not be acceptable? So how do you do it 25 then? I know a little bit about, just a 81 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 little bit, about New York, not much. So who is the person in your neighborhood that knocks on your door and reminds you that there's an election and is pushing for their political party? And who contracts that person? I mean, I'm quite sure that people --
Some of them are volunteers and some are paid by campaigns, campaign workers, who may go around with literature in a traditional way of campaigning.
Now, those are campaign workers. These are people that are working for a candidate who has now received public dollars, right?
If they receive public dollars, then that person would need to have all these receipts?
Okay. So there is no party organization, the Green 82 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Party in New York, the liberal party in New York, the republican party?
There is, but if they coordinate with -- that's a whole other issue of -- if they act completely independently of a campaign, then they may be able to support who they want, but if they coordinate in any way, if they coordinate with the campaign, then all of those expenditures would be deemed expenditures of the campaign and it could raise issues of the expenditure limit.
Okay. I mean, I would think that to do it your way in the City of Philadelphia would probably require a total overhaul and restructuring of the political structure of particularly our two major parties. You would probably eliminate the whole concept of having a person elected in your neighborhood to represent your party. What's the worth then of a person that wants to represent his or her 83 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 party, wants to assure citizen participation in an election if they become unimportant and almost useless?
I can't answer that, but only to say that part of the purpose of campaign financing is to change the political culture, and in New York City, it has changed things. And perhaps if you adopt it in Philadelphia, it will change things as well.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. A couple more follow-up questions. Of your 51 Council members, what's the political breakdown? How many democrats, republican or others?