Most of them are democrats. I think at most -- let me 84 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 think. Probably four or five are republicans and one is working family party.
Has that changed at all since your program went into effect?
Well, working families party person was elected in 2003 and the number of republicans perhaps has increased slightly, but probably not that much of a difference.
So you have more republicans on City Council and you've had a republican Mayor for most of the time that public financing has been in place?
No. That's not actually the case. We had a democratic Mayor from '89 --
I said a republican Mayor most of the time since the program went into place.
Let's see. I guess that's true, yes. 85 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Are there any other questions of this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, I really thank you for coming in to testify. It was very informative.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of William Miller, Zach Stalberg, Chris Sheridan and Kevin Williams.
Bill 20 Miller, my heavens, I had to look three times. You look wonderful. How are you feeling?
Great. You look great. 86 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Really? Well, it's good seeing you and it's good having you here. Mr. Miller, are you going to be the first to testify?
Okay. It's almost afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of City Council, distinguished guests, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue in terms of public financing. I have submitted a letter that I had written as an op-ed last year. That was in the heat of the moment, but the gist of the letter I'd like to discuss or at least share with you and the Council members today. I think that public finance 87 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 reform, as well as the ethics issue and all of those issues, are critical issues of our time. I think they're also a natural by-product of a time that is changing more dramatically than we have an opportunity to adequately analyze and to prepare ourselves and our institutions for. Simply put, I think technology as it exists today is changing so rapidly that it is changing the way we do our business. What is unfortunate, people tend to be in a comfort zone and are unlikely to change as quickly as the demand for change is there. As a result, we hear terms of corruption. We hear a lot of things that provide the impetus, I feel, for quick solutions, particularly for yourselves who are in the public business, and your constituency, in many instances, will dictate your behavior. I've been around this business for a long time in many capacities, and I have known many, many, many elected 88 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 officials. I don't know one of them that wakes up in the morning and decides, Whatever I do today, I got to get my share of corruption in. I don't believe that anyone stands up in the morning and has an intention of doing anything but the right thing. And generally what you do in this legislative body, unfortunately, the bulk of your work is constituent service. I say it's unfortunate because that drives election, because the time that you need for a great forethought and intellectual exchange and the appreciation of technology, the demands on you on a daily basis, it doesn't afford you that kind of time. However, what my major concern has been is how this whole issue has been characterized and depicted. I don't see throngs of the public going into the street screaming and demanding that we have election reform, campaign reform or any other kind of reform. I don't know 89 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 that there's a complacency or whether there's just a general attitude where the public has been anesthetized to believing that their direct input is not going to make a difference. But I don't see the demand coming from there. But where I do see it is from the media, and I'm inclined to believe if one looks at this situation, they will find that the media has control, an inordinate amount of control, over our electoral process. The media will ultimately determine who is considered a legitimate candidate. The media will determine through their endorsements who they feel are most worthy. They determine what issues are relevant, and in the end, they coincidentally, the media overall, garners a healthy profit in their endeavors. I tend to say that they wear at least two, many times three hats. By setting the agenda for public debate in the political process, the most important 90 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 thing as I heard many Council people talk to the previous person here about committee people and ward leaders and all the other things. In the end, it's all about communicating, and for you, it's about communicating a message that will resonate with the people whom you hope will vote for you. Now, people vote for different reasons, and I guess doing a study on voter behavior would probably be, if not interesting, certainly amusing, but the fact of the matter is, people will vote on familiarity and other things. Your issue is, how do I let them know I'm running. And that's generally the issue for most people who run. Money is intrinsically linked to that.
In a study I did, I think it was about the last decade in all elections in the United States, an average of 93 percent of those elections at all levels were won by the person who spent the most money. There is an 91 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 absolute correlation between dollars available and dollars expended. When we have legislation that puts a limitation on what can be spent, I think the intent is noble. Maybe the unintended effect does not necessarily level the playing field. I think it, plus public finance and other things, moves us in the direction toward a cleaner society, a better society and maybe a process that is more representative of a democracy that we live in. However, I'm going to suggest that everyone has a role in that, and it's not just having elected officials police themselves. I think there are a lot of people who feed on this process in very significant ways. So today I chose the media, and I did because I am the CEO of a strategic communications firm, and in my more naive days, I did that in politics. I now realize I can't earn a living that way, so we do strategic communications for larger organizations. 92 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 But the essence was developing a message and developing a message that would resonate in terms of that constituency out there. And we were intrinsically locked into the media itself. Free media is where you try to get a message across. Hopefully it will be one of the issues they've chosen, but invariably it's paid media at all levels, whether it's ads in your local newspapers or whether in the larger campaigns it's TV. It is estimated that the mayoral race in 2007 for creditable candidates as defined by the media could very well cost around $5 million to run the race. There are those who give modest estimates that 60 to 80 percent of an electoral budget in a campaign goes to the media in some form. So that could very roughly be $3 to $4 million that is spent in the media, which is the same media that will determine your legitimacy, that will set your issues, that will create the forum and endorse 93 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 whom they think should win. My concerns with all of that is, obviously they're a very powerful entity, and I'm quite sure as they set the moral tone for what they think is ethical, if a movement started to demand public access for elections at all levels, public access to air time on TV, public access to radio time through cable TV, through newspapers to give candidates, after the criteria is established, an opportunity to articulate issues -- and, unfortunately, today that's a novel thing, because the matter of fact, if you got money and name recognition and they have deemed you legitimate, rarely do they care about the issues, or the voters who see your face more times than not or read your name won't tell you by all of you in this room 22 what issue drove them to vote for you. And if they aren't agrounded in issues, if we aren't defining what we think is important or you as leaders, how do we 94 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 create a better City? Upon what basis do we say, I cast my vote and I predict on past behavior and requisite skills and abilities that that individual will move this City in the direction that I want? What we'll generally say, We saw them on TV, if they can afford it, or we read it in the newspaper based on how they write it to make a decision, which to me is no 11 doubt that John Street, who I think won his last election with 223,000 votes, had he been running in the previous five elections, he probably would have come in by those numbers about fourth, and because the number of voters and participation in itself is dwindling. I'm not saying and predicting or even suggesting that you have the ability or the power to determine that these mega, mega, mega billionaires who make the money on this are going to simply kneel to you, but if you have the will, it's a start. It's a start. Their profits are insane.
And 95 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 I understand many newspapers are going out of business because of the Internet, which shows one thing, there's a demand for information. There's a demand for information at all levels. I think you clean the process up by meeting that demand, and you can meet that demand by creating a process and making business, as well as you as public officials and the electorate, to share the cost. And I simply say not that I think it's the panacea, but I do believe in terms of the media that they need to be held accountable for this. I was incensed with the articles that I read about ethical reforms, incensed. I don't believe any one of you, regardless of how much money you spent -- and I know the mayoral and presidential campaigns would have had the motive to just raise that money, if they didn't have to spend it. Any of you who sat in the war rooms of a major campaign within the last 30 days and you watch 96 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 polling numbers, you see polling numbers, public opinion polls, move more dramatically with television. Television drives polling numbers. And within the last three weeks of a campaign, if you're not moving chunks of $50,000 to $100,000 in the mayoral race at a bite with meaningful gross rating points, then whether you had the best message at all, your opposition is defining you. And there's not a winning candidate yet that didn't garner the resources to answer in-kind. You know, if they say you're a bad person on TV, you're not going to say, "I'm a good person" in the newspaper. " Because the impact of mass media has maybe in our business an unintended effect, but it defines your ability. So when we look at articles 97 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 that are written, this guy is a frontrunner, not because that guy has or gal has the best ideas in terms of moving it forward, but they have the potential, and this was actually written, of raising the money. That's the same media that indicated to you that money corrupts. I don't know how you have it both ways. I just don't understand it. I don't understand why other people don't understand that or see it crystal clear. But if this is simply a start, I just wanted you to think about that. When fingers are being pointed at you for why did you take the money, let's take a look at where you had to spend it. And you had to spend it to be creditable, you had to spend it to get the endorsements, you had to spend it to satisfy them of your worthiness to be the candidate, the least of which you put forth your credentials and your ideas. You had to spend the money. So, Madam Chair, I won't 98 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 belabor the issue to you and your colleagues. I just wanted to introduce another perspective.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I could not agree with you more. The issue of public access to media is the actual issue. I'm glad you brought it up, and I think that it should remain probably the center of our discussions as we move forward. I want to ask you a few questions related to some things in your comments and just in terms of prior experience. You noted that 85 percent of the candidates that win have more money. What percentage of the candidates that win do you think are incumbents?
That's a good 99 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 question. I don't have the correlation between that, but I probably would say overwhelming numbers of candidates are incumbents, and that's also directly related to their ability to raise money, too.
Absolutely. In your experience in terms of mayoral campaigns, can you talk about what races you were involved in in the past?
Can you talk about what races you were involved in in the past in terms of mayoral campaigns?
I mean, I was involved in the Bill Green campaign. I was a Regional Field Coordinator in that. I was a Lead Consultant in the election of someone you met a couple times, Mayor W. Wilson Goode, and I was his consultant, but I was the Field Director and the Political Director in that campaign. I've had involvement in many of your colleagues in City Council. I've 100 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 done --
Well, I had involvement in the Burrell campaign in '91 as his Co-Media Consultant and Senior Advisor, and I've had involvement in the 1999 campaign of Marty Weinberg when he ran in 1999. And I would say that pretty much in terms of mayoral campaigns, I did some out of the City, but that was pretty much it. I'm glad you asked me that, because two of those campaigns, the Burrell campaign and the Weinberg campaign, were clearly indications of what I talk about in terms of media. When we designed the Burrell campaign, we understood he had a very impressive background as a pro football player, an all-American collegiate football player, a lawyer who was a graduate from the ivy league, University of Pennsylvania, and what we did was, we created commercials 101 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 and all of those things around George with some of his other accomplishments, and we marketed that as he is a campaign. Now, the truth is, we knew from the start -- George is a friend, so I certainly don't mean to in any way be disparaging, but from a consultant's perspective, we knew that George had a mile-wide profile, but it was about a quarter of an inch deep when one looked at the probe of his legitimacy. And then, lastly, the Marty Weinberg campaign was clearly a media campaign. We raised more money than everybody and we basically put him on TV. And had Marty been a better candidate personally -- I had dinner with him the other night -- the results would have been different. We couldn't image away.
This leads to my question. There's no question that it takes money to buy media, and that's particularly why I think that your point about gaining more public access and 102 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 equitable access to media for candidates, whether it's running commercials on City stations, whether it's opening up the newspapers and electronic media to advertise and whether it's having the media write more articles, whether it's forcing debate and coverage of debates, is one thing. So I'm not going to dispute whether it now takes money to buy media. My question is, what impact does media really have in the end? Not that people just don't use media to be competitive. And, first, I'll highlight the points you made about polling numbers. There's no doubt that media can drive polling numbers throughout an election, which helps people raise more money, which helps them buy more media, which doesn't necessarily in the end help them win the election. So while media drives polling numbers, I don't think it can be said that media wins elections. So I want to go back to those mayoral campaigns that you were involved 103 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 in and just say, did Bill Green win because of media? Did Wilson Goode win because of media? Did Ed Rendell win because of media? Did John Street win because of media? Not just a question of whether it takes money to buy media, but did any of those candidates actually win the office of Mayor through their media?
I would say this: Particularly Wilson Goode won because he's had an unprecedented that's never been done before field operation, and he had a record that he was running on and connected directly at the community level with people. And the superior field operation that he had -- I keep saying that because I organized it -- that, along with his own public persona, was things that the media ended up writing about. So I would say to you, if he did no media, whether it was the thing that put him in office or not, it certainly contributed. They wrote about 104 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 the field army. They wrote about the little ladies who came out and did our fundraising, dollars in an envelope, that had never been done before. Those were measures of support and popularity that to that date had never been done. That was written about. Because those people out there, other than communicating with us, had no way of understanding or connecting with all of the components that went in to getting him elected. So, yes, media by some form had a lot to do with it. And really answering your question, I would say to you that I don't think there's a Mayor that's run in contemporary times that could win without it.
That's not my question. My question is, did any of those people who were elected win because of the media? It's understood that they had the money to buy the media. It's understood that both campaigns ran the media. The question in the end is, did 105 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 any of those Mayors win because of the media, media advantage in terms of this candidate versus that candidate?
I would say you all as members of this Council can sit and reflect on your elections and you can probably get ten people in a room with ten different answers about what thing put you over.
But I'm asking about your involvement in mayoral campaigns.
The terms of involvement in those campaigns, media made the difference.
Bill Green, Wilson Goode, Ed Rendell, John Street won because of the media campaigns?
Wait a minute. Can I give you one caveat? Their effective media campaigns.
The 106 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
That's what I was going to say. That was a point of information, is that it certainly helps in terms of you can have all the things that will help you win, the little old lady with the dollar and all that, because we've seen other candidates run, but without having the ability to get their message out to the broader public, none of that mattered. It was the effectiveness of the message and getting it in the media that helped them. Certainly whether it's the TV or whether it's the print, when I ran in '87, the ability to get my message out was the key. When I ran in the race, nobody knew either of us. There were three of us running. And so the ability to reach -- I couldn't do TV, didn't have the money, but I did have the money and the availability to mail and posters and literature. But without the money to buy 107 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 that, it wouldn't have been effective. But it was as a form of media, is getting the print media out to my voters, because they didn't know me.
Excuse me. I believe Councilwoman Blackwell would like to be recognized.
Thank you, Madam President. Assuming that one has professionals who can prepare one's media to follow up on what has been said and who can prepare effective media, would you agree then that those who -- and I think you have already -- those who have the money to buy media are those who can be most successful? You've admitted that.
Therefore, then, would you also agree that the public expects people, major candidates, to have public media no 6 matter what quality of candidate they are? If you run for Mayor on up, that you're expected in this country to be on TV or you're not viewed as a legitimate candidate?
I agree with that. Then do you also agree that given, let's say, for example, the current election where we have a millionaire who said that he would put in millions of dollars, he started off saying, I will put in 6 million -- I don't know that he's put in that much, but it's been said that he would put in from $6 to $15 million. That obviously gives him an advantage on people who are born without those means.
Then it seems to me, and I suppose you agree with this too, having the discussion about campaign financing is great, but in the final analysis, in the real world, nothing changes, because people who are born wealthy know more people who can even pay $5,000 and $10,000 than generally people who are born poor, and as long as people are able to use their own private wealth versus that which you can raise, we're still discussing the issue, but we still haven't come up with any way to make it a more fair playing ball field. Do you agree?
I agree, Councilwoman, and I was also taught very young this adage, and it was called the golden rule. Those who have the gold, rule. And what I talked about today in terms of the media itself, I was talking about the inordinate amount of money that, particularly TV, radio media, takes away from the campaign process, and I 110 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 just think that we ought to force them to give free access.
And to say it another way, on the other end, then those who have to raise money have more complications that we have with all these rules to raise money than those who don't have it. So it's easier for those who have -- those who have, gets, as the saying goes, and those who don't have, have to work on like the devil. It's become such that everybody -- the joke around the hall is about some leaders in our City going out to lunch and everybody paying for their own meal, because people are afraid when they're breaking the law and nobody wants to go downtown. So I accept the fact that that happens in the beginning of discussions, but I note that we do question whether or not in the final analysis it becomes helpful or just another complication that we somehow have to live through and wait until this time has passed as well. 111 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
I agree with you. I do think that it's helpful now to at least have a dialogue simply because of what you just said. I think a lot more thought has to be put in before corrective measures are adopted, because you got to take a look based on what you said also as good intentions. But you have to look at the impact that those good intentions have across a broad spectrum of people. I would only say as far as back to the media and other races, I thought names that many of you don't even know, but Neil Oxman and the Steve Murphy and the David Axelrod and people of that nature have run campaigns. If you look at the campaign finance report, those guys took the bulk of the dollars that were spent for themselves, and each one of them are media consultants. I mean, whether you're successful or not, you had to first go get them, and that's where you're 112 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 spending your money.
Absolutely. I, for one, feel that having discussions are fine, but forcing a vote makes life much more difficult for many people who run for office. We make the adjustment because we have to. We're elected officials, but for posterity and others who may want to enter into the race, I've looked through some of the testimony, and people who come from the people, come from the neighborhoods, it's going to be a lot harder for them because they can't hire the Oxmans and they don't know what the rules are. It's become such that you're afraid you may violate a law and just not know it. So I'm for discussion, but I'm not for more legislation until the discussion leads itself to that point. Thank you, Madam President.
Councilwoman, I appreciate that. I think from where I come from, I believe grassroots politics, 113 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 door to door engaging people is the way to go. It's also the way to increase participation. It's also the way to garner the true will of the people, so to speak. However, we live in an age of expedience, and politics have expedience, and as a result of it, we're paying $4 a gallon for gas, you know. And somewhere it's got to stop.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
I think for our record, in all fairness, we need to report the fact that -- and I'm confident that you're aware, and if you already mentioned it, forgive me. But during election time when we go to the 114 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 electronic media or the written media, there's a different rate for political, and the media has bought in to trying to make available. And matter of fact, the Federal Communication Commission has all kinds of rules to make sure that there is time available on the major market, radio and TV stations. So I think it's important to make note that the media does try to be cooperative. Quite a rate that most businesses would love to get to advertise a 30 or a minute spot. So I just wanted that to get in the record there, that there is some consideration and help to make the airways and also the print media available to people that would like to seek office at a reduced rate.
I think -- not think. I know that you're absolutely right, that there are different, during the election cycle, there are different rates for candidates. However, for a 115 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 candidate who has lots of money and is unknown, they're going to pay the regular rate, because they're going to go on the air earlier. And the fact that we have the FCC and others who regulate the media, there's an acknowledgment in this country about the impact that that media has on the lives of everyone else, and as a result of that acknowledgment itself, I say that there's an additional obligation for it to provide better access to individuals who aspire to run for office.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions of Mr. Miller? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any questions, but I just want to publicly say, I'm so glad to see you looking so 116 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 good and robust.
There was some difficult time, but you look really terrific sitting there. So I just wanted to -- what's really important is your health, and I wanted to compliment you on it.
I thank all of you, quite frankly, for your prayers and your support of my family. It meant a great deal. The issue is, I'm blessed. I won't go much further than this. Some doctors gathered around, and I had a hoard of them, and said, You are a medical phenomenon. And they said, Bill, if people have nine lives, you've used eight of them, because you're very lucky. And I said without equivocation to them, I'm blessed. It wasn't luck. I know that because there's no other reason why I'm here.
Well, we're blessed having you here. 117 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Thank you. Any other questions or comments of our witness? (No response.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good afternoon, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to testify in favor of campaign finance reform, including expenditure limits and public financing, for Philadelphia municipal election campaigns. My name is Kevin Jon Williams. I work in Philadelphia and I'm a past Board member of Common Cause/PA, which is a citizens group working for clean and open government. We have 118 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 nearly 10,000 members statewide, with a thousand members residing in Philadelphia. We all know why we are here today, the current system for financing election campaigns in Philadelphia is broken, and public financing of elections is the most prominent and effective way to return ownership of elections and ultimately local government to the people. Wealthy special interests are paying for our election campaigns, and they expect, and often get, financial rewards in return that come at the public's expense. It's the pay-to-play system that we have endured for years, and it's a drain on City business, City life and the City's image. It has come to wider attention because of the recent federal corruption investigations and convictions. In 2003, this Council enacted an ordinance imposing campaign contribution limits that, according to a 119 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 recent front-page story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, quote, Now lies in tatters, widely ignored by most potential candidates for Mayor and subject to a growing tangle of court challenges, end quote. The lesson is that halfway measures do not work. We are not the first place to face the problem of special interest money, and we have the advantage of drawing on the experience of numerous state and municipal governments that have cleaned house. Arizona, Massachusetts, New York City, Los Angeles each enacted campaign finance reform legislation, including expenditure limits and public financing, in the wake of their own money scandals. Now I hope it is our turn. Public financing of election campaigns can take several forms. The most extensive, and hence the cleanest, is full public financing. Qualified candidates receive all the money needed to run a campaign. To qualify, a 120 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 candidate must raise a specific number of small, say $5, contributions from individual donors. This step ensures that there is a broad base of support for the candidate, and the dollar amount is low enough that nearly all voters can participate on an equal footing. Once qualified, the candidate receives a grant equal to the expenditure limit and then must stop all fundraising activity and may not use personal wealth. The most widely used form of public financing is partial public financing, usually through matching funds. As we heard, New York City provides $4 of public funds for every $1 of contributions of $250 or less from City residents. In return, the candidate accepts expenditure limits and other restrictions. By having a high matching rate, small contributions are amplified. By limiting the matching funds per donor, large contributions become less important. As the Brennan Center for 121 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Justice described, quote, The lower the matched amount of each contribution and the more generous the match ratio, then the greater incentive to collect relatively small contributions from more people, and the more the subsidy reflects popular support rather than access to wealthy donors. To aid media access, municipalities also have several non-cash options. As we heard, it is the federal government that owns and regulates the airwaves, and they could mandate free or further discounted air time. Municipalities, however, could offer vouchers for television ads, mandated free time on cable TV and a voter information guide, which offers each candidate a full free page of material. In Oregon, a voter information guide is mailed to each household and the voters use them, and we just heard about New York City's voter information guide.
These things really help. 122 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 As we already heard, public financing systems are not expensive. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani summed it up. Quote, The amount of money given to candidates by the City's public financing program is, in the budget of New York, infinitesimal. Put another way, the New York City program has cost City residents about 57 cents per year since its inception in 1988. In Los Angeles, the public financing program has cost less than five one-hundredths of a percent -- that's a percentage of a percentage -- of its budget from 1992 to 2001. Their zoo costs them about four times as much. In the end, public financing returns important dividends, saving taxpayer money and elevating the reputation of the municipality by eliminating pay-to-play and other types of undue influence that benefit large contributors but cost regular taxpayers. Public financing allows 123 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 increased diversity of candidates to participate in elections and encourage candidates to interact with low and moderate-income communities instead of focusing their time dialing for dollars with political fatcats, and it decreases or eliminates real or apparent conflicts of interest in government. Public financing is also used to encourage helpful behavior by candidates who accept it, most often campaign expenditure limits, including limits on the use of personal wealth, as well as participation in public debates. Despite its advantages, public financing has faced a number of issues. The most important is what mechanism to use to ensure adequate funding. Candidates are not going to sign on to a system that is underfunded. The Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles has concluded that, quote, The more discretion given to elected officials, the less secure the funding. Many 124 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 elected officials view public financing as a threat, because publicly financed challengers are more likely to mount competitive campaigns, end quote. One successful approach we heard about is New York City's. The Campaign Finance Board there has what's called draw-down power, meaning that it can finance the program directly from the City's general fund if the Mayor and Council fail to appropriate sufficient dollars. This draw-down provision has never been used because New York City has always adequately funded its program. Unsuccessful approaches include Suffolk County, New York, which we just heard a question about. It has consistently underfunded its program, rendering it essentially inoperable. The Massachusetts legislature refused to fund their public financing program, which had been enacted by referendum. In response, the state supreme court allowed state property to 125 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 be auctioned off and the proceeds given to qualifying candidates. Another issue is that public financing systems are voluntary, owing to court decisions. A wealthy candidate, or one with access to wealthy donors, can opt out. New York City uses a tier system to increase matching funds and expenditure limits for candidates who participate in public financing but face high-spending opponents. Over many years, Tucson, Arizona has developed a local political culture which the voters expect candidates to participate. Essentially all do, because it is rare for a non-participating candidate to be elected there. Independent expenditures and issue ads can be handled similarly. For Philadelphia, the issue of local authority has been raised because the state regulates elections. Common Cause agrees with the City Solicitor's opinion from the late 1990s that 126 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Philadelphia as a home rule municipality has the authority to regulate its political campaigns, and we understand that there's efforts in the state legislature to make this even -- remove any ambiguity there.
In summary, enacting public financing and expenditure limits in Philadelphia is feasible, realistic and necessary. We also strongly encourage you to take action to close the many loopholes in the City's contribution limits ordinance and institute meaningful penalties for non-compliance. These reforms would send a strong message to voters, public officials, businesses, contractors, tourists and others that Philadelphia is a clean place to do business. Some members of this City Council have been leaders in this area and we hope that you will continue your efforts and that we can assist you. Thank you for your attention.
Thank 127 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 you very much. Councilman Goode.
Good afternoon. In your testimony, you said you work in Philadelphia and you're a past Board member of Common Cause. Are you actually representing Common Cause today?
I'll ask you a couple of questions about statements you made. Were you trying to infer in your statements that if public financing had been part of the campaign finance law that was done in 2003, that there would not be lawsuits?
Were you 128 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 trying to infer that if public financing had been part of the campaign finance law done in 2003, there would not be lawsuits?
Well, you made a statement. Let me just read the statement, then. "In 2003, this Council enacted an ordinance imposing campaign contribution limits that, according to a front-page story last week in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 'Now lies in tatters, widely ignored by most potential candidates for Mayor and subject to a growing tangle of court challenges.' The lesson is that halfway measures don't work." What did you mean by that?
Well, so in order to have an effective system, it's best to do it --
So you're saying there would not have been lawsuits 129 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 if what?
Oh, I understand your question. Okay. So for a system to regulate public financing to be effective, there have to be attention to loopholes, enforcement provisions, supervision of it for it to be effective.
Let me ask the question a different way. Why do we have lawsuits?
There's no 16 guarantee that any system will not be subject to lawsuit. In fact, many of the public financing systems have been subject to lawsuits, but, fortunately, since those have already been through the courts, we have a pretty good idea of what the courts will allow and what they won't allow. But if you're asking me to guarantee that if Philadelphia enacts a public financing system, that it won't be 130 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 subject to lawsuits, I certainly cannot make that promise.
What I'm suggesting is that your statement, while it read well for you, it's just not accurate. We were going to have potential lawsuits regardless of what we did.
And, of course, in cases that have already been tested, it would pretty much tell us how we're going to turn out in those lawsuits. But you have lawsuits because people want to sue because people don't like the law. People want to interpret the law and make the law whatever they want the law to be.
Yes, sir. You're certainly correct. But instead of focusing on the lawsuits here, I would focus on the loopholes, the non-compliance, the absence of 131 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 enforcement provisions. That's actually what I was driving at in my statement. The piece about the lawsuits, that was from the newspaper.
And all of that is actually contained within the State Election Code. In other words, the same loopholes exist in the State Election Code.
So to be honest about it and direct about it, if the City tried to close the loopholes in the State Election Code, it would actually be preempted by those loopholes; is that not correct?
It's an issue of dispute. I mean, the issue is how much authority does -- the question you're asking, I believe, is how much authority does Philadelphia have to regulate its election campaigns.
Let me ask 132 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 it a different way. If the City tried to make laws that change the State Election Code and the loopholes that exist within the State Election Code, they would be preempted; is that correct?
Well, I think we can draw a distinction between state rules that apply to election procedures, like when an election is held and what sort of voting machines are used, versus issues that have to do with the electoral campaign. I think a good argument has been made that Philadelphia does have the authority right now to regulate its electoral campaigns. The whole issue may become moot if Philadelphia explicitly granted this authority through the state legislature. But you're certainly correct that when there's a direct conflict, the state would rule, yes.
That was leading to the fundamental question I want to ask you. Do you actually believe the New York City model is working, and, 133 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 if so, why do you believe it's working and how do you measure that?
That's a great question, how do you measure success in this. There are several ways to look at it. One is, certainly there are testimonials from candidates who freely state that they would not have won if they didn't have the matching funds. There's also the measure of how many people are contributing to campaigns; in other words, the breadth of participation at that level of campaign. That looks like it's working. Another measure which has been applied to several areas is what's the difference in expenditure between an incumbent and a challenger.
I think all of those things are reasonable benchmarks. I think another important --
If one 134 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 candidate wins and says they won because of public financing, then it's a success?
I'm saying, what is the benchmark? If you examine the New York City model and you say the New York City model is what we should be implementing in Philadelphia, how has New York been successful? What are you using as a benchmark for success? I'm asking for specifics, not anecdotally.
Participation of donors, which is broader, and the difference in budgets between incumbents and challengers, elimination of larger donors and it makes for a cleaner system.
So not increased voter participation, not 135 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 challengers actually winning elections, not any direct measurement in terms of how public financing has actually impacted a campaign in the context of changing political culture?
Well, in terms of challengers winning, you've mentioned that several times today, and what I think is important here is not necessarily the challengers win, it's that the challengers get their message out and that they have an equal footing. If the challenger loses from that, it's fair. I'm fine with that. What's a problem is if one side, number one, takes a lot of money from large contributors, who then exert undue influence down the road, and that's something that's --
How do you think challengers are spending the public funds?
How do you think the challengers are spending the 136 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 public funds?
Pretty much the way everybody does, through media, through grassroots organizations. I mean, all this is known too because --
I'm asking specifically, do you know how the challengers are spending their funds? You say to get their message out. How are they getting their message out through the public funds?
Again, all of this is available from the expenditures, which are a counting, which is available through New York, but it's the usual mix of media and grassroots stuff. I mean, it's nothing surprising.
I'm sort of asking for more specifics. Like, for instance, the challengers in City Council campaigns and mayoral campaigns, much in New York, how much are they spending and, more specifically, what are they spending it on? 137 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
If you'd like a specific breakdown, that can be gotten, because all this information is publicly available.
To be honest, I'm asking you as a witness whether you are familiar with specifically how the challengers are spending public money.
I don't have those figures in front of me, but I can get them to you.
Thank you very much. Are there further questions for Mr. Williams? (No response.)
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Stalberg. Good afternoon to both of you. Please 138 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 identify yourself to the record and begin.
Councilwoman Blackwell, thank you very much and thanks to the members of City Council. I'm Zach Stalberg. I'm the President of the Committee of 70, and I am one of the media villains, or I was for a very long time one of the media villains, that Witness Miller testified about a little while ago. I'm accompanied by Chris Sheridan, who is the Policy Director of the Committee of 70. We have submitted a statement to the stenographer and to the members of Council, and in the interest of time, I'd pass on a long reading of that and just ask you to take a look at it at some point. Let me just make a few key points. The Committee of 70 looks forward to working with the members of this Council and other groups and engaged citizens, and the one thing we do have is 139 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 lawyers for that purpose, to ensure that any campaign finance reforms that are adopted will provide the maximum public benefit for the minimum public cost. I hope that this Council is beginning to confront the national problem of campaigns that are too costly and too long. I would agree with many of the points that Bill Miller raised and that have been raised by Councilman Goode and others in question that the cost of advertising is a large part of this problem. And as somebody who spent a long time in the media, I would say that there's obviously a contradiction at times between the editorial point of view about the cost of campaigns and the amount of money that goes to support the business side of these news organizations from political campaigns. It seems like contradiction to the political candidates and often to the public. That said, it's going to be 140 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 very difficult to -- one of the witnesses used the term force access. At this stage of the game and given the First Amendment, it is going to be very difficult to force the media, which is clearly not a monolith anyway, to behave in a widely different way, and that's one of the things that encourages me to want to see this body take a look at public finance for campaigns. Two other small points and then one large one. Obviously any changes that you're talking about now will not affect the 2007 cycle. There is an opportunity, however, to affect the tone and the way money is spent a bit in that campaign and there's an opportunity to begin to build public support for a different kind of campaign financing system. The Committee of 70 does not have a preferred campaign finance model, but we are very supportive of the broad public debate initiated by Councilwoman 141 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Tasco and Council President Verna. Secondly -- and this really goes, I think, to some of the questions that were raised by Councilman Ramos and Councilman Goode -- the kind of system that we eventually adopt here will have to be very local in nature. We may be able to learn some things from New York and from other cities, but the whole concept of street money, consultants, payments to committeemen, all of that is peculiar in some ways to Philadelphia and we have to build a system that works here. The one larger point I'd just like to make is about inclusiveness. Public campaign financing systems can offer many benefits, but require a significant investment of public dollars to be effective. In addition to reducing opportunities for corruption, favoritism and the appearance of impropriety, the chief benefits of public financing relate to an increased competition, a more 142 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 inclusive political system and a more diverse roster of candidates to draw voters to the polls. Although campaign costs vary widely by office and district, the fundraising threshold for fielding a competitive campaign for municipal office, especially Mayor or City Council, has increased dramatically during the last two decades.
This continuing escalation of campaign costs threatens to reverse the progress we have made as a City toward a set of officeholders, which is truly representative of the City of Philadelphia. As a matter of constitutional law, we cannot restrict wealthy individuals from spending their own money. We cannot restrict campaign spending unless it's by participation in a voluntary program. What we might be able to do is level the playing field for all candidates by moving to a well-designed system of public campaign 143 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 financing, which will keep our working-class and middle-class neighborhoods well represented in public office. What we shouldn't do is just stand by as the hurdles get higher, since it's well within your power to build a campaign finance system which promotes inclusion and integrity. Thanks very much.
With regard to one statement, if I can just -- Mr. Sheridan, are you testifying?
You say you believe that public campaign financing causes a more inclusive political system. How do you see it being more inclusive or that there is any change at all between those who would be involved in politics and those who wouldn't?
The Committee of 70, like City Council, is at the very beginning of this process, and we have 144 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 yet to embrace really the idea of public financing or a specific system for that. That said, in our investigation of this so far, it would appear that it would draw down the cost of campaigns, with the exception of the issue that you care about so much, the individual who can afford to buy the office, in a sense. It would draw down the cost of campaigns, force a certain amount of public debate, because it's public money that's going into it, and continue to make sure that offices like these are within the grasp of average individuals. The more expensive the campaign gets, the less likely that is to happen.
Do you believe that as long as the wealthy, as you say, quote/unquote, as a matter of constitutional law, as long as the wealthy can spend their own money, that we will never have equity in this area?
I'll let Chris take a shot at that because Chris is a 145 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 lawyer.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Christopher Sheridan, Policy Director for the Committee of 70. Councilwoman, no one is ever going to be able to make up the advantage that Mr. Bloomberg has in New York, but in most cases, by changing the matching rate when someone is facing a wealthy self-funding candidate, a lot of the ground can be made up for the challenger who doesn't have millions of dollars of their own at his disposal. So there are mechanisms in most of these programs that if you're running against somebody who is independently wealthy, spending their money on the campaign, the rate of match for the contributions you get from 146 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 regular people goes up from maybe three to one to maybe five or six-to-one. So that's something that can be built into a well-designed system to eliminate most of that advantage.
Good afternoon. Mr. Stalberg, I'd like to ask for the official position of the Committee of 70 on two issues. The first, do you believe the 2003 law passed by City Council is preempted by State Election Code?
We're obviously very supportive of the 2003 law. We believe that -- as you know, we've gone to court to seek clarity and hopefully a clarification of this law by a court which makes it clear that this body had the ability to pass this law. So the bottom line is, no, we do not believe that that law is vulnerable. 147 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
Second question, I guess you know what it is going to be. The State Election Code defines "candidate" as any individual who seeks nomination or election to public office, other than a judge of elections on speculative elections, whether or not such individual is nominated or elected. The purpose: An individual shall be deemed to be seeking nomination or election to such office if he has, one, received a contribution or made an expenditure or has given his consent for any other person or committee to receive a contribution or make an expenditure for the purpose of influencing his nomination or election to such office, whether or not the individual has made known the specific office for which he or she will seek nomination or election at the time the contribution is received or the expenditure is made, or, two, take any action necessary under the laws of the Commonwealth to qualify himself for 148 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 nomination or election to such office. Do you believe we have any current candidates for Mayor in the City of Philadelphia?
I believe that there are several candidates for Mayor in the City of Philadelphia and that they have, under the 2003 law, both a moral and a literal obligation to adhere to those campaign points.
Under that definition in the State Election Code, can you tell me how many candidates you can name?
You believe that all six are candidates for Mayor currently?
Do you believe that there are more than six candidates for Mayor? 149 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
I believe that there may be more people interested in the job, but --
-- I think that the six that the Committee of 70 named in its lawsuit are the six that would clearly adhere -- that would clearly fit this definition.
What distinguishes those six people from anyone else who may be interested in running for Mayor in terms of whether they are a candidate or not a candidate?
Chris is an election lawyer, so let me ask him to take a shot at that.
I think that when you look at the totality of the circumstances, you have a scenario where people are actively campaigning, actively raising money, and in some cases, there may be some ambiguity as to which office 150 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 they're ultimately going to seek, one they have, the City office, or some other office, but to the extent that they have an intent to run for City office, they can follow the limits set forth in the bill that you authored in 2003 by having a municipal account dedicated to their City office. They can always set up an additional account or multiple other accounts in the event they're going to actually seek another opportunity.
Under the ordinance, they cannot. Under the ordinance, they can only have one bank account and one committee.
Right, but if they're running for reelection for another office or if they were considering a run for Mayor or Governor, for instance, they could establish an additional state account for those 151 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 purposes and fully comply with the Philadelphia law by following the limits with regard to their City account.
Actually, my question was, what distinguishes anyone else who is interested in running for Mayor from the six that are named in the lawsuit? And what makes those six candidates and anyone else who is interested in becoming Mayor and thinking about becoming Mayor take any actions they may or may not be taking to become Mayor, what makes them not a candidate in those six candidates?
Well, the basis for the suit was an assessment of the annual reports filed for 2005. So individuals who are raising money in 2005 who are viewed as mayoral candidates by basically everyone -- there may be others that --
How are they viewed as mayoral candidates by everyone? I don't understand that comment. I mean, 152 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 they've been cited in the media as being potential candidates, but what actually makes them a candidate? Am I a candidate for Mayor?
Because there's been no public statement on your part to indicate that you're holding yourself available for that office or you're actively seeking it.
Which among these six made a public statement that they were running for Mayor?
I think that all six candidates have indicated a willingness to serve as Mayor of Philadelphia, which is --
In all due respect, Councilman, I think you may be 153 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 getting into territory --
So if you want to go deeply on this topic, I guess we will have to have the attorney handling our suit to appear to respond to your questions. But, clearly, in the public minds, certain people have indicated more strongly an interest in running for the office. If you want to say today that you're running, we can add you to the suit as well.
But that's exactly my point. My point is, maybe I am planning on running and maybe, as Bill 20 Miller noted, media profiling image as it is constructed actually benefits some candidates more than others. You have actually identified six candidates for Mayor, who may or may not be candidates, that may not be the total field. There 154 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 may be candidates for Mayor, for all we know.
Councilman, in 5 the absence of a clear definition of 6 "candidate" in the ordinance itself or 7 the amendments -- 8
Right. But in 11 the absence of a definition in that 12 ordinance, we're left with a choice of 13 interpretations between Charter -- 14
We both 15 agree that we should use the State 16 Election Code, and I asked the question 17 based upon the State Election Code, how 18 many candidates for Mayor do we have in 19 the City of Philadelphia right now. 20
I would say six that we know of pursuant to the State Election Code.
How do we know that you have six candidates? How do we know we have six candidates? 155 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070
I think that it's one of those things that we have to look at the totality of the circumstances and also the intent of your bill, which was past in '03 and was effective on January 1, 2004. Clearly, there was an intent to regulate fundraising conduct of mayoral candidates, mayoral contenders prior to declaration or resigning to run --
I don't disagree with the lawsuit. I don't disagree with the purpose of the lawsuit. That's not where I'm going. Where I'm going with this is actually trying to get down to what is the definition of "candidate." I believe that it's defined by the State Election Code and that you can't change what is in the State Election Code. If we wanted to, we couldn't change what's in the State Election Code. We could not define it differently that it is defined in the State Election Code. If we wanted to 156 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 locally define it, we'd be preempted by the State Election Code. So my question really is, how do you define how many candidates you have for Mayor based upon the State Election Code? And my only point is, not that the lawsuit is wrong, not that the lawsuit won't help, but you clearly could have one candidate for Mayor, ten candidates for Mayor, candidates for 12 Mayor. I'm not sure you have six, and 13 that's my only point. 14
Councilman, 15 those individuals are representative of 16 individuals believed to be seeking 17 office. I mean, what we have to point 18 out, too, about the relief being sought, 19 we're seeking a declaratory judgment that 20 would bind all municipal candidates, not just those six individuals, so that every candidate for election in 2007 would be playing by exactly the same rules. You're always going to have difficulty drawing lines as far as who is a 157 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 candidate and who isn't under the law, given some of these ambiguities, but what we're trying to do with the system we have is, we're trying to get the best resolution possible for Philadelphia.
I understand, but let me help you along in that. I'm not sure about what Tom Knox has in the form of a committee or not. I may be the only municipal candidate at this point for 2007, because I actually dissolved a committee, formed a new committee and authorized a committee, and did it after the law took effect. If someone had a committee for City Controller or for Council or for some other office, I don't think we can say that if that person is raising money because they're thinking about running for Mayor or wish to become Mayor, that they are more of a candidate than someone else who may be thinking about it. I understand what you're trying to achieve, but I think by defining those 158 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 six candidates as candidates, without clear reasons as to why, it muddies the whole election process as much as it's muddied by any of the other issues. And that's the only point, is that you can -- I understand you have to file suit against someone and you want to be fair in filing a suit, but by declaring that there are six candidates for Mayor right now does not clean up the election process.
Well, I think in the long term, that's really not for us to decide. That's why we've asked the court to try to decide that.
And that's -- but I believe we share much of the same point of view on all this.
Thank you, Councilman Goode. 159 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Stalberg, Mr. Sheridan, I will not be venturing into that oh-so-dangerous territory where my colleague last left us.
Thank you. Thank you. A couple of quick questions, though. First, could you as an independent organization take a look at two of the more prominent models around, of course, that people talk about. And I've been in and out of the hearing, but I think we had some people from either New York and Los Angeles have public finance models. I think that as a part of what we're trying to get done here, public financing of campaigns, is more than something we should explore and eventually should come into place, but 160 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 the issue of what kind of number are we looking at. And it may be difficult to recapture some of this data. I know Councilwoman Tasco started with her statement with regard to the 2003 election --
I'm glad you said that, because I thought the 11 was a little high on 2003 in an incumbent 12 race. 13 But if we could look at either 14 the New York model or the Los Angeles 15 model in the context of a highly 16 contested Mayor's race, City Council 17 races and then, of course, all the other 18 offices where at least in the mayoral 19 context there is no incumbent, which 20 always gets more candidates in the race, 21 and try to calculate -- forget about 22 inflation. Just try to calculate if you 23 took the New York or LA system and 24 applied it to 1999, the Mayor's race, 25 Council races, someone should be able to 161 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 come up with what those numbers would look like. I mean, I think data may be a problem. I don't know how long those records are kept, but you know what everyone raised. Therefore, you could apply the three-to-one, four-to-one, whatever the formula is, and then figure out what would be the cost, what would be the estimated cost, of trying to do public financing, assuming '07 may look like '99. So that's the one. The second is, obviously from your previous background, you're a distinguished newspaper person, journalist. There is, unnamed, another distinguished journalist here that has graced us with his presence in the room. And so the question is, what can the news media do in what's always characterized as the fourth largest, possibly most expensive media market in the country, television, radio, print? What kinds of things should the news media be doing to play an appropriate role in helping to 162 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 lower the cost of elections, which is why people raise, to some extent, what they raise in the first place, it's driven by that, and then give to the kind of media conglomerate, which then often writes articles criticizing people for doing what they're doing? And, secondly, I think more importantly, the public information benefit of the kind of work that the media could do in either sharing information, providing more opportunities through any of those different media outlets, and are there any examples of small, medium, large cities where the news media has played a significant role in the electoral process from an information standpoint and lowering the cost?
Well, there is definitely a great deal more that the local media could do to give exposure to candidates and their positions, especially when you get below the level 163 4/26/06 - WHOLE - RES. 060070 of the Mayor's race, which tends to get a good bit of attention. I confess that I see this differently now that I'm on the outside than I did when I was running the newspaper, and I would do things differently if I had seen it as clearly. My view is that both print and electronic media have a greater responsibility than we're currently seeing them fulfill in terms of providing coverage, especially for Council races and judicial races and so forth --