Aye. The ayes are 14, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for No. 030716. THE
An ordinance approving a new plan estimated cost and proposed method of charges of the City Avenue Special Services District to portions of the City Avenue area of the City of Philadelphia and Township of Lower Merion.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. 14, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, this bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 030719. THE
An ordinance amending Section 14-312 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial District Rules and Exceptions for All Districts," adding the area of Lancaster Avenue, both sides.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. The ayes are 14, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 030562. It's the top of . Councilman O'Neill, on the bottom of , it is my understanding you want Bill No. 030660 to be held?
The Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 030562. THE
An ordinance amending Title 20 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by adding a new chapter entitled "Campaign Contributions and Expenditures," under certain terms and conditions.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. please call the roll. THE
Miller, how are you voting? Councilwoman, it's Bill No. 030562, the top of .
There's a little confusion on the floor, Madam President.
I understand there is some confusion. We are considering Bill No. 030562, which is on the top of . The title has been read. Anyone who has cast a vote, if they want to change it, please say so now.
We were just confused, Madam President because we were told in the Caucus is the bill was being held.
Madam President, can we just restart the roll call, please?
Well, I think Councilman O'Neill has a question.
I just have a question for the sponsor. Councilman Goode, I know that this puts restrictions, different kinds, on how much we can receive, how much we spend, but my question is -- and this really applies to both bills that I think are being called day. Does it have any impact whatsoever on what political action committees that aren't ours, City-elected officials, can spend on behalf of or against us?
Now that everybody knows where we are, I would suggest that the Chief Clerk start the roll call again please. THE
Aye. The ayes are 10, the nays are 4. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes.
When we were on caucus, we were requested to hold Bill No. 030710. The sponsor is now asking that we consider it. Therefore, I would ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 030710. THE
An ordinance amending Chapter 2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Standards of Conduct and Ethics," to limit the receipt of contributions by elected City officers or candidates for or businesses who are applicants for or recipients of City contracts or financial assistance if they have made political contributions within City time frames to elected City officers or candidates for City offices, and prohibiting any individuals or businesses from receiving City contracts or financial assistance if they had made contributions to elected City officers or candidates for City offices, all under certain terms and conditions.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President. Thank you. I just want to ask Councilman Kenney the same question I asked Councilman Goode on the previous bill. Does this bill have any impact on what can be spent against the City candidate or on behalf of a City candidate by a political action not controlled by that candidate?
It does limit the ability of any candidate or elected officer in Philadelphia from accepting a certain amount of money, but it does not limit the ability of an outside pack to spend money in an election cycle. The individual Councilmember or Mayor would not be able to accept the contribution above a thousand. But the other thing that it does do is it requires the disclosure of by individuals who have contributed to packs who are going after or have City business -- it requires them to disclose that information at the time they are proceeding to be considered for any contract, non-bid contract. So that must be disclosed. If, in fact, there his's ABC Pack that collects money from various individuals, that individual makes a contribution to that pack, that must be disclosed that that pack had accepted that contribution and what the amount was.
But if you're running for office in Philadelphia, as each of this year, and your opponent has a friend or an ally who controls a pack, that person and that pack can spend whatever they want against you; and if you don't have a similar friendly pack, you're limited by the amount in this Committee.
Certainly, packs can buy air time or do whatever they do.
If it is something that's directly related to that elected official candidate, I think that it would be exposed by the media and would be ripe for criticism by your opponent, that if you were trying to do an end run that way. But you are correct.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. In response to Councilman O'Neill's question, I'd like to respond in a truth of the matter is the bill we just passed in Council has voluntary spending limits because that's what's Constitutional. The question that Councilman O'Neill is actually asking is whether people can join together under their right to freely assemble to exercise whatever political wishes they want. The truth of the matter is, of course these bills allow people to do that because it's only Constitutional to allow people to do that.
And if the State limited those expenditures, that would be Constitutional, correct?
It's a First Amendment right of people to have freedom of assembly which means that you cannot limit spending on behalf of candidates or packs.
Thank you, Madam President. While I understand and I respect questions, I think they're legitimate questions both to myself and to Councilmember Goode upon consideration of these bills. I do think it's important that this Council at this time pass both bills. We really truly need to send a message even if the State reluctant do anything about campaign finance reform or pay to play legislation. Even if that is the case, which I believe it is, I think this City needs to take a step forward on this issue. I recognize the pitfalls that other packs may create as a result of this, but if we as a group, as a body and as a government agree that we need to do something about this in a very public way to change the way in which we conduct business or the way it's perceived we conduct business -- I think a lot of times what is perceived is not accurate. But as long as the public perceives it, I think that the belief is there that it is the case. So I really do believe -- and to tell you the truth, the other group of people that would be very much supportive of this, I think, are the contributors. I think that in many, many ways -- and we all have our friends and our supporters. As time goes on, the campaigns get more and more expensive, and those people are beleaguered. We beat them up for money all the time. And I think if we kind of just ratchet down the amount of money out of the cycle, out of the circle of business, the way which it's been done in the past -- not the way it's been done in the past, but the way we'd like to see it in the future, I do think it sends a first-step message. Now, as time goes on and things need to be adjusted or things are shown not to be fair or to be problematic, we've always had opportunities to change legislation to adjust it. But I think at this time in our City's history at this particular place, I think it's time for us to send a message both for the passage of this bill and hopefully -- the passage of Councilman Goode's bill and hopefully with the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the sponsor's vigor on this bill, but I have to agree, I think it was with Councilman Clarke, or maybe it was Councilman O'Neill, that this has to be done at the State level. This pay for play, it's the new buzz word created by the editorial board of the Inquirer. And if you notice today that they told us to have some real leadership here. Well, if they really wanted leadership, what they would do is write an editorial and have it done at the national level, then at the state level, then it would be fair. What Councilman O'Neill is trying to do, we just want a fair game. I mean, we could dissect what we all do, what we do in our private lives, what other businesses we have on the side, whose wives have what jobs, and it could take forever. But let's be fair about this. This isn't a shot at the sponsor If we're going to do this, it has to be done at the state level. And all them packs, especially the packs that spent 3 to $400,000 to feed people in the Primary, that should be involve in this. But we know that the people that have been doing this for so long -- they know who they are, we don't have to say any names -- they'll just find another way around this. So until the television stations get involved, the paid television stations, and offer candidates free time, that's where all the money goes. If you're running for Mayor, you've got to spend a couple million dollars to be on TV. Thank God Jersey had elections so we didn't have to watch the two candidates here beat each other up anymore for a couple more weeks. So I'll be voting against this bill, but I do admire the Councilman's vigor in trying to do this. Maybe we can get together with some leadership from the State House and the State Senate and maybe the United States Congress and do this once and for all where it affects the City and the State. you, Council President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make sure that I was completely understanding this particular bill as distinguished from Councilman Goode's bill that we just passed. This particular bill, Councilman Kenney, is primarily dealing with individuals making contributions who do business with the City; is that correct?
This is directed at basically non-bided contracts for professional services and other types of contracts that do not go through the normal business process. This is not somebody who wants to sell staplers or computers to the City where it's, you know, four or five companies bid and the lowest responsible bid is chosen. This has to do with basically no-bid contracts and also has to do with government gives to businesses who want to develop. For example, any TIF that's over $50,000, any other type of economic or tax incentive in the excess of $50,000. All I'm saying and all the bill is saying is that if you are seeking that kind of help from the government or you are seeking that kind of contract over $10,000 from the government, you will not give me or you or any Mayor more than a thousand dollars in an election. And going back to Councilman Mariano's point, I agree that it would be better suited for all of us if the State were to do campaign finance reform and this type pay to play legislation. They're not going to do it. And they're not going to do it in the foreseeable future. The City of Chicago, which is a storied political history as any other city, including us, has done this and it's been successful. And from what we've been able to see, it has really changed the attitude of people who live in the City of Chicago. I respect, but is, with all due respect, an insider's argument, it's an argument that we make amongst ourselves worrying about re-election as we should. It's an argument for elected officials and politicians and people who are involve in campaigns. I think this bill is necessary because we need to send a message to the outside, the people who are living in this City, working in this City, paying taxes every day, going to work and thinking that they can't get a fair shot in accessing business. The other problem that we face, and we have no way of quantifying it, is how many companies and developers and people won't even come here to try to develop because of the environment they believe or perceive exist in this City. And again, I think a lot of this is perception. In fairness to this Administration, they did not create this system. And the Mayor is right that it was there when he got there and he had to deal with it and play rules, and he's done so. But the point is, how many people from California or from Michigan or from Florida when they think about developing in this City call people up and say, "How's the environment there?" And they say, "It's terrible. I can't believe what you've got to do, not only from a regulatory standpoint and a tax standpoint, but the political climate is terrible." And they just move on to another city or another state. I don't even know how we quantity that because we don't know who's decided not to come here. So I think this is a message that we need to send to the populace at-large, to the citizenry at-large. And if we need to adjust down the road, if we need to fix things down the road as a result of the passage of this legislation and its implementation, then we'll come back and do that. Again, I think this is the time and this is the place and I hope you agree with me. And Councilman Nutter, I'm sorry, that was a long answer to your question. Do anymore?
That's okay Councilman. It was comprehensive. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this particular piece of legislation concerns me for a number of reasons. And one of the reasons, I'll have to it ask the sponsor because I'm not clear on it. But one, it suggest by nature of its title that somehow -- and I understand the sponsor is not necessarily targeting the bill at me, but the nature of it suggests somehow that an individual -- and I'll speak about myself, somehow will not have enough discipline to make decisions on legislation and the selection process as it relates to developers in the district without considering any financial contribution. I think, frankly speaking, that I have enough discipline to any money in direct correlation to the support of a particular developer or any consideration of legislation. I can count on probably everybody's hands in this Council the number of times that I send a check back. And I agree with you, Councilman, that a lot of people probably think that's the way that it is done. But as an elected officials, have enough discipline to send that check back when I'm considering legislation or in the midst of a development. So I'm concerned that I would be limited terms of my ability to raise money because the perception that I somehow can't discipline myself. The other issue with respect to -it was brought up earlier -- outside packs. I happen to be a Councilperson that has no outside packs or no outside support. And I know some people think that I get a lot of favors from the second floor, but that tends to be centered more around constituent service issues and things of that nature. But I have no way of raising money. I do not have a non-profit corporation that affords me an to community groups on a substantive basis. As a matter of fact, I find myself more often than not making a contribution to the non-profit corporations in my district as I represent in one portion of my district a very needy community. Throughout the year I have to make contributions to corporations for purposes of purchasing drill team equipment, for purposes of getting tickets to support boy scouts. I mean, I don't have a pack. I don't have a non-profit corporation. And I find myself having to raise money. I had to sponsor a job fair that cost me a substantial amount of my campaign coffers, but I'm okay with that because I think that's what that money is there to do, to support the individuals within my district. And I understand technically it is influence an election. And I think, frankly speaking, we all know that when you do good things for people in your district, you do in fact influence the election because that word quickly gets around that particular elected official supported that individual or So I think that will also put a considerable limit on my ability to do that. One other issue, as was referenced earlier, with respect to outside packs and the hope that somehow a particular editorial board or a newspaper would scrutinize those outside packs, as a person that was never endorsed -although this time I ran un-opposed, I still for some reason couldn't receive the endorsement of either major newspapers. I, frankly speaking, don't feel very comfortable in the fact that I would have to depend on a newspaper to try to do the level of scrutiny on the outside pack's contribution. And lastly, I would like to ask a technical question on the bill itself. With respect to other elected officials, other than Councilmembers or mayoral candidates or other municipal elected officials, it's my understanding both on the state level and on the congressional level, those individuals can run for seats -- I'm obviously not suggesting that a Congress person is going to give up a run for a Council seat.
But I know in many instances State Representatives and every now and then a State Senator has expressed an interest in running for a Council seat. My question is, if that money that's in their coffers and their ability to raise money prior to the election cycle can somehow be utilized for purposes of getting elected to a Council seat?
I appreciate the Councilmember's questions, and a lot of them are directed, I think, at Councilman Goode's bill which we've just passed. In no way does this bill intend to question the integrity of any elected official or candidate for office. And I agree with you, that you have the discipline that's necessary. I think all of us have the discipline that's necessary to know when we're walking that edge. The problem, however, is the perception of the general population, I believe, is that this is how we do business. And I think that if that is the perception, I think that is what's unhealthy. I don't question's anyone in the ability to discipline themselves. But I believe the population as a whole believes that, and I think we need to do something to change that, which I also think would help the political environment in general. Secondly, there is not limit of what you can take from any individual as far as a pack or as far as -- under my bill -- as far as an individual who wants to help you. The only prohibition after that is that individual cannot seek a City contract or seek to get help, either tax help or other types of financial help from the City. So when you make a decision to give somebody 5,000, 10,000, 50,000, you then acknowledge the fact or understand the fact that you are now prohibited from seeking that kind of help. So there's no limit -- if you have a wealthy benefactor, someone who believes in you, that person can give you a million dollars to get re-elected. However, that person is then precluded from any type of no-bid City contract or any type of City financial other one was people that were running for office?
Actually, I was asking you about the last one. Other elected officials, particularly State Reps.
The last one, my bill doesn't affect that at all. My bill deals with ethics in contracting. Councilman Goode's deals with campaign finance reform which limits those numbers. So even though my bill and Councilman Goode's bill are connected from a general standpoint in issue, they amend two separate.
You kind of connected them. I guess I shouldn't ask you, per se.
The question on -- now, since the bill's already been passed, the question on other elected officials who don't have to resign to run for office running against us, I think, is an issue for the campaign finance issue on campaign law. This is contracting. This has do with the another elected official running against us.
Councilman Clarke, I'm sorry. You're going to have to speak into the microphone.
I'm sorry. Councilman Kenney, you're correct, I shouldn't have asked you specifically that question. My question was general, and I guess lends more to Councilman Goode's bill. What happens when an individual is a State Representative has a sense that they're going to run against me next year, they decide they're going raise a lot of money, they start this process. Whereas, we're limited within the guidelines of this legislation to raise money, but this person can raise $500,000 in that year and gear their race towards my particular seat with no limits whatsoever because we don't have state-wide campaign finance reform.
I don't know the question. Again, let the record be clear that it does not apply to my bill.
Councilman Clarke, are you asking Councilman Goode?
You're questioning me about a bill that already passed?
I don't view the two bills as being totally connected. I do support both bills, but I'm not going to answer a question about a bill that already passed.
That's fine. I'll bring it up as an informational point as it relates to this discussion.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.