COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 5, 2006, 10:30 a.m. - - - Resolution No. 060070 - Authorizing the Committee of the Whole to hold hearings regarding campaign finance reform and public financing of municipal elections. Councilmembers Present: Anna C. Verna, Chair Blondell Reynolds Brown Darrell Clarke Frank DiCicco W. Wilson Goode, Jr. James F. Kenney Joan Krajewski Donna Reed Miller Michael A. Nutter Frank Rizzo Marian B. Tasco V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 - - - 2 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 WITNESS State Representative Dwight Evans......... Arizona State Representative.............. 37 Ann Kirkpatrick (appearing via telephone) Larry Ceissler, Ceissler Jubelierer....... 49 Christopher Sheridan, Committee of 70..... 93 3 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
Good morning, everyone. May I have your attention, please. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Resolution No. 060070. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the resolution.
A resolution 10 authorizing the Committee of the Whole to hold hearings regarding campaign finance reform and public financing of municipal elections.
Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Dwight, good morning. STATE REP. EVANS: Good morning.
Good morning. Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you very much, Madame President. Good morning. 4 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 State Representative Dwight Evans. I represent the 203rd Legislative District. I'd like to say good morning to Council President Anna Verna, City Councilmembers, and our distinguished guests. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear in support of public financing of municipal elections in Philadelphia. As most you know that our campaign finance reform system, in my view, is broken, and it needs to change. This is not something for me. I've stated back in February of 1999 at the Candidates Forum that this pay-to-play culture of local politics we have is a barrier to The City's growth and development for the future. It is in, my opinion, why we need to change the way things operate. There are some that say Philadelphia is a city run by, some people say, 250 -- but I say 50 people. 5 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 And that the perception of the average Philadelphia resident would be that black or white, in South Philly, the Northeast, Germantown, and West Philly is that the City is run for and by people with money and power -- but not for the people in the row homes. That sense of alienation of being overlooked is the real legacy of pay-to-play politics. Because of my commitment to reforming local funding for local campaigns, I believe we need to be thoughtful, clear, and precise in our action. As a 20-year veterans of the legislative process, I know that without careful crafting, the best-intentioned efforts will go astray. We will create unintentional consequences and result in confusion and dismay. Worst of all, poorly crafted legislation creates litigation, which, while benefitting many lawyers, force our courts into crafting legislation by 6 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 decisions rather than by debate. We are currently seeing that process unfold right here in the City of Philadelphia. That is why, Madam President, I've introduced House Bill 2420 in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Currently, that legislation is before the House of Urban Affairs Committee. Representative John Taylor, from the City of Philadelphia, is the chairman of that particular committee. He has conducted public hearings already in the City of Philadelphia. What this would do, Madam Chairperson, is allow the City of Philadelphia to have the necessary authority to design the system that they see best. However, in my view, the system that I think is best is a public financing system. New York, Los Angeles, and Miami all have some variations of this concept. We can learn from these cities that work and what doesn't, and we 7 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 can decide what's best for Philadelphia. , AFSCME Council 47, Local 332, the Hispanic Bar Association, the African-American Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Common League, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and United Food Commercial Workers, they all stood that particular day. I believe that effective and comprehensive legislation can be written which will change our political culture by reducing the corrupting influence of special-interests money and help to 8 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 restore public trust to their government. But we must take action now. We can no longer wait while public cynicism forces our good people from participating in their government. We can no longer tolerate a system which rewards the wealthy few at the expense of the hard-working men and women. The time to start the debate is now. House Bill 2420 and these conversations are the first step in this effort, and I'm truly grateful for your leadership. I specifically want to thank you, Madam President, along with my Councilperson, Marian Tasco, for showing the leadership of us working together.
I have spoken to Chairman John Taylor and I've spoken to the Speaker of the House, Speaker Perzel, and have indicated to him that we -- this should be city and state, and it should be bipartisan. This is long overdue and, in my 9 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 view, the only thing we're trying to do is, we're not trying to dictate to the City of Philadelphia; the only thing we're trying to do is put enabling legislation. From the people I see that you have on the panel, Madam President, you will have a very fruitful discussion. I see that you have Larry Ceissler and Neill Oxman and others, who can give you some sense of the cost of campaigns today. And, in my view, it's more the reason why it's high time that we begin to make this change. But I think a message sent from this City Council would be a positive message to Harrisburg about us working together. Again, I'd like to thank you. And if there's any questions, I'd be more than glad to entertain your questions.
You'r e welcome. This is going to be somewhat, I think, confusing. 10 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Assuming a candidate qualifies for matching public funds, are there any suggestions and rationale as to how much matching funds should be made available? STATE REP. EVANS: Well, I think it -- I mean, I think there's a number of ways you could measure that. You could measure that by a number of signatures a person receives, the amount of effort that they put in. I mean, you can design what is the best system here for the City of Philadelphia. I don't necessarily personally have a particular opinion in terms of how that is decided. But I think the purpose of these hearings should be for that purpose of trying to explore which way to go. The other question you have to do is, you have to make a question about a decision around a choice in terms of dollars invested. You know, the president of the United States talks about democracy in Iraq, in Afghanistan. 11 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 You know, we also need to talk about it right here in Philadelphia in terms of competition and having people be involved in the process. I would say to you that it's better for the city when you have competition, when you have people involved. I believe that all of us who are elected officials, all the Councilpeople and myself, my sense is when that you do a good job, people will reward you and reelect you so. I don't think we should have fear, in my view, of having a process that is open, that is transparent, and that people would be willing to be involved in it. That decision you asked about what percentage of the match will come down to a couple things. It depends upon the dollars that the City of Philadelphia is willing to invest first; and, secondly, you can set the other criteria that you think is necessary. 12 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 But the key thing is trying to open up the process and then make sure other people are involved in it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Good morning. Thank you for coming and testifying. STATE REP. EVANS: Good morning.
You and I have had this discussion about public financing. I'm pleased with the President and the other members of Council to begin the discussion about it because during our last hearing, the first hearing we had, the young lady who was the administrator, I believe, the counsel to the committee in New York which oversees public financing of campaigns, talked about the cost. And I think the cost to them is about 13 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 $42 million a year. Now, they have a billions-of- dollars budget -- I don't remember how many billions, but -- and she said it was a very small amount. So as we look through this, at this process, I think we need to make clear to the public that the dollars would come from the City Operating Fund, and would they be willing to give up services to fund politicians in their efforts to get elected. So I do think this -- the reason we wanted to have this discussion was to make sure that we fully discussed it and fully disclosed not only to this Council but going out into the community. Talking to other community organizations and community groups, so that they will understand clearly what that would mean, public financing means, and how it would work. Because just now, as we work on our budget for next week, we are 14 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 struggling whether we pay for rec centers and health centers and -- or do we pay for something else because of the lack of flow of funds to the budget. So I'm -- we wanted to have this discussion, and I appreciate your input. But, you know, there are a number of ways we can handle this, and I wanted to be clear that this is a discussion. And if we get to drafting a legislation, it will be after thorough discussion with the public so that they will understand what the issue is, because, I mean, it is a budget issue, and Philadelphia's budget is very limited. STATE REP. EVANS: Can I respond? I would say that it's good to have these kinds of public discussions -- obviously not just here in City Council chamber, but with the people of the City of Philadelphia because, obviously, it costs us a lot when indictments and convictions just on the image of the City 15 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 in terms of dollars that will not be invested in the City in business expansion, and in a sense the wrong tone and image regarding the City. It is in my opinion -- and I want to be very clear. This is not just Philadelphia. I will be the first one to say to you that Harrisburg itself has not been pristine in terms of its image around government. So I don't want anybody to think that I think this is just about the City of Philadelphia. I can tell you about Harrisburg and I can tell you about other places around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is just a fundamental question of the day. C. That Congressman Duke Cunningham who's from California and his particular problem. So this is not just Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Washington 16 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. C. But I think it's healthy to have discussions at times about systems that were created in a different time. And we are in a different age today, and we made need to review where we are today. So I don't want anybody to think that I think that this is just a issue that is only Philadelphia. It is not Philadelphia; it is others places. And I want to make that very clear 'cause I think sometimes, which has been unfair, that people have a way of just painting one particular place. I don't believe that. What I believe is that we should look at the way we operate governance. It is all very important. Financing is very important in terms of elections. And I've been through -- and I ran for governor, I ran for mayor, and I ran for lieutenant governor. 17 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 If you've been through this process, you know for yourself that it's a tough process, it's a very difficult process the way it is conducted.
And I believe -- and I believe not that public finance magically will solve every single problem, but I do believe it could been send an open message to the people of the City of Philadelphia by having an open, clean, transparent government. And I think that -- that's why I compliment you, Madam Chairperson, as well as Councilwoman Marion Tasco for at least let's have this discussion. And if the majority of the Councilpeople, along with the people of the City of Philadelphia, choose that they don't think this is where they want to go, then at least we had this discussion. And I think we should have this -- I think it's healthier when you have discussions and you take things to 18 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 people, and you at least show that we are attempting to fix a problem. So, Councilwoman Tasco, I do understand about the decisions around service. You know, being Chairman of the House of Probation Committee for years 8 and being on that committee since 1982, I 9 think I know a little bit about finances 10 and budget. 11 And my general sense is, like 12 anything we have, you got to make a 13 choice. And I do believe probably 14 nothing is more important than having 15 clean, open elections. 16
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Representative. STATE REP. EVANS: Good morning, Councilman.
How does the State Election Code address campaign contribution limits? 19 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 STATE REP. EVANS: Could you repeat your question again, please.
How does the State Election Code address campaign contribution limits? STATE REP. EVANS: It doesn't. You know, basically, at the state level, it basically -- it's unlimited to what you can contribute.
And so the State Election Code does not address campaign contribution limits, and it's fair to say that the State Election Code is silent on the issue of campaign contribution limits. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.
How does the local law conflict with the State Election Code's silence? STATE REP. EVANS: Just because an issue is silent, in my view, Councilman, it does not mean that a local government has the authority to fill that vacuum. 20 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
I didn't ask whether it conflicted; I asked whether -- how it -- I didn't ask whether we have a right to do it, which could be debatable; I asked: How does it conflict? Does the setting of campaign contribution limits on a local level any way undo any part of the State Election Code? Is there anything that's changed in the State Election Code by setting local law over campaign contribution limits? STATE REP. EVANS: That's -- that's an issue that right now is being more than likely debated in courts, where I don't think that that's where it should be debated. It should be crafted by the legislative body.
My question is "are you aware of anything in the State Election Code that is hurt by setting local campaign contribution limits? STATE REP. EVANS: The answer 21 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 would be no to that question.
The State Election Code generally deals with how campaigns are operated, how accounting is done, those type of things. It does not deal at all with campaign finance, except for bookkeeping; is that correct? STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.
Well, in your years as a state legislator, can 12 you tell me why the State House and the 13 State Senate have been silent on campaign 14 contribution limits? 15 STATE REP. EVANS: Um, I think 16 that, um ... 17 As usual, our process is no 18 more different than your process here. I 19 think that when you have incidents that 20 occur, such as the indictments I 21 mentioned earlier, you generally have 22 people who will suddenly run and then 23 figure out how we can fix this problem. 24 I said back in 1994, when I was 25 running for governor, that we needed 22 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 campaign finance reform. Now, have we had bills that have come up in the House that we have voted for? There's bills that I have voted for in the House that have dealt with campaign limits in the House of Representatives; they just never passed the House nor the Senate.
How would you change the local law, except for adding public financing to it? STATE REP. EVANS: Well, I don't really -- I don't really -- I -- that decision would be up to this local body and the Mayor. The only thing we do is give you enabling legislation to allow you to have the ability to deal with the Election Code so that if it is challenged, at least you have the State giving you that necessary authority.
But there are no specific changes you might make to the local law other than adding public 23 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 financing to it? STATE REP. EVANS: No. Public financing, if you read House Bill 2420, the only thing we say is that we give you the enabling authority to decide how you want to design the system. And the Councilpeople here would decide if -- you could, for example, if you decide to design the system and you want to take your legislation and reintroduce your legislation and pass it again, then you could do the same thing also.
What do you mean by "pass it again"? STATE REP. EVANS: In other words, if you want to introduce your legislation under -- once the State passes law and then say that this is the position of the City Council and the City's policy, then that's the particular position you could take. Although I know you have passed it already, the fact of the matter is 24 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 that you could just go ahead and do that same legislation also.
Well, when do you anticipate that the State may take some action with regard to passing the enabling legislation? STATE REP. EVANS: I'm trying to see if we could get it done in this month of June. I'm talking to the chairman, Chairman Taylor, about this legislation now.
So you would expect that it would be done in time for the 2007 municipal elections? STATE REP. EVANS: I don't want to speak for the prerogative for the chairman of that committee, let alone for the prerogative of the Senate. I will do everything I can do to get it passed, but I don't think that, after talking to Councilwoman Marion Tasco and Council President Verna, I don't think that it would be realistic that you would be able to apply it to 25 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 2007.
So the local law would still apply to 2007. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.
Thank you. STATE REP. EVANS: Unless it was overturned in court.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Representative. You're looking very, very well. STATE REP. EVANS: Good to see you, Jack.
Good to see you. I just had a question here. I know some time ago when this first came up, the Mayor mentioned something that 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 this should be a state issue rather than a local issue. And the more and more I look at this, I'm beginning to -- I agree with him, that just by Philadelphia alone taking this action, it doesn't necessarily -- I don't think it's going to be that effective. Especially if the State gets involved in this later on. That would have a direct effect on anything that we do here in Philadelphia. STATE REP. EVANS: In an ideal world, I would say to you, do we need to change campaign finance from a state perspective? In a ideal world, I would totally agree with you. However, my general sense is that here in the City of Philadelphia, there may be some traction for the idea of just giving Philadelphia the authority to change the campaign laws the way they would like to. I know that there's a general 27 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 sense here, particularly about the State always taking away authority, but here, we got a particular opportunity to give some authority to the City of Philadelphia around this particular issue. I think, like anything -- I don't have to tell you, Councilman, because you do know a little bit house Harrisburg, you have had some experience -- it's about working a relationship. And I think it's important that the City and the State work together relating to issues that affect -- Philadelphians are Pennsylvanians, and I think that we no longer should have this antagonism that has been occurring. I think that, you know, under President Anna Verna's leadership and Councilwoman Marion Tasco, that this is a good discussion to have. I mean, this is a good, open discussion. And, ultimately, if people in 28 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 this Council and people in this city decide that this is not the way you want to go, then also that will be respected. But at the end of the day, I think this discussion should be open. So, ideally, if I was saying -- I agree with you. Ideally, it would be great if the entire state -- I mean, we talked about campaign finance reform, we talked about lobbying and disclosure, we talked about all those kinds of things. Councilman, one of the things that I have on the table is the review of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, House Bill 2013. I think that the State Constitution needs to be reviewed. We haven't had a Constitutional Convention since 1967. The world has changed a lot since 1967. We need to have a discussion about the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we need to have all of these discussions on the table. And the fear factor I hear, 29 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Councilman Kelly, is, you know, you got those who are on the left and those who are on the right feel like, Well, we can't have these kinds of discussions about the Constitution. I think we should have these discussions about the Pennsylvania Constitution. I think that the world has changed. I mean, there were not faxes around and e-mail in '67 and what has taken place. And I think we should have it. And I think campaign finance reform should be a part of that discussion from a State perspective. I do not believe that it should be kind of sort of patched -- patchwork. And I think that if we're going to put a system together, we should put a system together that is comprehensive. That's my view, and that's what I'm pushing. And I think, as a result of the election that occurred in Tuesday, a couple weeks ago, there is no question 30 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 that there will be a reevaluation from a Harrisburg perspective about reform. I mean, I think --
Is that Pennsylvania Constitution, I mean, is that the sacred cow as well as -- STATE REP. EVANS: I don't think --
Sometimes people consider our City Charter a sacred cow. STATE REP. EVANS: I don't think it's -- look, Thomas Jefferson made the statement that he thought every ten years that the Constitution should be revisited. I think that -- no, it's not a sacred document. I think it should be reviewed. What I suggested was something that Governor Leader did. He had something called the Woodside Commission. And the Woodside Commission, basically what it did is, it traveled the state to 31 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 make a determination if there should be a Constitutional Convention. I think we should do the same thing with Harrisburg. I've offered the same idea. If people don't want to go to a Constitutional Convention, we should have this commission that should make a determination, is this the direction we should go? So we should not be fearful of having public, open discussions with people in terms of what takes place with our process. I don't care if it's here in City Hall or in Harrisburg; we should have these open processes.
Okay. Representative, I just have a question and I want to follow up on Councilman Goode's line of questioning. Is there anyone in the legislature right now, whether it be a representative or a senator, that's championing the cause of reform in 32 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Harrisburg itself by initiating or requesting or introducing legislation that's going to -- that's going to address this -- this particular problem? STATE REP. EVANS: There's -- there's -- there are -- there are some members who have offered some ideas, nothing specifically relating to the City of Philadelphia. I'm the only one introducing something relating to the City of Philadelphia, but there have been some members who --
Well, is there anyone that's statewide that's promoting it statewide? STATE REP. EVANS: Yes, there is. There is discussions -- there are discussions about campaign finance reform from a state perspective; those discussions have sort of been bubbling up at this point.
Well, I just want to make sure it's a level playing 33 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 field here. There's many cases, I think, that we, as officials in Philadelphia, are going to be subjected to a lot of restrictions that maybe candidates or elected office-holders in the State or in other areas are required to be under. And this is one of the things I would like to address. That, for instance, there could be a state representative running for City Council office who -- who wouldn't be restricted as we would be in this Council. STATE REP. EVANS: Well, I -- I'm going the make it very clear, Councilman Kelly. The legislation that I introduced, the only thing it does is give the City of Philadelphia the enabling authority; that's all it does. I don't believe that we should be in a position like this Council trying to dictate and tell you what fits best for the Council and the City of 34 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Philadelphia; that's not my particular position. House Bill 2420, if you look at it, it's no more than one page. It only talks about giving enabling authority; that's all that it does. It doesn't try to set limits, it doesn't try to tell you how much you have to give. Because there are some people who would like to do that, but that's not my position; I don't support that.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Kelly, actually, the legislation, as it is crafted now and interpreted by the City Law Department, says that any state representative or state senator who runs for municipal 35 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 office -- namely Mayor or Council -- as the original bill intended, would be retroactively subject to the requirements, and the money could not be transferred from their unlimited ability to raise money to their limited ability to raise money under the local ordinance.
In other words -- in other words, if a state representative was having fundraisers, that in itself, he would not be able to transfer that if he decided to run for a statewide office.
A point at which that state representative becomes a candidate for Mayor or City Council or another municipal office, they have to have one campaign committee, one bank account. They cannot transfer money from one committee to another except under the limits, and the law applies to them retroactively. In other words, they can raise a million dollars if they want under 36 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 their state representative committee, but once they become a Council candidate or a mayoral candidate, they can only transfer the portion of that which is under the law.
Then we -- then they would be subjected to the same restrictions --
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.) Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify. 37 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank the members --
And today's your first day back? STATE REP. EVANS: Yes, it's the first day back to Harrisburg.
Good luck. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Arizona State Representative Ann Kirkpatrick. (Arizona State Representative Ann Kirkpatrick appearing by telephone.)
Good morning. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: 38 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Good morning. This is Ann Kirkpatrick.
Thank you so much for testifying at our hearing this morning. We have a stenographer here. If you will please identify yourself for the record, state where you're from, and then proceed with your testimony. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: I am Ann Kirkpatrick. I'm a state representative from Arizona. My district is District 2, which includes five Indian reservations in the City of Flagstaff. And now, do you wish me to just talk about my experience with clean elections? (No immediate response.)
Yes, please. I'm sorry. I was distracted and I did not hear you. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: I first ran for election for the State House of Representatives in Arizona in 2004, and I was approached by some 39 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 friends and community leaders in my town of Flagstaff. I really did not ever anticipate running for public office, but I will tell you that without clean elections, I would not have been able to do it. It really is a very good program. I believe in it as good public campaign finance reform. And it's a very good way to bring the general public into the process. Now, one of my favorites stories is: After I was elected, I was back in my hometown, walking to the post office, and I was crossing the street, and a man in a pickup rolled down his window and, he said, "Hey, Ann." And I looked over, and he said, "You don't know me, but I gave you $5." And so then we had a good chat about my being his representative. And let me explain to you what the $5 is. To qualify as a clean 40 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 election candidate, you have to show support in your community, and you do that by raising 210 five-dollar contributions from people who are in your district. Now, they can be any party; they just have to be registered voters. Once you raise that number, you turn that into the Secretary of State and then get your public financing. So for me, it's been a great process. I love going out and getting the $5. People in my district can afford to give that to me; they can't afford to give me 50, but they can afford to give me five. And it gives me a chance to talk to them about their issues and what they're concerned about. So it's pretty much a grassroots populace kind of movement. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Could I ask a question? 41 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
Yes. The Councilmembers could speak from their desk. Ms. Kirkpatrick, would you please explain how the public finance reform actually works in your state. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. The money for the financing is collected from various sources, including some municipal (indiscernible), and I'm not as well versed on that as probably someone who works for the Clean Election Commission. But they collect that money throughout the year, and then it's kept in a fund. And in Arizona, that fund is very well-managed, so it's -- so that -- that part of it is taken care of. Does that answer your question?
To some degree. I think that Councilwoman Tasco has been very attentively listening to your response, and I know she had her 42 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 light on. Councilwoman Tasco?
Good morning. And thank you for participating in this, our first, I think, teleconference, if you call it that, in our City Council. But I'd like to ask you, is there -- does the money come from individuals in the community? Are you saying that you collect the $200 -- or the 200 contributions from people in your district? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. They have to be in the community. But you can also collect a certain number of contributions called "seed money," and that can be contributed from anyone in the country who's a registered voter. But the maximum that that person can give you is $120, so there's a cap on individual contributions. And then you have to raise the $5 contribution so that you show that 43 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 you've got your public support.
So you can get $150 from individuals outside of your state? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 120, 120.
120. And you get two hundred $5 contributions from your residents in your district? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Correct.
How much money do you get from the -- is there any contributions to you from the local government? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: None.
So what is the maximum amount of money that you can raise that you raised when you ran? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: 44 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 When I ran in 2004, the maximum I could raise was -- oh, gosh, now I'm trying to remember. I think it was about 2300.
How much did it cost you to run for office? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Well, then it -- I just took what they gave me for public financing, and what they gave me was about $11,000 for the primary and then about $15,000 for the general. Then it was that money -- I set up a budget, and that's all I spent.
What did your opponent spend? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Oh, my opponent spent a little bit more. And then under the law, I get matching funds for money that my opponent spends over and above that amount.
Can you accept additional dollars more than the $5 or $120 from other individuals? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: 45 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 No. 3
No? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: No. They're very strict on what you can take, and you cannot take any money from corporations, PACs, businesses -- only individuals.
Miss Kirkpatrick, how long has this been in effect, this process? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Oh, you know, Maine was the first state to enact this kind of financing, and then Arizona picked it up after that. It's been in effect for several election cycles. Our governor was the first governor to write in a statewide race under the what we call "Clean Election Funding". In my class at the legislature, all but two of the legislators ran under the Clean Election program. So it's -- 46 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 it's really catching on in Arizona.
What were your campaign expenses? What did you spend your funds on? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: You're required to spend -- if you do any kind of travel, campaign travel, that has to come out of the Clean Election Fund. And my district is one of the largest legislative districts in the nation, so it -- I spent quite a bit of money on gasoline. And then I spent money on some brochures and some signs. Because my district is primarily rural, people listen to the radio a lot, so I also did some radio ads. And this was pretty much it.
But you said your district is pretty -- is the largest in the nation; that's in terms of land mass. What's the population? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: The population is about a hundred 47 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 thousand. The district is about 400 miles by 300 miles.
So the population in your district is a hundred thousand? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
You had to go 400 miles? ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
Great, okay. I don't have any more questions. Thank you.
Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the committee of Miss Kirkpatrick? (No response.)
Any other questions or comments for Miss Kirkpatrick? (No further questions or comments.) 48 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
We will get the information from Arizona and give it to Councilmembers in more detail.
Miss Kirkpatrick, thank you so very much. We truly appreciate your sharing your time with us. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, and I appreciate it. And good luck. I just wanted to let you to know that I'm going to be in Philadelphia on June 24th. If anyone wants to meet me for coffee, I'd be happy to sit with you and talk with you in more detail.
That is wonderful. Thank you so much. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: You're welcome.
Bye- bye. ARIZONA STATE REP. KIRKPATRICK: 49 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Bye-bye.
Good morning and welcome. WITNESSES: Good morning.
Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Larry Ceissler. I was asked today to testify to discuss a contemporary cost of political campaigns. Campaigns today are more expensive than ever. That is because voters get their information from more sources. And in order to communicate 50 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 with them, candidates must be willing to spend large sums on individual forms of communication to reach a smaller number of voters. Unfortunately, most voters will get their campaign information from paid media rather than inquiring themselves or gathering information from supposedly unbiased sources. If I was running a campaign today in Philadelphia, the following are the mediums I would suggest to employ: Broadcast television, cable television, radio, direct mail, telephone contact programs, community and weekly newspapers, and the Internet. This is not taking into account the traditional cost of campaigns, which include canvassing, signage, and what is spent on Election Day for get-out-the- vote efforts. And, of course, you have to pay the campaign consultants and the pollsters. Even though fewer people are 51 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 watching network television, it is still a necessity in a citywide campaign to have it. Neill Oxman estimated in the Inquirer last week that $500,000 a week is needed to have a meaningful presence on Philadelphia television. To communicate on all of the City's cable systems, the cost would be $50,000 a week. Just to be on the four news and radio stations in Philadelphia, the cost would be $30,000 per week. I have found direct mail to be a very effective communications tool, especially in District Council elects. If a citywide campaign wanted to mail to registered voters who voted in two out of the last four primaries, the cost would be approximately $85,000. And in an individual Councilmatic district, each piece would cost $12,500. And remember, for those of you who have done direct mail, you have to do more than one piece. Daily newspaper advertising has 52 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 never been a preferred campaign tool in Philadelphia, but for various reasons, the community and weekly newspapers have been a must-buy for campaigns. To be in most of the relevant publications for a half-page ad would cost a campaign a minimum of $17,000 -- that's citywide. We have all received telephone calls either conducted in person or prerecorded. Depending on the complexity of the call, these can cost between 10 cents and 35 cents per call. And that number adds up when you're talking about registered voters. As we move into the future, more communication will occur on the Internet. These costs are still minimal but will no doubt escalate as more people can be reached on-line. I do not believe any form of public financing can be formulated unilaterally. To do this effectively, you must have buy-in and participation 53 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 from the media. This comes in many forms. First, the political coverages is at an all-time low. I can remember, when I worked on Wilson Goode's 1987 reelection campaign, we had television cameras following us every evening, and newspapers were with us everywhere we went. There were always stories to be read, seen, and heard. Many were horse race stories, but there were also substantive-issue pieces. The media in this city must be prodded to care again and to provide a forum to create political awareness. It is also interesting to note that turnout numbers were higher in the past, so we are spending more to reach less voters. Though radio and TV must offer a political rate, which is their lowest rate, they must be asked to go even lower. Though our local outlets now answer to Wall Street and corporate 54 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 revenue targes, there has to be a better way to provide access for campaigns. Seeking political office is a very expensive proposition.
When you see competitive races for the State House hitting the $1 million mark, you know there is a problem. I know that candidates would rather be talking about issues and meeting voters than begging for campaign contributions, but such is the dilemma of the modern-day campaign. There is no doubt you have identified a problem in our system, but any solution is multi-layered and cannot be developed in a vacuum. It is impossible to go door-to-door and meet every voter in a citywide campaign. Campaigns must have the tools to communicate with voters, and it is expensive. But luckily, for our system, just like in baseball, the team with the highest payroll does not always win the 55 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 championship. We all know about high-priced campaigns that have crashed and burned because they either lacked substance, or they just had too many campaign toys to play with. Though in my campaign days, I like to have all of the resources, many times, I was more effective having to make strategic choices. As you go through this process, your goal should not be to eliminate the campaigns with the most money; but rather to ensure that legitimate candidates have a fair chance at the prize. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Oxman? Have you lost quite a bit weight?
I'd be curious to know how you did it, so you're going to give your diet afterwards. 56 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
I am here in opposition to public financing of campaigns. Let me try to put things in perspective. I have done 550 contested primaries and general elections for Democratic candidates all across the United States. Locally, I've done -- worked in six of the past seven mayoral campaigns. Recently, we just elected the Democratic mayor of Pittsburgh, the Democratic county executive of Allegheny County. I'm currently involved in the gubernatorial campaign of Ed Rendell, his reelection. The object is to get money out of politics. I mean, there are only two people who would rise in opposition to get money out of the politics -- people like myself, campaign consultants, and I want to do it; and the television and radio stations in every city in America. We're doing 25 campaigns around 57 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 the United States this year for Democrats all across the country, and the only people who get rich are political consultants and the television and radio stations. I think it is absolutely insane given -- putting in perspective what Councilwoman Tasco said earlier, I think it's absolutely insane, given the budget limitations on the City of Philadelphia right now. I mean, when Mayor -- when Governor Rendell was elected mayor, I was a appointed to the board of the library, and I saw what happened with just a few million dollars' shortfall in a library budget to closing libraries. I just think it is absolutely the wrong message to send to Philadelphians right now to have any kind of campaign -- any kind of public money spent on politics in the City of Philadelphia. Let me just pose this as a 58 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 for-instance, because you have to write a bill. In 1999, the only Republican I've ever worked for in my life was Sam Katz in '99, when he ran for mayor of Philadelphia, because Sam used to be a Democrat. And now, he has unfortunately, become a real Republican, but at one time, he was a real Democrat. In the 1999 mayoral campaign in this city, in the Democratic primary and the general election between Katz And Street, there was $27 million spent running for mayor of Philadelphia. That's 27 million bucks. The television stations were ecstatic because about 70 percent of all of the campaign money went to the television stations. If you guys did public financing at a 1-to-1 match, a 2-to-1 match, a 3-to-1 match, I mean, you could be talking 40, 50, 60, 70, some huge amount of money that could get out of control of public money that doesn't go 59 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 for the fighting that had to go on just to get a hundred new police officers on the street or public libraries being closed or all of the stuff that you guys know way better than I do about how much money needs to go to the real functions in the City of Philadelphia. The fact is, this is the way to get money out of politics, because it is corrupts everything: Severely limit the amount of money people can give. One of my clients today is the Attorney General of Massachusetts, whose name is Tom Reilly. He's running for the Democratic nomination for governor of Massachusetts. Incredibly, Massachusetts has had 16 straight years of Republican governors. In Massachusetts, you can't give anybody more than 500 bucks a year running for office, period. Now, we're still going to raise 4 of $5 million. It's not the $42 million that Ed Rendell raised in 2002 or the probably 60 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 $35 million he's going to raise this year 'cause he didn't have a primary. If you want to limit the amount of money and the corruption of money in politics in this city, limit the amount of money people can give. Don't take public money. There's an easy way to do it. Councilman Goode, whose father I worked for in 1983, sort of intimated at this.
I think -- and I'm sorry that Dwight left, but I think that this city chamber should urge the state representatives just to adopt the federal law -- just adopt the federal law. You can give 2100 bucks in a primary, 2100 dollars in a general election in any campaign, 5,000 for a political action committee. You can still raise a lot of money, but you're severely limiting these 50 and 100 and 250,000 -- I mean, when I go to Massachusetts and tell my client 61 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 for governor there, who could only somebody for 500 bucks, that Ed Rendell gets $250,000 donations, or if you run for mayor of Philadelphia, that -- Do you realize this, that in 1999, when 27 million bucks was spent on the mayoral campaign in Philadelphia, that was more money spent on any mayoral election in any city in the United States of America until 2001, when Bloomberg, Mayor Bloomberg, spent65 million of his $2 billion fortune to run for mayor of New York. And what happens if people opt out of public financing. In New Jersey, where I've done tons of campaigns, people do it all the time. George Bush opted out of the primaries in public financing when he ran for president in 2004. Hillary Clinton is clearly going to opt out of the process in 2008. It still isn't going to stop people from spending a lot of money. I think that the clearer way to 62 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 stop what's gone wrong -- I mean, Harrisburg is scared to death right now. Starting with what happened last fall with Justice Nigro going down and Sandy Newman almost losing, and a lot of statewide judges outside of our area -- county judges almost coming close to losing. With people being scared to death because they lost primaries -- I mean, people you wouldn't expect lost primaries. It's going to happen again this fall: There will be folks in the general election who had no real opposition who are going to lose. This is the time that we should be asking our Harrisburg folks to make it real simple so there's no -- And I don't know whether Mr. Dougherty's constitutional challenge to the current mayoral limit is going to work or not; I have no idea. But it's very easy. And it's very easy even if the State doesn't do 63 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 it. Make the City law the federal law. Make the State law the federal law. You can still raise a reasonable amount of money, but you're not asking people for and and 7 $50,000 contributions. And, most 8 importantly, at this period of time, 9 you're not asking people to take public 10 money. 11 I mean this is not Lower 12 Merion, this is not Haverford, this is 13 not Radnor Township here. I mean, every 14 day, there are articles in the newspapers 15 that say we need to do more with less, 16 and there are real city services. 17 We're not take about fake-o 18 [sic] things here; we're talking about 19 police officers and closing fire stations 20 and libraries and rec centers and real stuff, not fake-o stuff. And I think that if you open this can of worms and say that -- you know what happens? I mean, right now, you have six people -- legitimate, real 64 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 good Democrats, no Republicans have surfaced yet -- all of whom decided they want to run for mayor of Philadelphia, all of whom can raise tons of money. I think they could -- it would dwarf the amount of money that could perhaps be raised that was raised if there were no limit in 1999. They all go raise the max -- the limit that you can raise, and there's a two- or three-for-one match. You might be talking 15, 20, $30 million right there just in the 2007 race. I know the law that you're thinking about doesn't necessarily apply to 2007, but I think that -- I don't know whether the current law that you guys have passed for the 2007 race regarding the mayoral elections and Council elections is going to pass constitutional muster.
If it doesn't, there is a way to take money out of politics and not spend public money, and that is to 65 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 severely, severely, severely limit the amount of money people can give in a primary in general so that -- You know, it's a lot harder, if somebody gives you $2,000, to call up. And my guy in Massachusetts is raising $500. everybody has access. No one has come in and written a $250,000 check. The Republican Governors Association just gave Lynn Swann a $250,000 donation. If the executive director of the Republican Governors Association wants to call up Lynn Swann, they're going to get him on the phone. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but the amount of money in politics is absolutely abhorrent. It's awful. The State is -- the people in Pennsylvania's confidence in state government has eroded significantly. If you look at any poll in this city, people don't have confidence in City government; they don't particularly have confidence 66 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 in City Council if you ask, is City Council doing a good job or a bad job? And if you want to stop the kind of articles that we've had and stop the kind of influence that people have, I think that -- that perhaps redrafting a better bill, making the State pass a bill 9 at the same time, saying, Why don't we just do the state limits? Why don't we do the federal limit? The State And City together should do the federal limits. You could still raise a lot of money, but you can't raise it from an individual, so you're really limiting severely the amount of influence somebody has, and you don't have to spend public money. People like me would get hurt and the televisions in the state would get hurt; they're the only two people that would matter. But I think that you would perhaps help the confidence of some people in the process itself.
Thank 67 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Great testimony. I completely agree: The State will never pass the federal limits. If they did it, it would clean up everything.
Well, Councilman, I disagree. Who would have ever thought that the, um... Let me say this somewhat sarcastically: Who would ever thought that the great leaders of that legislative body in Harrisburg would so quickly rescind the legislative pay raise. I think that they're all scared to death. I mean, I just think that they're scared out of their minds. And they should be because of the way that they did it. And I think that there is a 68 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 chance -- I mean, there are -- how many -- how many state reps are there from this county? 25 to 30? 23, 25, 27? I mean, I think that -- that it is not impossible for you folks to say to these guys, Hey, here's a way to do something about it, and to look like you're doing the right thing. And why don't you all cosponsor a bill that says we're going to restrict this stuff to the federal limit. I mean, I think that it's -- it's -- I think it's a way at this point you could put pressure on those guys.
19 You're welcome. The Chair recognizes 20 Councilman Kelly. 21
Yes, thank 22 you, Madam Chair. 23 Mr. Oxman, I just want to have 24 a quick question -- or a question here. 25 It has to do with, what do 69 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 you -- what's your feeling about someone spending their own money? Should there be restrictions placed on it?
Well, the Supreme Court has been very clear, Councilman, that it's free speech. And until you change something that I would never change, you know, Congress shall make no 10 law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof or freedom of the press -- or of speech.
You could be sitting in this Council with probably 17 millionaires, probably.
And the United States Senate has 50. Do I think it's fair? Absolutely not. I mean, I don't think life is necessarily fair. You know, there are two people 70 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 here right -- now Councilman Rizzo and Councilman Goode -- who -- whose fathers spent tens of millions of dollars and they didn't have to. Life is not fair. But I don't think that you can get around that. I think that the Supreme Court's been very clear and will continue to be clear on -- both at the state level and at the federal level that you can't restrict somebody from spending their own money.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comment from members of the committee of our two witnesses? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I was going to ask a question: Do you think we could limit the amount of money that anyone could spend on a campaign and that 71 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 that would curb the expenditure of millionaires?
That's also -- people can opt out of the system. I mean, that's what they do in presidential primaries, Councilwoman, is that if you accept matching funds, then you limit how much money you can spend per state, for instance.
There's a choice that you have to make. And I think that -- my guess is that if that this body did matching funds, given the wherewithal of people to raise money in a city the size of Philadelphia, that you'd have to have the amount of money they would raise be reasonably high. You couldn't say, okay, you know, if you raise $500,000, we're going to give you 500, and that would be it. It would have to be a little higher than 72 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 that, and everybody would reach it. And -- 'cause there would have to be a certain amount of cents per voter. I mean, you have to be able to communicate with people. It is the fourth-biggest media market in the country. And the higher you make it -- even being reasonable, let's say somebody running for mayor can only raise a million bucks, and they would get a 2- or 3-to-1 match. Okay, so there were five people running for mayor, and it would be 10 or $15 million in public money. I mean, if we were talking a relatively few hundred thousand dollars in public money -- and people -- San Diego, we're -- we have an office in California, and we do a lot of San Diego campaigns. When you run for mayor of San Diego, you are really limited to what you can raise and spend; it's a relatively few hundred thousand dollars. San Diego 73 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 is one of the top -- San Diego is actually right behind us as or is right ahead of us now -- no, it's behind us, right behind us as the sixth biggest city in America. And they really severely limit how much you can raise and spend. So mayoral campaigns in San Diego are $750,000 to $1 million affairs -- not $29 million affairs. Or who knows what the 2007 mayoral race will be like. I think it will set all kinds of records.
So what -- and so if you're running for mayor in San Diego and you have that limited, the candidates really stick more to direct contact with the voter --
Right. And -- and you know who's the angriest? There's only one group of people who are angry. It's not the voters, it's not the voters; it's the general managers of the 74 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 television stations in San Diego. They're the only people who are angry. Because the TV buys for the mayoral campaigns, which used to be 6 and 20, I mean, they used to do tens of 7 millions of dollars and are now a few 8 million dollars. 9 And, you know, that's -- I 10 mean, if you did campaign finance limits 11 here, at the federal limit, you know, it 12 wouldn't be a $27 million mayoral race; 13 it would be something severely less. 14 So you could do less direct 15 mail or less TV or less radio. And you know what you'd have to do? You wouldn't have to hide behind an office raising money and you would have to go to hundreds of Candidate Ward nights.
Well, certainly, we have not heard a lot from the TV stations about pubic campaign 75 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 finance --
Councilwoman, you ask the TV stations, because there's this myth, and it is a myth, that there's something called the "lowest unit rate," which means that if Council -- if you were running for mayor of Philadelphia, Councilwoman, and in 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, the television station is supposed to give you a discounted rate on what it will cost you. So, for instance, if McDonald's were buying Oprah Winfrey and bought a 30-second spot on Oprah Winfrey, it might cost 2,000 bucks. And they offer you, as a person running for office, the same chance to buy the commercial for $1200, let's say, which is pretty good. 76 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 What they don't tell you is the rate is, quote, immediately preemptable, which means it will never run. It will never run forever. You know, we've done this as a game. We bought a few spots and said we want to buy the immediately preemptable rate. And, you know, every week, they say, "Well, it never ran." What they really do is, they give you a rate that's a little less, that only might be 5 or 10 percent less. So instead of McDonald's charging -- them charging -- Channel 6 charging $2,000 for Oprah, they might charge you $1800. But when you say to the televisions, Well, let's go to the European system, where you give free air time, I mean, you would have think that, you know, you would have been calling somebody a murderer; I mean, they really go crazy. Oh, we couldn't do that. So they won't do that. 77 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 They -- I think there has to be a reasonable balance between how much money you can raise so that you do have a chance to speak with voters. The fact that I don't think that at least in this time and place, given the constraints of a City budget and the City of Philadelphia in 2006, and the political environment, there is a way to take money out of the process. The way to take money out the process and not do public -- not have public money is to find a way to severely limit city and state campaign finance. And a lot of states have done this. I mean, we worked in a -- we're working in states this fall, and lots 19 of the states have different systems 20 where, oh, oh, that's a state -- you know, it's where you can't -- where you have to adjust your budgets because you're, you know, you're not -- you don't have these unlimited budgets, which Ed Rendell essentially has raised. 78 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 When Governor Rendell -- the Pennsylvania governor's race in 2002 was the ninth most expensive non-presidential campaign in the history of the United States of America. Rendell, Fisher, and Casey spent $70 million among the three of them. And who was happy? KDK in Pittsburgh and KYW in Philadelphia and some political consultants like me. It doesn't mean the voters -- you know, if -- could the voters have been just as happy if there were state limits that were applied, like the federal limit, and the campaign would have cost or 30 million among the 19 three of them? Sure. And there would 20 have been as vigorous a debate.
I mean, I think, Councilwoman, that, you know, when I talk to my customer that you can't do this unilaterally because you really have to get the television and the radio stations 79 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 -- it has to be one big, you know, one big plan to make it all work. And, again, I think in terms of free media, in terms of newspapers and also television and radio stations, I mean, they have to cover campaigns again.
Right, 'cause they never cover the Council campaigns -- at least the district races. When I ran in 1987, they didn't cover the race and then wanted to know what happened to the guy who they endorsed. They didn't pay attention.
Well, you always get the one -- you always get the one -- the one article, but maybe the new owners of the Daily News and The Inquirer, they'll change, they'll change.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. 80 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Gentlemen, do you have an opinion, in the event the state and city were to adopt federal campaign limit -- campaign regulations, the effect -- would the money migrate to the soft money PACs? Do you have an opinion as to what would happen with the -- I mean, the labor unions, business groups, would they be setting up their own first-amendment, free-speech PACs and using that money in that way? And what -- would it still be better to do it anyway, even if that was the end-result?
The answer is probably, Councilman -- but I think the answer is to do it anyway. I mean, there's still only a 81 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 finite -- I mean, it's -- it's not some presidential election where you're going to get some, you know, one of these rich Texas oil guys hiding behind some fake name, you know.
Yeah, or whatever, and putting in 2 or $3 million. I mean, I think you'll have some of that. I certainly believe -- I'll bet you that in 2007, there will be some soft money spent. And, in fact, it's interesting. I told the television stations here, I think in the Senate race in Pennsylvania, in this media market where you have two Senate races: You have Kane and Menendez running in New Jersey, and Casey and Santorum running in Pennsylvania. There will actually be more soft money spent on the television stations in Philadelphia than candidate money. 82 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 But I also think it will be easier to expose if -- and not that developers are bad, because they're not. I mean, it's -- but, you know, if a consortium of ten, you know, developers decided to spend $5 million apiece and pick the next mayor of Philadelphia because they go in a back room and think, you know, something horrible is going to happen, like it's some bad Frank Capra -- or a great Frank Capra movie, that it necessarily, you know, would be bad in terms of the results. I just think that's less likely to happen 'cause I don't think you're going to have that much money generated. I mean, I think that every place that --
Industries in Pennsylvania, like the new casino industry, probably would have --
But they can't, Councilman, because that's against -- that's against the (indiscernible). 83 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070
But that limit -- their constitutional rights are abridged as a result?
I assume they could -- I assume they could probably challenge that.
But, I mean, I just think that, you know, it's -- Look, I've never had to ask anybody for... That's not true. At one time, I -- in 1987, I did ask one of the guys in the campaign for -- some odd 19 number of money, Jack Merion, the late 20 Jack Merion it was. 21 You know, I had to -- you know, 22 when I worked for Bob Casey in 1978, for former Governor Casey, one of the most in -- I saw one of the most interesting things. 84 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 He used to have this call list, and he had this interesting list in front of him of all these names. And it was the name of somebody and an amount of money. He used to -- I think because of his embarrassment, when he got to -- he would be on the phone and said: Hi, Jimmy. It's Bob Casey. You know, I'm here to call you, listen. And he would -- it's I'd like to ask you for $25,000. He would literally close his eyes and sort of moosh up his face when he got to asking for the amount of money. Well, when you're asking somebody for 2100 bucks, which is the federal limit now, you're a little less embarrassed about the whole thing. And even with bundling of money, it just -- it just takes the influence out of it. And I think what you folks did in terms of the mayoral election for 85 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 campaign finance reform was terrific. I mean, I don't pretend to know what's going to happen with this lawsuit, but -- but I certainly think that the people in Harrisburg -- I mean, no one here is scared. There's no revolution going on in the City of Philadelphia right now. There's not going to be a sweeping change where all people in City Council are going 12 to get swept out. 13 These guys up there are scared 14 to death, and there is no reason why you 15 guys can't use your influence to have 16 some bill sponsored and -- with people 17 like Common Cause and Pennsylvania Clean Sweep and all these other folks. And it would seem to me it's nuts that the politicians up there don't want to do it. I mean, because why -- it's just so -- the process of asking people for money -- I did Josh Shapiro's in the fall of 2004 because he ran against John 86 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Fox, and, as I said, I will never let John Fox get elected to anything anymore. (Laughter.)
But Josh, in running in Abington, spent almost $900,000 winning a state rep seat, 56,000 people in Abington Township.
900 grand. Now, I mean, I don't think anybody in the history of Philadelphia spent close for City Council what's the most anybody's spent for City Council?
That's 900 grand for a state rep seat of 56,000 people. How am I doing? So why wouldn't these guys want to do it? And I mean, I think Councilman Goode was right in pressing Representative Evans, Dwight, to -- you know, why aren't these guys doing it up 87 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 there. It's nuts.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. I agree with everything you're saying. And I have that same problem. It's been six months since some of the folks who work on my campaign have been urging me to get on the phone to start raising some money. It's one of the worse things I have to do in this job. And I mean that sincerely. But getting back to Councilman Kenney's question with the PAC -- and I'm not arguing with what you guys are talking about, but I know in '03 my would-be opponent, his backers had somewhere 350 and $500,000 earmarked in my Councilmatic seat. 88 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 And I suspect if either my opponent, who's already announced, or some other alternative to my opponent is supported by the same union-backed organization, they will probably have upwards of a half a million dollars. So out of the gate, I got to -- to compete, I have to raise a half a million dollars, which -- and most of that money, I suspect, will be soft money on the other side. I mean, they spend money weekly with posters already. I mean, their campaign started two years ago.
With no 19 disclaimers on them, yeah. So, again, I'm not arguing for the case that we should be able to raise more, but it's just that if we're held to certain standards, and how do we get those unions and corporation PACs to limit the money or the soft money is the 89 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 challenge for me, 'cause I have to compete with that.
You know, Councilman, I think your situation, which, you know, I'm somewhat familiar with, is probably more the exception reference, you know, rather -- rather than -- rather than the rule, but it -- but it's a -- but it's a legitimate con -- it's a legitimate concern.
It was the exception with me, but it wasn't. There was another Councilperson who was defeated, an at-large Councilperson who used to sit next to me. Same group, the soft money was used three four days before the general election. There were a number of other candidates that were supported against some of the incumbents throughout the City by the same organization. And I'm not just picking on that one 'cause it could be any organization. But that union spent a large 90 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 sum of money trying to unseat not only me, but other members of this body. And it was primarily soft money. And they have -- I mean, they have folks who are out on the street literally daily on their payroll who can do all of the sign postings and everything else, which they've been doing almost on a weekly basis for the last few months against me. So I have to -- I need to raise a lot of money to counter that -- that attack on me, because I'm always putting out these -- and I see you smiling, Larry, and I may be cutting into your salary, but --
You know, I need to be able to figure out a way of getting my message out to counter what they're saying about me on the negative side. And mostly, again, that's soft money. Again, I'm not arguing with 91 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 what this debate is all about, but if we -- I have to be held to a certain standard of the maximum that I can raise from an individual, I think we need to figure out a way to figure out a way on the other side to at least limit or control that soft money that's coming through those PACs.
Well, Neill, in the states where you work where there are limitations, how do they control the soft money?
They don't; there's no control. But, I mean, you're talking about places like Wisconsin or Massachusetts, where -- I mean, for instance, in Massachusetts, Romney ended up winning in 2002 'cause he spent all of his own money. I mean, Massachusetts had 16 years of Republican governors. And so, you know -- And the Democrats have put up people sometimes who weren't as good as 92 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 the Republicans. They don't. And so the answer is that you'll -- some of your supporters are going to have to do the same thing. But the -- but it is wrong for Ed Rendell to have to raise $42 million running for governor. It is wrong that in 1999, half a dozen counties (indiscernible) raised almost 30 million bucks. And I'm not saying anybody here is corrupt in any way, shape, or form. But for somebody to give 10 or 20 or 30,000 dollars, I mean, I think that person should be severely limited and that there should be an equal playing field.
I agree, I agree. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee 93 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 from our two witnesses? (No further questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I think that this was excellent dialogue, and I truly believe that we need to have more interchange with -- I think you've been very informative, both of you. And I certainly want to appreciate -- I certainly appreciate your coming in to testify.
The next group is Michael Stepp, Public Campaign; and Christopher Sheridan, Committee of 70. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Christopher Sheridan on behalf of the 94 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 Committee of 70. I just first want to thank Council President Verna, Councilwoman Tasco, and the members for offering the invite for us to appear today. I'm primarily here really to deliver a memo that my law intern produced, dealing with the issue of the success of challengers in general as well as members of minority groups and women, you know under clean election systems. We've worked with Councilwoman Tasco's office also to line up the speaker that you heard earlier today from Arizona and the gentleman lager today from Portland, Oregon. And I really don't have anything specific to add at this point to the testimony that Mr. Stalberg and I gave on April 26th, but I am available if the members have any questions for us at this point. We really just look forward to working with Council in any way we can 95 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 during the drafting process to see that -- you know, presuming this goes forward in some form, that we get the best bill possible for Philadelphia.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in and thank you for your help with these hearings. In the previous discussion that Councilman DiCicco raised about soft money from other entities, I mean, this could -- I mean, we try to solve one issue over here, and then over here, something else pops up. So, I mean, one organization with the resources could go into any district and outspend the incumbent with no limitations on spending to mount a campaign against that person. 96 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 So what stops the Councilperson from setting up their own entity to raise money on their behalf for a campaign? So you still, you know, you're still not -- you're trying to handle the campaign limitation on one hand, but you're providing the system to set up another mechanism to support that person so that they can overcome the soft money. It's just like the federal government. They set up how much you can give, but then you got the 527s, and they're doing all of these other things on behalf of the candidate.
Well, I think one way of responding to that -- and that falls in with the situation with the self-funding millionaire and also candidates who opt out, because any clean elections systems, to be constitutional, has to be voluntary. I think that's where matching funds come into level the playing field between a candidate who's playing by the 97 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 rules and a candidate or an entity that refuses to play by the rules. I think, really, the interesting thing about clean elections programs is that each city can really design what's needed based on its state law, its local law, its political culture. So I think that, you know, this body has the power to address most of these concerns with appropriate legislation and the use of matching funds to eliminate some of these unfairnesses that could I rise.
Well, do we have the ability to prevent other organizations or the formation of 527s to campaign on behalf of a candidate?
I don't believe so, but I think you could structure the system in such a way that there would be resources available to a candidate who's attacked from the outside -- not by their opponent, but by an allied interest group 98 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 in the way of increasing matching funds. And in the same way, you could increase matching funds in the case that it's a millionaire spending 5 or $10 million of their own money against a candidate who's working within the clean election system.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
He's 99 6/5/06 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - RES. 060070 supposed to call in.
Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this bill? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this resolution will be continued until the call of the Chair. Thank you all for your patience. * * * 100 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on Monday, June 5, 2006, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)