I think that if you look at the performance of the government of the City of Philadelphia, going back as early as Ed Rendell's first term as Mayor that tax reform is being accomplished in the City of Philadelphia and it continues to be accomplished in the City of Philadelphia. The question is, can you change the pace?
So there could be incremental tax reform but not incremental campaign reform?
The ability to achieve 92 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 tax reform in the City of Philadelphia, as we are currently engaged in it, is completely within the power of the elected organization officials of the City. The ability to achieve campaign finance reform as we want to achieve it is not fully within the power of the elected officials in the City of Philadelphia.
So the ability to achieve more comprehensive tax reform over the next term is within the hands of the Mayor and City Council?
Is within the power of the elected officials within the City of Philadelphia.
The Solicitor's Office did indicate that my bill also was defensible. I think some of the amendments that we're offering to cure that, to cure some of the issues of the Solicitor's Office did create that situation. So it is a defensible bill also. So thank you.
Councilman Rizzo. 93 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710
Thank you. Mr. Burrell, the professional service contracts within the City of Philadelphia, they're basically no-bid, correct?
I'm being cautious because it really does define how you -- depends upon how you define "professional service contracts," because many of the architectural contracts and engineering contracts are in fact done on a competitive RFP process, they're not low bid processes. Almost the only thing in this government that is done on a no-bid basis is -- except in instances where you can only sole source things -- is for the appointment of legal counsel and the selection of bond teams, underwriters on bond teams and some of the financial advisors on bond teams. That's probably the only place in any significant way no-bid contracts are awarded. And as I said, the underwriters are all subject to Rule G-37, so they can't give more than $250 to local elected officials.
Could you just 94 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 backtrack for a second, explain professional service contract, how that works, how a person gets to do business with the City of Philadelphia? And they refer to it as a personal service -- professional service contract.
In most instances, the City determines when it is going to do a public financing. And in the doing of the public financing, whether that is done directly through the City or through some of the authorities like the Municipal Authority or the Hospitals and Higher Education Authority or the Parking Authority or the Convention Center Authority, usually the Finance Director and the Treasurer will get together and they'll make determinations based on who has the expertise to do the kinds of deals that are going to be done. They will recommend a team. That team will usually consist of a senior underwriter, a couple of co-senior underwriters and two or three or so underwriters who are on the management team, will pick a financial advisor to advise the 95 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 City on it. They'll pick lawyers for the underwriters, and pick lawyers for the City. Almost in every instance there are a combination of both majority firms and minority firms. Those recommendations are then sent to the Mayor's Office and we either confirm them or change them.
Let's talk about something a little bit more basic. Let's talk about Risk Management. Risk Management hires a company that appraises damage that City vehicles create. A Streets Department vehicle hits a parked car, that's a professional service contract. It's, from what I understand, no-bid. Can you explain how a company --
Those contracts are almost always -- and again, I don't want to say always because somebody will come back and say, "I got one where it wasn't." Those contracts are almost always done on a competitive bid process. We will ask a number of providers to say, "This is the service we're looking for, and what is the fee 96 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 for which you would provide it on?" And we'll get three, four, five, depending upon the number of people who will bid on those products. And a determination, a review is made of it, an evaluation is done of it and a determination is made.
How I understand it is it's a lot different than buying a police car. It's not the same process, a professional service contract. There's a lot of latitude to award a professional service contract than buying a commodity.
Councilman, whenever we are letting in a Risk Management contract or any other contract, we're always trying to get the best price for the City of Philadelphia. So we're always going to have -- and trust me, again, it goes back to this system that we talked about. And I'll guarantee you, every one of those people or most of those people have teams of people who have been contributors to political people. And you can't make these selections based upon whether people simply gave you money or 97 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 didn't. They come in with teams, they'll give us their price, they'll tell us what they can do, and we'll select from among that. And almost always, almost always in those instances, and again I'm only limiting it because I'm sure we'll find some exceptions somewhere in the world. But almost always those decisions are made based on the recommendations of the professionals who run those departments. Almost never do those decisions really get changed anywhere else in the government. They're made by people down in the government. That's why I said in my testimony that to suggest that the people who simply want to do a good job in this government and who make decisions and make recommendations on decisions like that are doing it on a political basis is wrong.
But let's be clear for the record. There is a difference between the way a professional service contract is awarded than a bid for a commodity. If we're buying light bulbs or we're buying vehicles, it's a different 98 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 process than a professional service contract. There's more latitude for a person to select a particular vendor under a professional service contract than it is when you're out buying material.
There certainly is more latitude. In a bid contract, everybody who's a qualified bidder can pick up the bid and they can submit a bid and we are bound by selecting the most responsible and responsive bidder. Any company that is qualified to do the work and submits the lowest bid, assuming they satisfy the participation requirements of MBE, disadvantaged, WBE, and others, are qualified to get that bid. In the professional service which are mostly RFP competitive processes, we have the capacity to say, here are the five people who really do this in this community, and go out and say we want you to submit responses to -- whether you call it a bid or a response -- to submit responses to this service that we need to be done. Those five people will respond and then, yes, in that 99 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 instance we are able to spend time looking at the responses and make substantive determinations about this person over here we think have all the skill, for example that we want to do it, and they're 2 percent higher than the those folks over here. There are instances like that where you have absolutely more discretion than in a straight bid situation.
My last question. Not to be labor this. Are those professional service contracts, do they have timelines associated with them, or are they just open-ended?
Most of them are not open-ended. Most of them have timelines. And most of them are for discreet services or a project. There's a project going on and we need that service, because many of those professional services contracts, whether it be -- for example, if we do the trash hauling contracts that we do for the City, they have to come to City Council. If they're beyond the timeline of the one year time limit, those 100 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 contracts, professional service or otherwise, must come to City Council. We don't have the discretion to just give and 10-year 5 contracts to people on a professional service basis.
Well, it's interesting you say that. And I'm going to end. The Procurement process where there's a three-year -- there's a requirement for those contracts to come back to Council, but they don't because they have the option to renew for the next year, so Council never sees it. That's why Councilman Kenney --
But again, there's manipulating the process right there.
I guess there has been forever, not started by this Administration, certainly these contracts that people put in place and say, we're going to have -- we're going to give you a one-year contract with 37 one-year renewable options and try to get around it. I do think we really have tried to 101 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 get out of that business, not get into that business. With the help of Council, I might add.
Thank you. Thank you, Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We can recommend you if any publishing house is looking for a writer of fairy tales. You have my recommendation.
I lost 50 pounds before I came up here so I'd be almost close to my playing weight. I knew I'd need to be in pretty good shape.
There are three witnesses left on my list. I'm going to ask all three to come up at the same time. After 102 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 that, if there's any member of the public who has not been heard from who wishes to testify, that will be possible. Lou Coffey, Terry Gillen and Troy Madres. Lou Coffey is from Center City Residents. Terry Gillen is leader of the 30th Ward, Democratic Ward. And Troy Madres is from Young Involved Professionals. So if the three of you will come up. After the testimony, the Committee will be taking a vote on these two bills. I suggest in the interest of chivalry Terry speak first.
Okay. Lou Coffey. You have to fight for women's rights everywhere, Terry.
Equal rights, 103 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 Councilman Cohen, equal rights.
Equal rights. It's a pleasure to have the three of you here.
Thank you. My name is Louis Coffey. I want to thank Councilman Cohen and members of the Committee on Law and Government for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today on this important issue. I especially want to thank Councilman Nutter who, in response to my letter regarding Bill 13 030562, encouraged me to appear today. Although my wife is going to be a little upset because I was supposed to meet her at 6 o'clock. I'm here in my capacity as President of Center City Residents Association. Unfortunately, neither of the co-chairs of our Legislative Committee, Lenora Berson and Jeanne Wrobleski were able to be here today. So you're stuck with the second team. Because I'm new to this, I ask your understanding, if not your indulgence, if I violate protocols unknown to me. 104 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 CCRA was organized in 1947 to prevent the conversion of Rittenhouse Square into a parking lot. Our mission is to maintain and improve quality of life in Center City. The scope of our activities has broadened since 1947. org. We have more than 1500 members, most of them residents, but a number of them are also businesses, religious and cultural institutions. Many of our resident members are also business or professional people. Our area is bounded by JFK Boulevard, South Street, Broad Street and the Schuylkill River. CCRA strongly supports campaign finance reform. We believe that it is long overdue in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth and the Nation. Bill 0305262 that was introduced on September 11th by Councilpersons Goode and Reynolds-Brown involves the subject of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. CCRA supports the goal of the bill. 105 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that both bills have been modified since our Legislative Committee and Board looked at them. Therefore, part of what I may say may be my own opinion and not that of CCRA, if only because CCRA Legislative Committee and Board have not had the opportunity to review the modifications. I'll do my best to distinguish my personal opinions from those of CCRA. I support the mandatory limits on campaign contributions that the bill would impose. Limits on campaign contributions by individuals and entities will substantially advance the democratic process in Philadelphia. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important contribution limits are to the integrity of the democratic process. CCRA has problems with parts of the bill relating to voluntary campaign expenditures, as it is drafted, though not in concept. The bill provides limitations on campaign expenditures shall be purely voluntary. It is not mandatory and it is not 106 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 required of all candidates. In a recent discussion that I had with Councilman Goode, he advised me that although campaign contributions may be legally capped, mandatory limits on campaign expenditures are unconstitutional, and that accounts for why the bill provides for voluntary limits on campaign expenditures. He advised me that he would prefer mandatory spending caps if they could withstand a constitutional challenge. One problem with the voluntary spending caps in the bill is that once a candidate has voluntarily agreed to impose limits on his or her campaign spending, he or she cannot change his or her mind irrespective of any changed circumstances in the campaign and whether or not the opponent has agreed to spending limits. Under the bill, the City Solicitor's Office can enforce the limitations by obtaining injunctive relief in the Court of Common Pleas even though the opposition candidate is not bound by any similar limitations. Anyone who voluntarily caps 107 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 campaign spending, therefore, assumes the risk that he or she could be outspent by his or her opposition, while he or she is legally bound to keep his or her self-imposed limits. The provisions do not create an even playing field.
Voluntary campaign caps can be detrimental if the opposition is not also bound. The bill provides no incentive or motivation for anyone to agree to curb spending. There is no reason for anyone to agree to campaign spending caps when there are risks of prosecution and a better financed opposition unless they believe that they won't raise enough money to enable them to exceed the spending limits and can gain some public relations advantage from such a unilateral agreement. It is my personal opinion that if the spending limits are to be voluntary, there should be some incentive provided for agreeing to them. On a national level, the incentive for agreeing to voluntary limits has been matching funds. We have seen recently that 108 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 where candidates are confident that they will raise enough money to be able to exceed the spending limits without matching funds, they are foregoing the matching funds and not adhering to spending limits. In those circumstances, the incentive goes away. With the elimination of the incentive, the agreement to limit spending goes away. Whether it is matching funds or something else, there needs to be some incentive to cause candidates to agree to voluntary spending limits. I believe that CCRA would strongly support all parts of Bill 030562 if it were amended to create either enforceable, mandatory spending caps or realize particular incentives for voluntary spending caps. Turning to Bill 030710, CCRA strongly supports Bill 030710 that was introduced on October 30th by Councilman Kenney. We urge Council and the Mayor to adopt it. The bill is a significant step forward in the campaign finance reform 109 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 movement, a movement that unquestionably has been favored throughout the country on the national and local levels. Voters everywhere support the need to eliminate the many negative influences on the political process invited by large campaign contributions. CCRA supports the campaign reform movement as a matter of principle and the elimination of pay-to-play in particular. Pay-to-play is a sport that is not in the public interest. It creates unnecessary pressures on political aspirants and office-holders who want to do the right thing for the electorate but are faced with the realities of the high cost of financing modern political campaigns. For the aspiring or elected office-holder to do good, he or she needs to get elected. To get elected, he or she needs to run a well-financed campaign. Until we limit campaign contributions and spending, we are putting our best and brightest and most principled in temptation's way. We have read reports in the media 110 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 from those whose careers are spent studying such matters on a national scale that Philadelphia and Pennsylvania has taken pay-to-play to hither to unknown extremes. They were not being complimentary. More specifically, here in Philadelphia during many Administrations, there has been a perception that favored City contracts are and were awarded as a matter of course only to large contributors in political campaigns. Even if, in actuality, there is no 13 pay-to-play or quid pro quo, the appearance of impropriety alone has an adverse impact. The elimination of an even playing field for obtaining City contracts is demoralizing and dissuades less affluent individuals and businesses from applying for City work. The City loses the benefits that are obtained from real competitive bidding for City work. Pay-to-play has a material adverse impact on residing and doing business in the City. Yesterday, the Tax Reform Commission delivered its report and recommendations for reducing and restructuring City taxes. The 111 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 Commissioners concluded that the City taxes adversely impact residents and businesses, erodes our tax base and reduces tax revenues, creating a need to impose a greater tax burden on those who remain.
The pay part of pay-to-play has some similarities to a tax. It is an additional cost of doing business in the City where the taxes already make the City uncompetitive. The pay portion is, however, unlike a tax in two important ways. First, if you have the permits and approvals needed, operate a legitimate business and pay your taxes, you can operate in the City. With pay-to-play, paying does not guarantee that you can play. We have read the story of a Northeast car dealer who paid heavily but was not able to play until a court, at the end of a brutal and costly court battle, ordered the City to issue the permits that the car dealer was entitled to as a matter of right under the law. The car dealer was a multi-millionaire who was tenacious and could afford to pay and, when he was not allowed to play, could afford 112 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 to finance the costly court battle to get that to which he was entitled without having to pay. But what about our average small business person who can neither afford to pay-to-play nor to finance the court battle to get that to which he or she is entitled? It is a barrier to doing business. The second way in which pay-to-play differs from a tax is that tax revenues go into the public treasury and are presumably used for the public good. The pay in pay-to-play does not go into the public treasury. It goes to a few individuals who use their public office or influence with those in public office for their own purposes by steering public assets to those who pay. They use Public Property for their own private gain. You might ask why a residents' association cares so much about business. As I mentioned earlier, a number of our members are businesses and many of our individual members are business and professional people 113 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 who are directly affected by the barriers to doing business that pay-to-play imposes. But purely as residents, if business is discouraged, the variety and quality of merchants and service providers who offer the goods and services that make up the quality of life in Center City is diminished. Businesses leave or choose not to locate here. Property values are impacted, and the tax burden on those who remain is increased. It is not surprising that elected officials want those on their staff, those closest to them, to be their loyal supporters and not those who would want to bring them down. I have no problem with that. However, when awarding public contracts or public assistance or otherwise dealing with public assets, public office-holders have a duty to deal with people on the basis of merit. Where pay-to-play is a legal sporting event, even the most virtuous among us, and we all have weaknesses and blind spots, may have difficulty distinguishing between the public good and personal gain. We 114 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 need to remove that pressure and confusion from our aspiring and elected officials so that they can focus on advancing the public good. I commit to you that I will do my best to get CCRA's more than 1500 members behind your campaign of finance reform initiatives. If there are things that CCRA can do to be supportive, please let us know. If you would like to address our members on this issue at a public forum, I will work with you on arranging such an event. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Coffey. Any questions from members? (No response.)
Thank you, Members. In the interest of the time, I'll be very brief. And I want to say that I am testifying in support of the bill that limits contributions from people who do contracts with the City. 115 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 I'm also testifying on behalf of the campaign finance bill introduced by Councilman Goode. I do want to say that I think the bill would be strengthened with maybe three things. I want to urge Council to consider this. One is that it, in my opinion, ought to apply to all City officials not just Council and the Mayor. It ought to apply to the row offices as well. And I think the broader we can make the bill, the better. The second is that if there's a way to limit spending on campaigns by related packs or state packs, we need to do that. This is obviously the problem that's been at the national level with soft money. People figure out another way to get around limits. And if we don't have state campaign finance reform -- which we don't right now. A number of us are working on that to change that, but in the meantime, I think it's important that we really look and see if there's a way we can limit spending by related packs. And finally, I want to say the enforcement mechanisms, I think, need to be 116 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 strengthened, because what's especially troubling in the City of Philadelphia is that we don't get enforcement of a lot of local election laws by the District Attorney who often recuses herself because she says if she knows the person, she should not be in the enforcement business. That leaves a real hole in the enforcement of a lot of election violations, in my opinion. And I think the reform board that was proposed by the League of Women Voters is a good first step. But if we don't have some serious teeth in this with some serious penalties, and frankly people have the possibility of going to jail if they commit violations, then I think we are really just kidding ourselves. So I would urge you to make any changes that you can. If you can't make these changes, to look at this as a first step and to not say that you've done your work and that you're finished, but that this is just a first step in a longer process. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 117 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you. I just would like to thank everyone at Council. I know it's been along night and I really thank you for allowing Young Involved Philadelphia to speak. My name is Troy Madres, and I'm speaking on behalf of Young Involved Philadelphia in support of both bills that Councilman Kenney and Councilman Goode are introducing. We feel that passage of this bill is essential to showing all Philadelphians that Council is serious about campaign finance reform and willing to take steps against the practice of pay-to-play. I'm co-founder and board member of Young Involved Philadelphia, otherwise known as YIP. YIP was founded in fall of 2003 as a civil engagement organization for young Philadelphians to meet, discuss important issues pertaining to the City, and to advocate 118 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 on good government reforms. We have a membership base of over 600 Philadelphians who regularly attend our meetings, participate in many of our activities and receive our newsletter. Our organization is based on two visions. First, we aim to educate Philadelphians about local civic affairs and key issues facing the City. We've held forums on the State's planned take over of the School District, planning efforts and revitalize neighborhoods, the future of the Sam Eric Theater, and immigration, to name a few. Even several members of the Chamber, including Councilman Nutter and Kenny have come to speak to our group. Our second vision is to support reforms that help create a better Philadelphia. We've participated in several advocacy campaigns since our inception, most notably, the effort to continue cuts to the City wage tax; and more recently, support for balance solution in Love Park. A third issue that we have monitored 119 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 and supported has been campaign finance reform. The bill that both Councilmember Kenney and Goode is introducing represents a viable step for reform in the City and shows that the City is willing to end its system of pay-to-play, which is significant for young adults like myself. You might ask why young people would care about a bill like this. You might think that education reform or better access to job training would be a more immediate. And while they're extremely important, this bill 14 addresses an issue that is at the core of many residents' dissatisfaction with the City, the notion that money gives you the keys to doing business in the City, that effort and determination is second to the connections that special interest receives, and that the public interest is held in low regard to campaign contributions. YIP supports this bill because ending pay-to-play would incur a change in the perception of City Hall to Philadelphians. We feel the appearance of pay-to-play as to the 120 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 sense of corruption in the City makes them feel more jaded, that the City does more to represent the interest of businesses than its citizens and leads to apathy to precisely the same group of people who the City should want to culture as future leaders. There's a growing sense to many Philadelphians, as highlighted in our recent election and federal investigation, that corruption is extensive in City Hall. As outlined in an article in today's Inquirer, contributors who gave large donations to the Mayor's campaign also receive City business and taxpayer money. One has to ask if these contributors receive the work because of their proposals and experience and hard work or because certain politicians receive their money. Even if that is not the case and a transparent selection process govern and a firm is chosen, the entire process is still tainted. The appearance of corruption is just as harmful in creating cynicism and skepticism in the City's residents.
The two bills that Councilmember 121 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 Kenney and Goode are proposing would begin to erode that perception and give the impression to the citizens of this community and elsewhere that the City plays fair and bases its business decisions on factors of skill and experience. Many young Philadelphians also feel jaded that the City does not represent them. They draw a straight line from the contributions a firm makes to the special treatment and business it receives from the City, and it makes them ask about their interests and concerns. What does it take for government to listen to me; a well-written letter, a visit to the office, a protest, or does it take a campaign contribution? The Mayor once stated that people supported himself in the general election have a greater chance of getting business from his Administration than those who supported his opponent. I believe that when young people read a quote like this and follow the trail of money, they feel warn down that their best effort will always be dwarfed by big business 122 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 and its extensive financial resources. What's the point of any effort if the City caters to special interests and not to me? Last, the appearance of pay-to-play creates apathy in young people and other Philadelphians as well. Campaign contributions represents an additional cost of doing business, creating another disincentive to young people who are already saddled with high taxes, cheaper alternatives across the river and the county line, and 50 years of economic decline. It leaves to young people who don't want to be civically engaged. Through their silence, the current system is allowed to continue. At its best, it creates citizens who aren't motivated to make change in the City and at its worst, makes the ones who can afford to leave go to places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or even Montgomery County. And guess what? Those three cities I mentioned ended pay-to-play long ago and have also enacted progressive and modern campaign finance reform. Philadelphia needs to culture and 123 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 promote its young leaders. They're its future, and we can't let them go because they simply don't care about the City. Passing this bill and others will set a good example to our youth and encourage their future involvement and interaction with the City. As young leaders, many of us want to be in politics and we hope our good ideas and hard work will make it happen and not simply the amount of money that we can raise. Cities like Philadelphia are endowed with many positive attributes. It's a cosmopolitan environment. There's a high concentration of higher education centers. There's incredible museums and cultural offerings and the unique feel that only a place like Philadelphia can provide. But adding these positive attributes are expensive or impossible. Lake Tahoe is never going to be two hours away, and we don't have the millions to build another stadium or another Kimmel Center. But the City can remove its negative attributes. It can reduce taxes, it can help lower the cost of construction, and 124 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 it can enact serious campaign finance reform. Passing Councilmember Kenney's bill 4 and Councilmember Goode's bill will be the first step to reduce the sense of corruption and attachment citizens feel about the City, make people feel that their elective politicians truly represent them and engender a sense of civic participation amongst all citizens, including and especially its youth. This is certainly an attribute that the City will want to remove, and I hope Council realizes this and makes a correct decision. Thank you.
Thank you all also for a very thoughtful statement. Are there any questions? (No response.)
Hearing none, thank you very much. The last speaker on my list is Lance Haver, Director of Consumer Affairs.
Thank you very much, and I'll be very brief because I appreciate all the time that you've spent. 125 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 Good evening, my name is Lance Haver. I'm the Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs. I want to be clear and I guess you already know that I'm not testifying on behalf of the Street Administration which created the independent Consumer Affairs Office. It is that independence that allows me to provide what may be a different perspective than the Mayor's. I am very thankful that City Council is taking up the critical issue of campaign finance reform because we need campaign finance reform. All too often our elections are turned into auctions with the office going to the highest bidders. The sanctity of the democratic process is placed at risk when rank and file voters believe that elected officials answer first to the contributors and second to the people. I don't believe that these two bills go far enough. Inadvertently, we have created a system that tars everyone in the election process. The candidates are forced to raise money to be credible, and then accused of 126 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 selling their office. The contributors who are on the one hand are urged to be civic minded, on the other are accused of trying to buy favor. Voters are told ever vote counts, but led to believe by the federal government, no less, that those that give are more important than those that vote. The problem is the current system, it forces all of us into an untenable dance. It cost $12 million to run for the Mayor's office. A candidate must raise millions to be seen by the media as credible. If a candidate is not seen as credible because they have not raised enough money, they don't get covered. Without coverage, there's no hope of a candidate winning. In much the way that bank robbers rob banks because that is where the money is, candidates are forced to try and raise money from the wealthy because that is who has the money to give. It should be no 22 surprise to anyone that the wealthy have business interests in the City and from time to time do business with the City. I realize that the idea such as 127 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 limiting contributions and making it illegal for people to give to businesses with the City of Philadelphia are tempting. Unfortunately, our past experience with national campaign finance laws show that nothing short of public finance of elections will end the need for people running for office to also run for money. Limiting campaign contributions will simply make prodigious fund-raisers more important. Creative lawyers will find ways around whatever rules are established, in much the way that big donors find ways around the federal laws by using soft money to buy national elections. Yes, the ideas are lofty, but the devil and the details of anything short of public funding is too large to defeat. We have had 30 years of experience with the quote/unquote post-Watergate campaign reforms. I do not believe that any rational person can say that big donors are no longer important, despite limits placed on campaign contributions. It doesn't make sense to me to 128 11/19/03 - LAW - BILLS 030562, 030710 try and implement a system that has not worked in the past with the hope that it will work in the future. The only way to make voters more important than contributors is to have campaigns publicly funded. Thank you.
If not, is there anybody who has not been called who wishes to be heard? I'm not inviting testimony, but we're willing to have it. (No response.)
Seeing no one, the Chair declares the public hearing at the end and calls for the beginning of the meeting of the City Council Law and Government Committee. - - - - 129 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - - Wednesday, December 11, 2003 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Law and Government, held in Room 11 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030562, 030710. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 130 11/19/03 - LAW - PUBLIC MEETING
First order of business should be the introduction by Councilmembers Goode and Kenney of the amendments they offered at the hearing. Do I hear such a motion of Councilman Goode?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendments, as circulated, on Bill 030562 and discussed on the record be approved. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all in favor of that motion, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Councilman Kenney, do you have with respect to your bill --
I'm not on the Committee. Perhaps Councilmember Goode ought to make a motion to approve his amended bill. 131 11/19/03 - LAW - PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Nutter will be handling my amendments.
Are you prepared to make a motion to approve the bill, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 030562, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
Mr. Chairman, I'm voting nay on the amendment and on the bill. I'm voting nay on the second bill.
On the amendments and on the motion, okay. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye.) 132 11/19/03 - LAW - PUBLIC MEETING
I'm voting no on the second bill. I'm voting yes on Councilman Goode's bill and I'm voting no on the second bill.
Councilman Mariano left his vote. He's voting aye on Councilman Goode's amendments and on the bill.
All those in favor of the motion of Councilman Goode to support his bill, please say aye. (Aye.)
It's unanimous on Councilman Goode's bill. Now, Councilman Kenney's bill.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to offer the amendments for Councilman Kenney on this particular bill. He's not a member of the Committee. The amendments have been circulated and I would move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 030710. 133 11/19/03 - LAW - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
And Councilman Mariano. The amendment is adopted. Councilman Nutter, will you offer the final motion?
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030710, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Any discussion? (No response.) 134 11/19/03 - LAW - PUBLIC MEETING
Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Mariano. The bill as amended is adopted. The public meeting is at the end. I thank everybody for their patience, the witnesses the Members of Council, and I'll even thank the Chairman. (Council adjourned at 9:00 p.m.) 135 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, November 11, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR