The state supremes, by a 5-2 decision, has upheld Philly's new campaign finance ordinance. That ordinance, adopted to combat the "pay to play" atmosphere increasingly apparent in local politics, has been praised by Philly's Committee of Seventy. "[A] real limit to the buying and selling of influence made a huge impact on the election."This decision, which you can read here, applies to any home rule municipality.
Let's face it. Our campaign finance laws are a joke. They enable fat cats like Louis DeNaples to drop $1 million on political candidates, including judges and the Attorney General. And nobody bats an eye when he's awarded a casino license.
Wheee!
It's legal bribery. Pennsylvania is one of only twelve states that place no limits on campaign dough for pols. Do you honestly think, for even one second, that incumbents in the land of midnight payraises really intend to do anything to fix that?
In Pittsburgh, campaign finance reform was proposed almost immediately after the supremes' latest hit was released. In Bethlehem, council member J. Michael Schweder is the first LV legislator to propose contribution limits on Bethlehem candidates. He even wants finance reports made available for public inspection at city hall.
Since we will soon be besieged by a casino, and organized crime is never far behind. It's time for LV limits.
Northampton and Lehigh Counties and their three cities - Bethlehem, Allentown and Easton - are all home rule municipalities. The chair of Northampton County's finance committee, Ron Angle, is expected to consider local campaign finance reform today.
After Schweder, Ron is number two.
Everyone knows that.
two observations:
ReplyDeleteok, now that i think about it, one observation.
any coincidence that the two guys to propose finance reform are both guys who can afford to self-finance campaigns? in this regard, Mike S's reforms look seriously flawed.
i'm not saying that finance reform isn't needed and laudable. it is. but lets look REAL close at those proposals, to make sure local politics doesn't become the domain of the wealthy.
Campaign finance refrom is needed as long as it does not come up like McCain-Feingold. But I also think we need to limit the campaign season and I believe we should have a national primary for the presidential year--we are almost at that point with Super Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteOn the local front there should be a limit on the amount one can give say $2,000 for the primary and same for the general.Post the info on the web. I do not know how you put a limit on the total one could raise and spend particularly if you are spending your own money. I think a lot of this would be avoided with a limited campaign season maybe it starts one month before the primary and in September in the general election.
Anon 8:12,
ReplyDeleteA few points.
1)Campaign finance reform is being considered by Angle, but I don't know that he'll decide to propose anything. Actually, the person who is pushing council on this point is me, and I'm barely a hundredaire.
2) This proposal doubles campaign limits for one candidate if his opponent decides to self fund a campaign.
3) There is also a cap on total spending. No matter how rich someone is, he can only spend so much on the race.
4) If you think Angle self funds his campaigns, you're mistaken. His campaigns are financed by hard core Angle fans. The ones he likes best, believe it or not, are the small ones. He did send $500 back to a developer, Lou Pektor.
Sounds like another 'incumbency' empowerment act.
ReplyDeleteI saw that now Bob Freeman has an opponent he used tax payer money to mail out a 'Bob Freeman At Work For You' newsletter. How do you compete against Incumbents having limitless PSA money?
O_o
P.S. Don't toss up that I like Mr. Freeman, I'm a bigger fan of democracy.
Fortunately, NC has never done a PSA. I hope that remains the case. I understand your point, and perhaps legislation could also include an outright ban on PSAs from council, the exec, and any other elected official.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, this decreases the power of the incumbent, to whom most of the campaign $ would naturally flow. It levels the playing field. It will also increase the importance of things like debates, town halls and getting out and actually campaigning.
This is another case where good intentions (by some) collide with unintended (by some) consequences. An earlier comment about incumbency protection is a bullseye. Laws like these in addition to franking privileges and a host of other nifty incumbency perks will continue to deliver 98+% re-election rates. Even Bob Freeman has apparently bitten the apple in light of a rare challenge. He's only so nice when it comes to keeping his job. It doesn't make him a bad guy. It just makes him like everyone else. And that's the problem.
ReplyDeleteI just don't buy that.
ReplyDelete