This only underscores the fact that CFR exists for ONE purpose: to protect incumbents.

ddonnelly, what are some of the ideas you have for preventing this kind of tinkering in a system of government funded elections?

and highly annoying add we in the Lehigh Valley are getting sick of watching

Hope you are right, but San Francisco experience doesn't back you up. We've been through a series of mayoral elections since 1995 in which developer interests made it abundantly clear that they would spend ANY AMOUNT of money to defeat any challenger who indicated that city government ought to answer to the citizens, not the big money interests. And it worked like a charm: when you pour about $4 mil into defeating $385 thou (that was 1999) you win.

Yes, there were various expenditure limits. Any subsequent penalties were simply a cost of doing business.

Here's what Bob Brady had to say in today's Philadelphia Daily News.

No one ever got cut on the corners of a square deal. But when it comes to spending in the Philadelphia mayor's race, voters are beginning to see that it's anything but a square deal.

Here's the REAL deal: In an attempt designed to level the playing field for ordinary candidates and millionaires, City Council actually made the playing field anything but level.

This is pay to play for millionaires only.

Growing up in Overbrook, I didn't know many millionaires. My friends and I understood that having money gave some people an advantage when it came to buying things. We just didn't know City Hall was one of them. Maybe we were naïve. But no mayoral candidate from John Street to Frank Rizzo bought their way into office.

Jim Kenney is a smart guy. This is not about the individual millionaire who tries to buy City Hall. The U.S. Supreme Court, under the free speech clause of the Constitution, protects the right of any millionaire to spend his money on a run for political office. So here's my bottom line:

* Report all contributions on-line within 24 hours.

* Provide electronic copies immediately to the Committee of Seventy.

* Encourage news organizations to publish contributions daily.

These simple steps are designed to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Philadelphia voters are smart enough to figure it out from there.

Bowers for City Council!!!

What does Tom Knox stand for? For that matter, what does Chaka Fattah stand for? I won't ask what Bob Brady stands for, as it's fairly clear that a) he's not going to win the race and b) he stands for keeping his authority.

Also, is there any infrastructure in place to prevent the new members of the council from being drawn into the machine? Insurgent campaigns can only work so long as the candidates they propel into office maintain their principles.

Remember New Coke?

Yeah, me neither.

The fact is, the public rejects expensive ad campaigns all the time. (Rick Santorum is one. "Gigli" is another.) It doesn't even seem to occur to some people that voters simply like Tom Knox's message, but they do. When I'm out on the street with him, I'm surprised by how many people of all types come up to tell him they agree with him and want him to win. He's attended over 300 neighborhood meetings and forums in the past 18 months, so before he bought a single ad, he relied on good old-fashioned shoe leather.

Personally, I think people respond to him because he makes it clear that in his administration, no one should expect less from the city simply because they're poor or lacking in political connections. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

I don't say this about Tom because I work for him. I accepted the position as his press secretary because I suspected he just might be the real thing: an old-time liberal Democrat who believes government is there to serve the people, not the special interests. (I was right.)

I realize the truth isn't anywhere as interesting as what machine candidates like to ascribe to him, but Tom is running to take City Hall away from the insiders and give it back to the citizens of Philadelphia.

Personally, I think that's a pretty good reason.

I think those of us from outside Philadelphia might not understand the dynamics of the mayoral primary.  Brady's hope (and the machine's hope) was that the African American vote would be split up among several black candidates, leaving Brady to win the primary.

The poll shows that Knox has probably already siphoned off most of the blue-collar white vote which Brady was counting on.  The poll was certainly a shock to the Brady camp.  They have to raise a lot of money quickly to counter the Knox TV ads.  Under CFR they just could not do it in time to make a difference.  It's a lot easier to call in a few big favors (law firms, municipal bond bankers, cable companies) than it is to raise money from a lot of small donors.

The funny thing is that it's probably too late and, as you point out, counterproductive for the machine to repeal CFR.

BTW, I think that the "Mendoza Line" should be replaced by "Bush-like poll numbers" (but I'm a Pirates fan).

I don't know Philly politics, (though I do have a favorable view of Chaka Fattah) Tom Knox, however may be the best progressive ever.  Indeed there are good progressives with money,  and if the system allows you to spend your money and esp. if it's for a good cause, then you have the Supreme Court given right to spend it.

But it does distort the political process.  And it results in these kind of campaign finance contortions.  Buckley v Valeo not ONLY mistakenly says money is on the same plane as speech, but it also distorts the process because it ONLY allows CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE LIMITED, EXPENDITURES CANNOT BE LIMITED (THAT IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL WATERGATE REFORMS SAID- LIMIT EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTUIONS BOTH).

And it is on the expenditure side that we are going crazy.  As it gets more expensive, and the more the contributions are limited the more time and effort by the candidate must be spent raising that money.  

Just how the hell do you do your job or the people's job if you have to spend all your time raising money?

Sure Clean Money campaign finance regimes help, but not against a multimillionaire self financing candidate.  What if Tom Knox was a Rush Limbaugh dittohead? and not the knight in shining armor he's averred to be?

You're shooting at the wrong target.  

It's certainly dirty politics, but on a certain level I can't blame them.  They pass some rules limiting campaign contributions, and all of a sudden here's this guy who can outspend them all without ever taking a single contribution.  Not exactly the level playing field that campaign finance laws are supposedly trying to provide.

There's a lot long with the way we run elections in this country, but I think allowing candidates to self fund is a big part of it.  Why, exactly, should a candidate be allowed to contribute more to their campaign organization than the same amount as any other citizen can contribute?

Such a rule would at least have the beneficial effect of keeping party insiders from messing around in candidate recruitment and primaries just so they can get a self-funding candidate.

First Amendment not withstanding, Tom is a big supporter of public financing for city elections and will make it a priority if elected. (No point to cleaning up the pay-to-play mess without changing the system, after all.)

I suppose then we'll see if all the local politicians who are suddenly so eager for this "level playing field" really mean it when they have to give up their own fundraising advantage.

Look, Carter, Tom Knox is committed to expanding city services, not cutting them. The city isn't cutting back services because the money's not there - it's because so much money is still being kicked back to so many special interests. We're the highest taxed city in the country. Do we have the best services? Hell, no.

So the question, as always, is: Where's the money? Tom says he'll find it. I believe him.

Tom Knox is a wholy owned subsidiary of Big Insurance and the rest of the rest of the special interests that sit in the GOP owners box.