Phila.'s finance reform working

The limits are working.

Yes, they are working under a $9 million shadow. But for the third mayoral race in a row, Philadelphia's attempt at campaign-finance reform seems to have done much of what it was intended to do: dampen big money's power to buy the city's next chief executive.

Yes, the 2015 Democratic mayoral campaign is awash in millions of dollars being put up by labor unions and Main Line financial traders - $9 million in all, according to spending reports filed Friday.

The full impact of that money, especially on TV ads between now and the May 19 primary, has yet to be seen. But that type of outside spending is there, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, and is beyond any local control.

Consider only Philadelphia's own hard-fought rules, instituted first in 2003 and tinkered with off and on since. The latest campaign-finance reports, filed Friday, show they have evened the playing field among direct donors to the candidates and have not necessarily so hampered fund-raising that candidates can't pay for a campaign.

The reports show that former City Councilman James F. Kenney, State Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams, and former District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham each was able to raise more than $1 million - even though individual donors could give no more than $2,900 each and PACs, or political action committees, could give a maximum of only $11,500 each.

"In the scheme of Philadelphia's long-standing difficulty in weaning itself off a completely corrupt system, this campaign-finance law, despite its faults, has been extremely significant," said Sam Katz, a three-time mayoral candidate who is yet weighing a fourth run.

"No one who has given $2,900 to a candidate can possibly think they have anything coming to them. And no candidate who has received that kind of donation can possibly think they owe anybody anything."

Katz noted that before 2003, and headlines generated by an FBI investigation of Philadelphia's "pay-to-play" political culture, the finance reports were dominated by huge donations - $100,000-plus - from law firms and wealthy individuals.

"There is no point in covering how much money anybody gives anymore," Katz said, referring to media reports on the campaign filings. "Because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Which says to me the system works."

The headlines Saturday, of course, were about the bucks being poured into the race by independent expenditure groups supporting Williams and Kenney. Those groups have raised $9 million in all, according to spending reports filed Friday.

American Cities, which is backing Williams, reported raising $6.8 million in 2015. Three founders of the trading firm Susquehanna International Group - Joel Greenberg, Jeff Yass, and Arthur Dantchik - put up $6,651,000.

Two other such groups - Building a Better PA Fund and Forward Philadelphia - support Kenney. Building a Better PA reported raising nearly $1.5 million, largely from unions representing carpenters and electricians. Forward Philadelphia reported raising $780,000, with large contributions from the American Federation of Teachers and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

The independent expenditure groups exist as a result of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that exempts such independent efforts from finance restrictions.

The candidates themselves are governed by the city's finance rules, which were tightened further before the 2007 mayoral race in an effort to eliminate the influence of big donors on the candidates.

Earlier in this election season, what seemed like anemic fund-raising was blamed on the limits, and more than a few analysts wondered whether the rules had been tightened too much.

That raised the ire of Mayor Nutter, who helped write some of the restrictions and managed to raise more than $4 million under them when he ran in 2007. He contended the poor fund-raising at that point was simply a measure of current candidates' efforts, not a reflection of the law.

The latest reports - which cover 2015 through Friday - seem to bear him out. Williams and Kenney each managed to raise more than $1.3 million. Abraham topped out at just over $1 million.

Those figures compare to the $1.7 million Nutter raised in the same period in 2007. Nutter benefited from a doubling of the limits that year because of an exemption triggered when another candidate, Tom Knox, donated $8 million to his own campaign.

(Two other candidates in this year's race have raised considerably less. Former Common Pleas Court Judge Nelson Diaz reported raising $394,093. Former PGW executive Doug Oliver raised $32,691. Former State Sen. T. Milton Street Sr. did not file a report.)

Though the money raised by Williams, Kenney, and Abraham pales in comparison to the money the independent expenditure groups raised, it seems sufficient for each to run a competent campaign, complete with television ads.

"Can you run a good campaign in Philadelphia for $1 million, $1.5 million?" Katz asked. "I think the answer is yes."

Nutter, in an interview Saturday, stood firmly with the restrictions he helped author. He said they do more than help eliminate pay-to-play.

"There is something important in having candidates raise money under these limits," he said. "These are hard-earned dollars that require commitments to small donors who are regular people. I think it helps keep a candidate focused on what their campaign and candidacy is all about."

Looming out there, of course, is the shadow of the independent expenditure groups and the weight of their money, which is driving the bulk of the television ads now airing.

There is a limit to what the city can do in terms of regulation. At most, it can require more frequent disclosure of who is providing the money.

Michael Hagen, an associate professor of political science at Temple University, said public disclosure goes a long way to keeping the game honest.

"We are not in a situation where a lot of dark money is being spent," he said, using a term that refers to spending by political nonprofits that are not required to identify their donors.

"The independent expenditure groups in this campaign are pretty up-front about what they are doing, which is all for the good as far as I'm concerned."

But what of the impact of all that money - $6.8 million from American Cities, $2 million plus from the groups backing Kenney?

Well, Katz said it was useful to recall the last time that kind of cash - $10 million to be exact - was stacked up behind a single candidate.

That was 2007 and the man with millions, Tom Knox, finished second to the man who help write the limits, Michael Nutter.