Big money is back in Philly politics, just dressed differently

It's time to face the facts. Philadelphia should do away with the strict limits it adopted in 2007 on political contributions to candidates.

The intent of the law - to curb "pay-to-play" politics - was admirable. And, for a while, it worked.

But it has been undermined - eviscerated is a better word - by a series of court rulings beginning in 2010 that swept aside the strictures placed on political contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals.

Before, they were limited in how much they could contribute to candidates; in fact, corporate giving was prohibited.

Now, as long as a group establishes an IEP - an Independent Expenditure PAC - or a "social welfare" 501(c)(4) entity, the caps are off. Givers can donate as much as they want and the PACs and 501(c)(4)s can spend as much as they want to support or take whacks at a candidate. The one thing they cannot do is make direct contributions to a candidate, and they are supposed to be completely independent of the candidate's campaign operation.

In 2016, the next presidential election cycle, these groups are expected to raise and spend more than $1 billion in "independent" expenditures. There are quotes around that word because there is increased evidence that these super PACs aren't very independent and that some would-be presidential candidates are tapping top political aides to head IEPs.

The pivotal moment came in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling on a case called Citizens United vs. FEC, opened the door to these new forms of giving in the name of free speech.

We didn't see the effects of that ruling locally until this year, when three independent expenditure PACs were created to help mayoral candidates:

Building a Better Pennsylvania is a union PAC working to elect Jim Kenney. John Dougherty, head of the local electricians' union, is a force behind this PAC.

Philadelphia Forward is a pro-Kenney super PAC that says it draws on the progressive and gay-rights community for some of its money - but the American Federation of Teachers is expected to provide most of the cash.

American Cities is a super PAC created by wealthy suburban businessmen who favor charters and education choice. The PAC's favored candidate is State Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams.

All three PACs have been running ads on TV for weeks and their spending is expected to run in the range of $5 million to $8 million.

The creation of these super PACs has turned running for office into a tale of the haves and the have-nots - with the candidates without super PAC support as the have-nots.

Lynne Abraham is a have-not. A former district attorney, she does not have any super PAC backing her and has not been able to raise the cash needed (at least to date) to become a regular presence on TV with her own ads.

It's her case that illustrates the unfairness.

Suppose I were a wealthy Center City businessman who wanted to help Kenney. There is no ceiling on the amount I could give the Philadelphia Forward IEP. It would accept any amount. I could write it a check for $100,000.

Now, suppose I wanted to give to Abraham. Under city law, I could give her no more than $2,900 as an individual. If I have a political action committee, I could give her no more than $11,500.

This puts her - and all other non-IEP-supported candidates - at a disadvantage.

If the intent of the city's campaign law was to banish big money from politics, it has failed. Big money is back, simply wearing a different hat.

People seeking public office already have enough barriers to election, especially if they are running against an incumbent, who has much easier access to money through regular contributions and, now, through super PACs.

People like to call these IEPs "dark money," but they are not. Super PACs must file the same campaign disclosure statements as all others.

The 501(c)(4)s and similar 501(c)(6)s are a different matter. They are supposed to be nonprofits that support "public welfare" in the case of (4)s and business associations in the case of (6)s. They can't run ads saying, "Vote against Barack Obama" because telling people how to vote would be a partisan act. But they can run ads saying, "Barack Obama has destroyed the American health system."

Because they are nonprofits, these groups don't have to disclose who gave them donations. That is dark money.

In Philadelphia and elsewhere, if the money is going to come in regardless, why let it in through a side door? Without contribution limits but with frequent public disclosure, at least we will know who is supporting whom.

Council President Darrell L. Clarke has introduced a bill that does not touch the contribution limits but that would increase the number of times candidates and PACs must disclose - from once before a primary election to four times before. Additional disclosure is a good first step, but we also have to recognize reality: Contribution limits are unworkable as long as the Citizens United ruling remains in effect. And that is going to be for a very long time.