Bugged by Street

On a day that saw a U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold all the major provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which included a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties — commonly referred to as soft money — Philadelphia mayor John Street publicly announced his plans to veto an unprecedented campaign-finance bill that seeks to limit political campaign contributions to mayoral and City Council candidates.

Street's opposition to the bill, which would establish a $1,000 cap on individual contributions to city candidates and a $5,000 cap on contributions to political action committees, comes in the wake of a federal investigation into the awarding of city contracts. With almost daily revelations of the city's entrenched pay-to-play culture, the mayor's veto-threat defies explanation.

Street, who has brazenly defended pay-to-play, has repeatedly said he's waiting for Harrisburg to take action first. Meanwhile, the state has yet to settle on a budget.

Philadelphia is the nation's only top-ten ranking city that allows unlimited campaign contributions, a system that routinely invites six-figure contributions from individual donors.

The Council campaign finance bill passed in early December by a 10-4 margin. Eighth Councilmanic District Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller voted against it, and Councilman Frank Rizzo of Chestnut Hill has raised uncertainty about the legislation, despite supporting the bill out of committee. Rizzo was absent for the official vote.

In order to override a mayoral veto, Council needs 12 votes. But with the original four detractors firmly in the mayor's corner, and some of the bill's supporters shifting into the uncertain category, city-initiated campaign finance seems destined for the circular file.

Despite some concerns over giving an advantage to other state elected officials, the bill's ultimate passage is a crucial step in correcting the perception (and often, the reality) that Philadelphia is for sale.

Last week's Supreme Court decision established that Congress had a compelling interest in preventing both political corruption and the appearance of corruption. Citing numerous examples, the majority stated that large, unregulated contributions inevitably led to preferential access and influence. Doesn't that recall a certain federal probe?

The mayor has until Thursday, December 18, (Council's last session of the year) to veto the bill. The city should take its lead from the federal government. Street should either actively endorse this transformation initiative or allow Philadelphia to lead the way without his signature.
Michael J. Mishak

Thank you

It was pleasant to open the Philadelphia Inquirer last week to find a section about Chestnut Hill, filled with lovely photographs and articles that accurately captured life here. The Inquirer made its own decisions about which organizations, institutions and businesses to include. Reporters talked with community leaders and one came to the Local office to review files on some of the thorny issues debated by the Chestnut Hill Community Association over the past decade (as anyone who is interested may do), but we did not tell them who to interview. I know from my experience at the Local that it is difficult to include everyone when putting together special sections. Let’s thank the Inquirer for publishing upbeat coverage of Chestnut Hill.
Katie Worrall