►
From YouTube: Committee on Law and Government 10-24-2017
Description
The Committee on Law and Government of the Council of the City of Philadelphia held a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 10:00 AM, in Room 400, City Hall, to hear testimony on the following items:
170680 An Ordinance amending Title 20 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," to add a Chapter establishing a system for public financing of political campaigns; all under certain terms and conditions.
170681 An Ordinance amending Chapter 20-1000 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Political Contributions and Expenditures," to add and make changes to provisions regarding campaign contributions; contributions to transition and inauguration committees; and campaign finance disclosures; and making technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions.
170682 An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter providing for public matching funding for campaigns for City office; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election.
170696 Resolution proposing an amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter regarding appropriations and expenditures for, and implementation of, public financing of political campaigns pursuant to a system as may be established by Council by ordinance; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Committee on Law and Government
Chair: Councilman Bill Greenlee (At Large)
Vice Chair: Councilman Derek Green (At Large)
A
B
The
number
one:
seven:
zero:
six:
eight
two
and
ordinance
providing
for
the
submission
to
the
qualified
electors
of
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
The
proposals
set
forth
in
a
resolution
approved
by
council,
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
Philadelphia
Home
Rule
Charter,
providing
for
public
matching
funding
for
campaigns
for
City
office
and
authorizing
the
appropriate
officers
to
publish
notice
and
to
make
arrangements
for
the
special
election
resolution.
B
One:
seven:
zero
six:
nine
six
resolution
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
Philadelphia
Home
Rule
Charter,
regarding
appropriations
and
expenditures
for
implementation
of
public
financing,
of
political
campaigns
pursuant
to
a
system
as
may
be
established
by
Council
by
ordinance
and
providing
for
the
submission
of
the
amendments
at
the
electors
of
Philadelphia.
Thank.
C
You
mr.
chair
I
want
to
thank
the
members
of
council
here,
and
those
are
the
public
here
to
testify
regarding
this
package
of
legislation.
This
is
a
continuation
of
work
that
started
back
in
2006
on
during
my
tenure,
working
with
council
and
Marion
Tasker,
where
we
had
hearings
in
defiance
committee
regarding
this
concept
of
public
finance
of
Elections,
where
we
had
various
individuals
both
throughout
the
country,
testify
regarding
the
kinds
of
public
financing
elections.
C
We've
come
a
long
way
since
that
time
and
to
that
six
we've
had
amendments
to
our
own
local
legislation,
reference
to
campaign,
finance
and
ethics
laws.
I
want
to
thank
the
staff
at
councilman
Heenan
for
all
of
their
work
in
getting
us
to
this
point,
as
well
as
my
staff
and
well
the
staff
of
councilman
Sanchez.
This
is
the
beginning
of
a
conversation,
regardless
kinds
of
public
finds
of
our
local
elections.
In
addition,
this
package
of
bills
provides
some
other
opportunities
to
make
some
other
changes
to
our
campaign.
C
Finance
laws
to
continue
the
work
that
we
started
in
2006
and
also
provide
greater
opportunities
for
people
to
be
engaged
in
the
public
process
that
we
call
elections.
So
this
is
the
beginning
of
a
conversation.
I
anticipate.
There
will
be
much
more
conversations
regarding
this
package
of
bills.
In
this
committee.
We
look
forward
to
engaging
in
a
dialogue
between
members
of
the
public,
those
who
are
advocates,
as
well
as
members
of
this
committee
and
council
as
a
whole
as
well
as
administration.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
Mr.
beau
is
approaching
for
those
of
you
who
are
waiting
to
testify
for
those
of
you
who
have
put
in
written
testimony.
Oh
that
will
all
be
in
its
entirety,
made
part
of
the
record.
Some
of
that
testimony
is
kind
of
long.
So
I
would
respectfully
ask
that
when
you
come
up,
you
don't
have
to
read
the
whole
testimony
again.
It
will
be
put
into
the
record
that
you
summarize
your
statements
and
then
we'll
have
questions
and
discussions.
A
D
As
councilman
green
mentioned.
These
proposals
are
part
of
an
ongoing
discussion
about
the
city's
election
system.
Given
the
significant
recurring
investment,
the
legislation
package
would
mandate,
it's
especially
important
to
consider
the
city's
current
financial
condition.
As
you
know,
the
city
will
face
significant
structural
financial
challenges
over
the
course
of
the
upcoming
five-year
plan.
They
include
include
low
reserves,
high
fixed
costs
in
a
relatively
weak
tax
base.
Additionally,
we
face
some
immediate
financial
burdens,
including
uncertainty
over
state
and
federal
funding,
potential
slowdown
in
the
national
economy
and
a
looming
school
district
deficit.
D
In
response
to
this
combination
of
structural
and
immediate
threats,
we've
asked
departments
to
reduce
their
spending
plans
by
2%.
In
the
current
fiscal
year,
we
will
likely
face
even
more
difficult
funding
decisions
in
next
year's
budget
and
the
upcoming
five-year
plan.
Estimates
from
the
campaign,
finance,
Institute
and
the
Board
of
Ethics
suggest
their
proposal
before
the
community
today
would
require
approximately
6.2
million
dollars
in
FY
19
in
order
to
fund
primary
in
general
election
candidates
in
the
2020
cycle.
D
This
includes
about
five
and
a
half
million
for
public
finance
public
campaign
finance
funding
and
to
cover
the
cost
associated
with
funding
political
campaigns,
as
well
as
approximately
700,000
and
operating
costs
for
the
Board
of
Ethics.
While
these,
while
the
costs
of
future
elections,
could
be
spread
more
evenly
over
the
course
of
four
year
election
cycle,
diversion
of
revenues
into
their
proposals,
special-purpose
fund,
along
with
its
mandatory
appropriations
for
the
public
financing
system,
could
directly
reduce
council
and
the
administration's
ability
to
make
new
investments.
D
The
requirement
that
this
funding
be
segregated
puts
a
particular
constraint
on
the
city's
ability
to
make
spending
allocation
decisions.
In
light
of
these
constraints,
we
agree
with
the
sponsors
decision
to
hold
the
bill,
but
remain
open
to
continuing
a
dialogue
on
the
issue.
This
concludes
my
testimony
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
We
have
Thank.
A
A
D
A
I
know
you
there's
already
plans:
I
have
to
cut
certain
departments
because
of
our
budget
issues,
the
school
district
budget.
You
know
coming
up
and
all
that
that
kind
of
thing,
but
as
far
as
some
other
departments
or
other
issues,
how
would
you
say
this
could
affect
because
with
having
this
much
money
added
to
the
budget
things
like
police
housing?
Could
you
comment
on
that?
A
little
bit
later
so.
D
D
So,
for
example,
and
I'm
not
obviously
the
decisions,
don't
kind
of
become
this
stark,
but
yeah.
Well
your
examples
of
what
seven
million
could
fund.
So
a
police
officer
starts
at
what
fifty
thousand
so,
for
you
know,
seven
million.
You
could
get
sixty
seventy
police
officers
so
and
that's
the
kind
of
that's
the
scale
you're
talking
about.
That's.
A
An
example:
I
got
you
and
last
question:
is
there
again
from
your
experience
looking
into
the
future
as
much
as
we
can
these
days?
Is
there
any
reason
to
think
financially
that
things
will
drastically
change
over
I
mean
some
of
these
challenges
you're
talking
about
likely,
you
know
between
schools
and
the
opioid
crisis,
and
all
that
kind
of
thing
with
that
you
know,
is
it
likely
that
that
kind
of
situation
would
continue
and.
D
I,
don't
think
so
and
I
don't
think
that
will,
for
example,
we
are
internal
policies
to
have
a
fund
balance
of
around
seven
percent.
The
government
finance
Officers
Association
thinks
you
should
be
more
like
seventeen
percent.
We
are
not
close
to
that
and
we're
unlikely
to
get
close
to
that
anytime
soon
or
are
pinched
and
fun
to
shew.
You
know
we're
gonna
face
pension
funding
issues,
you
know
at
least
for
a
decade.
So
you
know
the
really
big
issues
that
we're
facing
aren't
gonna
go
away
soon.
A
And
by
saying
I
understand,
certainly
the
argument
before
this,
but
I
think
when
we're
talking
about
public
financing
I
think
we
have
to
obviously
talk
a
lot
about
financing,
because
that's
what
you
know,
that's
how
we're
gonna
have
to
do
it
so
so
with
that.
I
appreciate
that
before
I
recognize,
councilman
green,
just
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
councilman
Heaney
majority
leader
is
president
as
its
councilman
O'neill,
a
member
of
the
committee,
councilman
green
and
then
councilman
Jones
Thank.
C
D
E
C
So
it's
still
it's
going
up
and
down
during
your
time
period,
but
really
we
have
not
had
a
fund
balance
at
a
level
that
we
should
be
having
that's
correct,
right
and
that's
been
going
back
through
not
only
this
administration
but
through
the
nut
administration
and
also
the
street
administration.
So.
C
D
C
C
C
Then,
during
your
time
period
in
those
various
positions,
no
we've
had
time
periods
like
we
do
now
where
we
have
not
had
a
state
budget
like
during
the
Brendale
administration.
It
was
a
long
period
of
time
where
a
state
budget
I
think
was
passed
in
January
when
it
was,
should
have
been
passed,
a
prior
June,
which
was
ended
fiscal
year.
So
we've
had
some
challenging
uncertain
financial
times
at
a
state
level,
various
times
through
your
tenure
in
those
various
positions.
Yes,
it's
and
then
you
also
look
at
the
at
the
federal
government.
C
D
C
D
C
So
when
you
look
at
your
testimony
that
you
may
reference
to
face
immediate
financial
burdens
regarding
uncertainty
of
the
state,
federal
funding,
potential
slowdown
in
national
economy
and
looming
school
district
deficits,
we've
had
that
over
a
number
of
years
during
your
tenure
as
assistant
budget
director,
deputy
budget
director
and
budget
director
science
director.
So
that's
nothing
new!
Well,
it's
about.
As
you
said,
it's
about
choices
and
making
decisions.
D
C
As
all
Jimenez
always
has
been
a
hard
time,
if
you
look
at
various
other
jurisdictions
that
have
decided
to
go
into
public
financing,
they've
also
had
similar
perspectives
of
some
of
the
same
uncertainties
regarding
challenges.
Economy.
We
had
a
recession.
2008
we've
had
uncertainty
in
reference
to
federal
funding.
So
just
like
the
times
we're
facing
now,
we've
faced
these
times
in
past,
as
well
as
other
jurisdictions
that
face
these
times
and
have
also
had
public
financing
campaigns
as
well.
Yeah.
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
D
C
D
Make
decisions
all
the
time
under
those
type
of
new
testaments
and
every
one
of
them
involves
kind
of
choices
about
what
we
can
and
can't
do.
And
that's
because,
while
our
budgets,
4
billion
our
fixed
costs,
are
really
high,
our
fixed
costs
are
actually
probably
more
than
half
of
our
budget
and
then
what's
left
and
the
biggest
area
is
public
safety.
And
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
discretionary
just
discretionary
money
and
in
the
end,
when
we
kind
of
finish
up
the
budget
and
go
through
the
process
with
council.
D
D
C
D
C
Here,
but
that's
10
million
dollars
based
on
a
mutual
decision
between
the
executive
branch
and
legislative
branch,
and
so
if
the
legislative
branch,
which
is
the
engi
that
has
responsibility
for
passing,
the
budgets
makes
a
decision.
How
dollars
should
be
allocated.
That's
somewhat
different
than
the
executive
branch,
unless
the
the
mayor
decides
to
veto.
That's
that
was
the
decision
made
by
the
legislative
branch
to
make
that
decision
regarding
allocating
the
funds
and
when
you
say,
10
million
dollars,
is
somewhat
discretionary.
C
D
C
The
same
thing
exactly
so,
ultimately,
it's
a
decision
and
choices
that
need
to
be
made
by
now
in
this
body,
but
also
the
people
cuz
I
wanna
mention
this
legislation.
If
it
were
to
be
passes
sometime
in
the
future,
ultimately
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
citizens
of
the
city
of
fidelity
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
they
want
to
engage
in
public
lines
that
campaigns
and
then,
if
the
will
of
the
people
vote,
for
it
is
something
that
we
as
a
body
as
we
as
an
administration.
We
need
to
implement
correctly.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank.
A
D
F
D
F
F
F
A
G
Director,
it's
the
city,
commissioners
budget,
which
is
you
know,
which
is
run.
They
run
elections
between
somewhere
between
ten
and
eleven
million
depending
on
the
year,
depending
on
whether
there's
a
big
national
election.
So
they
say
that's
the
amount
that
we
and
that's
not
including
their
benefits,
but
that's
just
the
direct
amount
that
we
spend
for
the
city
Commission's
budget.
So.
F
D
F
D
A
F
F
There's
voter
participation
going
down
it's
my
understanding.
That's
a
world
leader
expert
that
the
number
of
these
elected
election
operators
are
going
down
and
we
just
really
need
to
focus
on
how
to
get
more
people
to
participate
in
the
democratic
process.
So
that's
another
priority
that
we
have
other
than
you
know,
campaign
finance.
We
better
take
a
look
at
that
or
whether
you're
a
Republican
I
know
I.
Have
someone
in
committee
do
I
have
to
to
Republicans
and
Democrats.
So
this
is
a
bipartisan
kind
of
thing.
F
We
better
start
to
take
a
look
at
this
whole
process
to
make
sure
that
in
ten
years
that
we
actually
have
people
willing
to
participate
in
the
democratic
process,
whether
as
a
a
custodian
of
democracy
in
those
election
booths
or
as
participants
even
going
to
the
polls.
So
we
ought
to
think
we're
averaging
like
twenty
twenty
percent
turnout
to
have
a
war
leader
expert
that
can
verify
you.
F
Percent,
so
we
need
to
take
a
whole
look
at
the
whole
department
and
figure
out
during
the
budget
process,
how
we
encourage
more
people
to
be
involved,
whether
it's
electronic
voting
or
those
kinds
of
things
that
can
actually
stimulate
more
participation
of
the
electorate
and
as
well
as
the
infrastructure
of
people
who
acts,
count
our
votes.
And
that
was
a
statement
not
a
question.
Okay,.
H
I
want
to
thank
the
lead.
Sponsor
of
this
legislation
counts
on
the
green,
for
really
you
know,
being
forward-thinking
in
the
direction
and
and
how
we
operate
as
an
electoral
and
how
we
use
our
resources
in
a
priority
way.
I
think
it's!
You
know
kind
of
appropriate
that
we
have
these
public
discussions
and
in
lieu
of
a
lot
of
the
testimony,
a
lot
of
stakeholders,
a
lot
of
people,
one
on
the
streets
as
I
mean
council,
councilman
Jones
has
just
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
F
H
You
know
people
in
our
communities
to
to
be
a
part
of
of
their
neighborhood
to
be
a
part
of
government
to
have
their
voices
be
heard
in
more
of
a
structure
way.
So
a
couple
things
that
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
is
very
minuscule
part
of
our
overall
budget.
The
wood
is
our
operating
budget.
4.4
billion
hello.
D
G
H
Everything
so
we're
talking
about
eight
billion
dollars,
and
you
know
we're
having
a
public
conversation
over
a
point:
zero
one
percent
of
engaging
our
public
and
good
good
civic
responsibility
and
a
different
way
of
seeing
things.
Changes
is
difficult
question
one
policy
I
know
your
finance
and
I'm,
not
sure.
If
you've
taken
a
position
on
a
policy
but
as
a
policy
and
trying
to
get
people
engaged,
does
the
administration
feel
that
it
is
the
right
conversation
to
have
on
the
policy
itself?
Maybe.
H
We
don't
understand
it,
I
understand
it.
You
know
and
I
think
what's
great
about
having
public
hearings
and
having
people
who
have
experiences
as
best
practices
across
the
country
is
that
you
know
we
should
discuss
a
policy.
You
know
then
leading
into
and
ending
any
kind
of
finances
because
everything
we
do.
You
know
our
tax
delinquencies.
H
H
G
G
D
D
H
A
H
To
what
we
had
with
sick
bay
and
a
21st
century
wage,
it
was
a
little
bit
outside
the
box,
but
it
was
good
for
people
and
and
I
think
that's
what
makes
Philadelphia
better
than
most
and
that's
why
we
were
a
City
first
class.
So
I
appreciate
the
dialogue
in
the
conversation
and
look
forward
to
dealing
with.
H
A
I
Rob
so
you're
getting
excited.
Sorry,
sorry,
now
grip.
What
one
quick
question
you
know,
then
you
know
I
share
the
budget
hearings,
some
always
interesting.
So
with
respect
I
know
you
can't
guarantee
this,
but
we've
got
the
two
municipal
contracts
that
we've
resolved
on
both
10%
increases
across
the
board
they're
about
a
1000
over.
I
I
All
right
and
I
know
you
can't
answer
this
question
I
know
because
how
savvy
you
are?
You
won't
answer
this
question,
but
the
likelihood
is
that
the
two
remaining-
and
this
is
me
saying
this-
remaining
contracts-
will
be
approximately
eight
to
ten
over
the
life
of
the
plan.
It's
normally
and
I
know.
You
know
each.
I
D
D
I
C
C
D
J
D
I
D
D
No
I'm,
sorry
I,
don't
may
not
have
answered
that.
Well,
what
I
was
saying
that
they
have
projections
in
their
budget?
Those
projections
don't
include
additional
funding
from
us,
but
they
do
show
a
nine
hundred
and
seventy
six
million
dollar
deficit
and
obviously
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
how
that
hole
is
going
to
be
filled.
D
A
A
K
Morning,
Jared
Greenlee,
my
name
is
Michael
cook
here
to
testify,
on
behalf
of
the
Board
of
Ethics
a
good
morning,
also
vice-chair
green
other
members
of
the
committee
council.
President
clark.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
on
the
proposed
legislation
and
I
would
like
to
note,
of
course,
for
the
record.
As
you're
all
aware,
the
board
has
administered
the
city's
Public
Integrity
law
since
its
inception
in
2008,
including
the
city's
campaign.
K
The
board
supports
this
proposed
legislation
and
appreciates
the
opportunity
we've
had
to
work
with
members
of
City
Council
to
craft
it,
and
we
think
that
the
proposed
legislation
would
offer
numerous
benefits
to
the
citizens
of
Philadelphia.
Indeed,
we
see
it
as
the
next
step
in
the
ethics
and
campaign
finance
reforms
that
began
with
the
city's
adoption
through
City
Council's
action
of
the
cities,
campaign,
finance
law
and
the
creation
of
the
Ethics
Board
in
2006.
The
proposed
matching
funds
program
would
make
Philadelphia
Elections
cleaner
and
fair.
K
It
would
empower
philadelphians
by
amplifying
the
impact
of
small
donations
and
would
encourage
candidates
to
focus
their
time
and
fundraising,
efforts
on
regular
constituents,
thereby
diversifying
the
donor
base.
As
for
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
legislation
itself,
that's
laid
out
in
my
testimony.
I'm
sure
members
are
familiar
with
it.
Just
briefly
note:
the
heart
of
the
proposed
legislation
is
matching
funds.
That
is
that
candidates
who
participated
in
the
program
would
be
eligible
to
receive
a
five
to
one
match
of
any
contributions
of
up
to
$150
from
Philadelphia
residents.
K
The
program
would
apply,
of
course,
only
to
city,
elective
office,
mayor
council,
District,
Attorney
control
or
Sheriff
and
city
commissions,
and
not
to
the
judicial
or
state
elections,
even
if
they're
based
in
Philadelphia,
the
legislation
would
have
caps
on
the
amount
of
money
that
any
single
candidate
could
receive.
Spending
limits
and
would
limit
the
amount
of
money
participating
candidates
could
accept
from
political
committees.
K
The
proposed
legislation,
of
course,
in
order
to
participate
candidates,
would
have
to
go
through
a
number
of
criteria
in
order
to
make
sure
that
they
are
actually
credible
candidates
and
that
it
was
a
worthwhile
and
useful
thing
for
the
city
to
even
be
providing
them.
The
matching
funds
to
begin
with
those
criteria
are
laid
out
in
the
legislation.
L
K
For
those
who
were
committed
to
it,
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
projected
costs
of
the
program.
That
was
something
that
the
finance
director
talked
about,
certainly
very
important
and
wanted
to
lay
that
all
before
the
members
of
the
committee.
So
you
have
all
the
information
that
you
need
under
the
proposed
legislation.
The
board
would
be
responsible
for
administering
the
program
and
we
appreciate
counsels.
Confidence
in
the
board's
ability
to
do
so
and
reckon
is
the
significant
challenge
of
the
undertaking.
K
Given
the
scope
of
the
proposed
program.
Of
course,
the
board
would
require
a
notable
increase
and
it's
a
appropriation
to
cover
the
administration
of
the
program
based
on
the
legislation
as
it's
currently
structured
and
after
examining
how
agencies
in
other
jurisdictions
administer
similar
programs.
We
estimate
that
the
board
would
require
up
to
seven
new
full-time
staff
members.
We
would
likely
also
make
use
of
seasonal,
temporary
employees
during
peak
periods
before
elections.
K
These
folks
would
work
on
processing
matching
claims,
developing
the
relevant
regulations,
the
guidance
documents
providing
trainings
and
helping
candidates
with
compliance
and
audit
of
their
participation
in
the
program,
all
tolled
for
salaries
and
administrative
costs.
Such
as
office,
build-out
and
computer
equipment,
we
estimate
that
if
the
program
were
in
effect
for
the
2019
elections
for
fiscal
year
2019,
the
board
would
need
an
additional
appropriation
of
approximately
six
hundred
eighty-five
thousand
to
seven
hundred
fifty-five
thousand
dollars.
K
I
should
note
that
that
estimate
does
not
include
the
cost
of
developing
or
maintaining
software
to
process
matching
fund
requests
and
disbursements.
When
Seattle
recently
implemented
a
public
financing
program,
they
spent
approximately
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
software
development.
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
begin
discussions
with
Oh
whitey
and
the
records
department
to
see
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
combine
development
of
software
for
this
program
with
an
upcoming
upgrade
of
the
software
we
used
for
the
filing
of
campaign.
K
Finance
reports
also
exploring
whether
we
can
license
software
from
other
jurisdictions
in
order
to
reduce
cross
and
streamline
the
implementation
of
the
program.
So
that's
the
administrative
costs.
The
other
big
piece
of
the
cost
for
the
program,
of
course,
is
the
matching
funds
that
would
have
to
be
provided
to
candidates
and
that
will
vary
depending
on
how
many
candidates
are
participating
and
we'll
certainly
be
at
its
peak.
K
Using
that
data
point
and
then
taking
in
consideration
the
number
of
candidates
in
past
city
elections
and
participation
rates
for
public
financing
programs
and
other
jurisdictions,
we
think
on
the
high
end,
it
is
reasonable
to
estimate
matching
fund
disbursements
of
8
million
to
10
million
dollars
over
a
four
year
cycle.
That
would,
if
you
then
add
in
the
administrative
costs
average
out
to
about
three
million
dollars
per
year
over
a
four
year
period.
K
K
Like
to
note,
though,
that
that
is
the
estimates
for
the
program
as
currently
proposed
in
the
legislation,
there
are
many
ways
to
scale
and
manage
the
cost
of
this
kind
of
program.
If
council
were
to
feel
that
that
you
liked
the
policy
idea
but
thought
it
would
only
be
appropriate
with
a
different
cost
structure,
and
there
are
several
options
at
your
disposal,
if
you
choose
to
do
that,
for
example,
you
could
lower
the
matchable
amount
of
a
contribution,
so
currently
it's
proposed
at
150
would
be
matched
at
five
to
one.
K
If
and
if
that
stayed
the
same,
that
a
participating
candidate
would
have
to
get
at
least
contributions
from
at
least
133
donors
in
order
to
hit
the
funding
cap
of
a
hundred
thousand
for
someone
who's
running
for
a
council
or
sheriff
or
commissioner.
If
the
amount
was
lowered
to
a
hundred,
a
candidate
would
need
200
donors
to
hit
that
funding
cab
at
$50
a
candidate
would
need
400
donors,
the
more
donors
that
are
required
to
hit
the
funding
cap,
then
fewer
candidates
will
reach
the
cap
in
the
city
would
spend
less
money
on
the
matching.
K
It
would
also,
on
the
other
hand,
of
the
impact
of
making
it
harder
for
candidates
to
qualify
for
the
program
in
the
first
place,
because
in
order
to
reach
the
qualification
threshold,
they
would
have
to
raise
money
for
more
people
than
they
do
under
the
current
proposal.
Well,
just
wrap
up
note
a
couple
of
other
ways
to
substantially
reduce
the
amount
of
matching
funds
required
by
the
program.
One
would
be
to
eliminate
mayoral
races
from
the
program
they're
currently
in
there
as
having
a
cap
of
a
million
dollars
per
mayoral
candidate.
K
Removing
them
would
significantly
lower
the
projections.
If
you
look
at
that
analysis,
that
was
done
by
the
campaign.
Finance
Institute
I
believe
that
included
about
2
million
dollars
of
matching
funds
mayoral
candidates,
so
that
would
cut
that
projection
almost
in
half
or
by
a
third.
If
you're
looking
at
the
higher
end,
it
also
lower
the
funding
cap
for
some
races,
such
as
da
a
controller
which
are
currently
set
at
$300,000
or
council,
especially
if
it
has
concerns
about
the
financial
situation
for
fiscal
year.
K
2019
could
delay
the
start
of
the
program
until
the
2021
da
and
controller
elections.
That
would
require
the
city
to
spend
less
money
in
the
near
term
and
also
stagger
and
spread
out
the
implementation
costs
for
the
administrative
side
of
things
as
well.
So
that
concludes
my
testimony
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
members
may
have.
A
F
And
I'm
sure,
as
we
discuss
democracy
I,
think
it's
truly
appropriate
to
welcome
to
our
chambers
surviving
members
of
the
Tuskegee
Airmen,
escorted
by
dr.
Joyce
bragging
and
one
you
may
remember,
at
Philadelphia
by
the
name
of
Wally
Jones,
who
is
the
young
upstart
escorting
them
because
he's
young
we
have
Nathan
Thomas,
who
is
91
years
young.
We
have
dr.
Eugene
Richardson,
who
is
92
years
young.
We
have
MS
Katherine
Johnson,
who
is
99
years
young
kept
off
by
a
100
year
old,
Tuskegee
Airmen.
G
A
A
A
F
G
A
E
Here
to
talk
about
strengthening
democracy
and
without
folks
like
that,
we
wouldn't
be
here
today:
Thank
You
mr.
chair
council,
president
members
of
the
committee,
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
with
you
today
to
talk
about
this.
This
measure,
your
interest
in
and
if
it's
okay,
I'm
just
gonna
summarize
my
testimony
strongly.
E
So
I
appreciate
your
leadership
on
this,
particularly
now
we
live
in
extraordinary
times
in
terms
of
people's
attitudes
about
politics
and
government
from
the
National
to
the
local
I
was
struck
recently,
and
this
is
in
my
testimony
that
probably
a
number
of
you
are
familiar
with
the
statewide
poll
that
Terry
Madonna
runs
out
of
Franklin
Marshall
that
ask
people
across
Pennsylvania
about
what's
on
their
mind
and
since
August
of
2015.
The
most
important
issue
that
people
identify
facing
the
Commonwealth
is
something
about
the
state
of
government
and
politicians.
E
Most
recently,
that
number
was
about
30%
people
identified
as
the
most
important
issue
facing
the
Commonwealth
and,
what's
particularly
striking,
is
that
as
about
three
times
as
high
as
their
concern
about
any
other
issue,
schools,
crime,
taxes,
opioid
crisis,
what-have-you.
Now
that
doesn't
split
the
numbers
out
for
Philadelphia
could
be
some
variation,
but
I
think
we
are
at
a
time
when
these
fundamental
tons
of
democracy
and
how
people
engage
in
that
democracy
are
very,
very
important.
E
Having
said
that,
you
know
I,
listen
to
the
testimony
from
Rob
du
Bois
and
some
of
your
questions
and
I
think
we
have
to
approach
any
expenditure
of
dollars
that
doesn't
focus
on
the
the
core
ingredients
of
a
growing
and
healthy
City.
We
have
to
apply
an
extra
level
of
scrutiny
to
those
dollars.
There
are
never
we're,
never
in
an
environment
where
money
is
not
an
object,
and
today
that's
particularly
true.
E
If
there
were
a
way
in
this
in
pursuing
this
proposal
where
we
could
identify
some
real
or
related
cost
reductions
in
other
parts
of
the
budget,
that
would
make
some
coherent
sort
of
a
coherent
package.
I
think
that
would
certainly
be
one
way
to
to
to
get
what
we.
What
we
wanted
I
was
here
about
a
year
ago,
I
think
councilman.
E
He
and
Councilman
green
had
kind
of
an
informational,
maybe
councilman
Greenlee
I
apologize
I
can't
remember:
I
had
an
informational
hearing
on
this
issue
and
I
said
at
the
time-
and
this
is
kind
of
a
general
all-purpose
observation
that
it
was
very
important
to
try
to
understand
the
goals
that
we
were
trying
to
achieve
through
this
legislation
and
then
having
settled
on
the
goals.
We
obviously
would
have
an
easier
job,
not
not
an
easy,
but
an
easier
job
of
matching
up
the
solution
to
the
problem.
E
In
this
case,
having
looked
at
a
lot
of
the
research,
that's
been
out
there
if
we
define
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
as
engaging
more
citizens,
particulars
citizens
who
have
not
participated
in
financing
campaigns
if
we
identify
the
problem
is
as
encouraging
those
folks
through
this
to
participate
in
funding
campaigns.
I
think
it
seems
clear
to
me
that
this
approach
of
public
financing
will
achieve
that.
I.
Think
there's
ample
evidence
out
there.
That
suggests
that
will
happen.
E
Having
said
that,
though,
there
are
other
issues
that
are
other
potential
problems
or
challenges
that
I
don't
think.
It
is
terribly
clear
that
this
will
address
and
I
will
also
suggest,
there's
a
whole
raft
of
issues
that
are
of
concern
to
us
as
to
the
the
robust
and
vigorous
nature
of
our
local
democracy
that
we
ought
to
be
paying
a
lot
of
attention
to
so
I
will
give
for
the
time
being
and
I
know.
E
There's
councilman
green
said,
there's
much
discussion
to
be
had,
but
I
think
we
are
supportive
of
that
that
piece
of
the
intent
and
the
the
potential
impact
of
this
legislation,
but
would
love
to
join
a
broader
conversation
about
other
issues
that
I
think
headed
in
the
same
direction.
So
let
me
just
go
through
kind
of
the
three
main
questions
that
we
use
to
evaluate
this
proposal
and
I've
said
something
about
them
already,
but
just
to
drill
down
a
little
bit
first.
E
The
first
question
is:
will
this
promote
greater
citizen
participation
in
the
political
fundraising
process
and
I?
Think
again
the
answer
there,
as
judged
by
the
evidence
that
we
have
is
yes,
I,
think
the
in
particular
I
know
or
have
some
testimony
from
the
campaign
finance
Institute
in
Washington
I.
E
So
I
think
again
as
best
as
we
can
tell
from
the
evidence.
That's
out
there.
That
is
a
pretty
unambiguous,
unambiguous,
yes,
and
and
and
and
that
is
that's
an
important
goal,
as
I
said
at
the
outset,
particularly
at
a
time
when
a
lot
of
people
are
questioning
the
very
structure
of
our
democracy
and
whether
it's
worth
participating
at
all.
As
judged
by
you
know,
we
had
a
discussion
of
turnout
and
so
forth,
and
so
on.
E
E
Third
question
is:
will
this
enable
a
broader
and
more
diverse
range
of
candidates
to
run
for
office,
so
a
goal
that
supporters
bring
to
this
often
is
that
we
want
to
encourage
more
people
and
more
diverse
people.
More
people
who
have
not
maybe
traditionally
considered
elected
office
to
to
run
for
office
I
think
the
evidence
there
again
suggests
kind
of
a
hesitant,
maybe
but
not
sure
again.
If,
if
we
don't
have
natural
turnover
built
into
the
process,
we
may
end
up
with
more
candidates
but
we'll
say
not
more
viable
candidates.
E
There
was
one
piece
of
research
that
summarized
a
lot
of
what
we
know
in
this
area
and,
and
they
stated
that,
as
far
as
we
can
tell
that
public
funding
does
not
dramatically
the
decision
can
alter
the
decision
calculus
of
quality
candidates.
Thinking
about
entering
the
ring
also,
the
fact
that
our
elections
are,
as
they
say,
first-past-the-post
that
there
are
no
runoff
provisions
in
any
of
our
elections.
E
We
could
end
up
in
a
situation
where
there
were
more
candidates,
divvying
up
the
total
vote
in
such
a
way,
so
that
the
winner
ends
up
with
a
smaller
vote,
total
and-
and
we
don't
believe
that
electing
a
council
person
or
district
attorney,
or
what
have
you
with
you
know.
20%
of
the
vote
is
necessarily
good
for
our
local
democracy.
E
E
But
these
are
issues
that
I
think
deserve
a
great
deal
of
our
attention.
One
is
like
a
lot
of
folks.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
rising
tide
of
super
PAC
spending
and
independent
expenditures
on
local
elections.
The
1.7
million
dollars
spent
in
the
District
Attorney's
primary
I
think
is
the
shape
of
things
to
come,
and
it
raises
a
great
deal
of
concern
that
increasingly
electoral
outcomes
in
Philadelphia
will
be
determined
by
non
philadelphians
by
the
wealthy
individuals
and
labor
unions
and
corporations
that
contribute
to
to
super
PACs
building.
E
This
pyramid
of
the
base
of
the
pyramid
of
small
dollar
donors
helps
dilute
that
to
some
extent,
but
there
may
also
be
if
you
were
interested
in
taking
this
up
and
share
our
concerns.
There
may
be
more
direct
approaches
to
that.
I
noted
that,
just
recently
in
the
city
council
of
st.
Petersburg
Florida
that
they
passed
an
ordinance
banning
super
PAC
contributions
and
expenditures
in
those
elections,
almost
undoubtedly
will
be
challenged
in
court,
but
notable
that
your
colleagues
in
another
city
have
have
tried
to
attack
that
issues
head-on.
E
Second
issue
I
want
to
raise
because
I
think
this
is
relevant
if
we're
talking
about
engagement
is
to
acknowledge
that
we
have
a.
We
have
a
partisan
primary
system
that,
because
of
the
way
it's
constructed
effectively
disenfranchises
over
a
hundred
thousand
people,
voters
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
who
don't
happen
to
be
registered
as
Democrats
or
Republicans.
They
literally
sit
on
their
hands
on
primary
day.
They
get
to
vote
on
charter
change
issues,
but
they
don't
have
a
a
meaningful
say
in
meaningful
elections,
and
some
of
you
know
most
cities
in
this
country.
E
Most
big
cities
have
non
partisan
or
open
primaries,
which
gives
those
folks
a
voice
in
those
elections.
So
again
not
the
focus
of
this
proposal,
but
I
think
we
have
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
talk
about
how
we
engage
people
in
the
political
process,
it's
worth
noting
that
there's
research
that
suggests
as
many
as
half
of
young
voters
newly
registered
voters
don't
register
in
one
of
the
political
parties
anymore
and
that,
if
that's
true
in
Philadelphia,
then
we're
not
exactly
putting
out
the
Welcome
Wagon
for
them.
The
welcome
mat
in
our
local
elections.
E
Finally,
you
all
know
that
we
have
had
great
concerns
about
the
office
of
city
commissioners.
Here
we
find
it
inefficient,
ineffective
and
basically
leaderless
the
office
of
the
cement
city.
Commissioners,
just
just
the
office
of
those
three
individuals
and
their
staff
cost
us
about
a
million
dollars
a
year.
That's
a
million
dollars
about
a
million
dollars
more
than
any
other
county
in
the
Commonwealth,
and
their
performance
does
not
does
not
merit
that
we
saw
anecdotally
three-hour
lines
in
some
North
Philadelphia
polling
places
in
November
and
I
was
here
about
a
month
ago.
E
Senator
Hughes
had
a
an
informational
hearing
that
part
of
which
was
taken
up
with
the
fact
that
that
the
office
of
city
commissioners
processed
about
17,000
voting
applications
late.
This
last
go-round,
which
was
almost
twenty
times
higher
rate
than
Allegheny
County,
the
second
largest
county
in
the
Commonwealth
so
and
and
I
believe,
sincerely
that
the
conduct
of
that
offices
does
in
fact
discourage
people
from
from
participating
in
in
elections
and
in
political
engagement.
So
a
conclude
by
saying
we
find
things
to
like
in
this
proposal.
E
As
I
said,
we
are
convinced
that
that
it
would
in
fact
broaden
the
base
of
small
dollar
donors
because
we're
applying
public
funds
to
leverage
those
dollars
and
would
look
forward
to
the
chance
to
work
with
you
to
make
modifications
to
that
proposal
as
as
I
discussed,
but
also
in
an
ongoing
basis.
Who
would
love
to
reserve
some
time
to
tackle
some
of
these
issues,
which
I
think
are
as
important,
if
not
more
important,
in
affecting
the
willingness
of
folks
in
Philadelphia
City
to
get
involved
the
political
process.
So
thank.
A
You
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Let
me
just
it's
a
couple
quick
question
and
we
got
people
waiting,
I
apologize,
but
but
first
let
me
make
a
quick
statement
and
I
know,
as
we
talked
with
mr.
du
Bois
about
finances,
and
the
issue
of
the
policy
came
in
here
and
I
want
to
be
clear
because
I
want
to
be
upfront
with
people
and
I.
Think
I
said
this
at
that
informational
hearing
we
had
about
a
year
ago
and
I
know.
There's
differences
of
opinion
on
this
panel
about
this
I.
A
Don't
particularly
agree
with
the
policy
of
the
public
paying
for
people
for
people
help
people
run
for
election
out
of
the
general
tax
base
and
I
say
this
as
someone
who
and
I
would
challenge
anybody
to
a
poor
fundraising
more
than
me,
I
hate
it
okay,
but
I
just
think
to
reach
into
the
city
budget
to
help
people
pay
for
off
for
running
for
office.
Just
I
just
do
not
agree
with
that
policy.
That's
my
personal
opinion.
I
said
I
know.
A
A
K
K
Whoever
may
be
running
for
office
to
connect
with
everyday
citizens
who
can
provide
limited
small
dollar
contributions
and
that
because
it
provides
the
matching
funds,
it
creates
that
incentive,
and
so
it
encourages
the
candidates
to
focus
their
fundraising
on
those
smaller
donor
folks,
as
opposed
to
political
committees
or
wealthy
individuals.
Okay,
so.
A
Will
say
one
thing
on
that,
though,
is
a
candidate
and
I
think
I
think
I
know
something
about
this.
What
I,
when
I'm
out
there
I,
certainly
interact
with
with
the
general
public
way
more
than
I
interact
with
whatever
you
would
call
big
packs
or
whatever
you
know
we
go
to
four
or
five
meetings
a
night
and
that's
usually
with
the
general
public,
with
the
average
person
out
there.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
record
I.
A
Think
we
right
now
we
do
interact
with
the
general
public
a
whole
lot,
you
know,
and
they
are
the
ones
that
eventually
do
vote
and
I
would
agree.
I'd
like
to
see
100
percent
voter
participation,
but
you
know
I
think
we
certainly
do
interact
with
the
jet
with
the
average
person
right
now.
One
other
issue
and
mr.
Berger
I
think
you
did
say
this-
that
you
did
not
see
this
as
necessarily
increasing
the
amount
of
participation
of
of
candidates.
You
know
like
right
or
the
diversity
is
such
is,
that
am
I,
saying
that
right,
yeah.
E
E
A
I
appreciate
that,
because
I
noticed,
you
know,
I
think
we
do
have,
and
obviously
City
Council
at
large
counties
is
something
I
kind
of
pay
attention
to
since
I'm,
one
of
them
and
we've
had
just
in
the
last
elections
the
last
election.
We
had
twenty
three
candidates
in
eleven.
We
also
had
23
total
Democrat
and
Republican
and
24
in
2007.
So
and
as
I
look
at
the
list.
A
I
know
something
about
the
people
that
ran
it's
a
pretty
diverse
list
of
people,
so
it's
so
I
I
would
say
that
I,
don't
think
that
right
now,
I,
don't
think.
That's
a
problem.
I
think
we
have
people
of
diverse
backgrounds
running
for
office
and
you
know
being
involved
in
the
process
of
leasing
that,
in
that
fashion,
alright
I
know.
Other
people
have
questions.
Let
me
go
to
first,
let
me
record
reflect
Councilwoman
Jim.
Member
of
the
committee
is
present.
First
councilman
green,
councilman,
oh
and
then
counts.
Bohemian,
oh
I'm
sorry
counts.
President
Clark.
A
C
You
mr.
chair,
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
There's
been
a
lot
of
conversation
today
regarding
this
legislation,
we're
going
to
cost,
which
is
something
I'm
also
very
concerned
about,
and
both
of
your
testimonies.
You
talked
about
ways
to
reduce
the
cost
impacts.
It
was
legislation
both
by
taking
out
the
mayoral
election
and
also
lowering
the
matching
amount
and
I
guess
question
I
would
have
if
you
made
those
changes.
K
I
I
think
regarding
the
effect
of
eliminating
the
mayoral
races
that
that
we
don't
know
in
the
future
how
many
mayoral
candidates
would
participate.
It
may
be
that
there
would
be
high
participation.
It
may
be
that
there
would
be
low
participation,
but
no
matter
what
mayoral
candidates
have
by
far
the
highest
amount
of
public
funding
that
they
could
receive
under
the
proposed
legislation.
K
So
a
mayoral
candidate
could
get
up
to
a
million
dollars
in
public
funding,
and
so,
if
you
even
had
two
candidates
in
a
5
candidate
field
who
hit
that
that's
2
million
dollars
right
there
and
when
you
subtract
that
2
million
dollars
you're
talking
about
a
substantial
savings
in
terms
of
the
policy
implications
for
removing
the
mayor,
I
think
that
the
as
I
think
mr.
norburg
might
have
alluded
to
that.
That's
a
race
that
does
already
have
a
fairly
high
level
of
attention
and
high
level
of
fundraising
activity
and
bigger
campaigns,
and
so
on.
K
So
I
think
that
the
impact
would
be
less
pronounced.
I
still
do
think
that
it
would
be
a
benefit
to
the
city
to
have
this
program
available
for
mayoral
candidates.
For
all
the
same
reasons
of
the
policy
being
good
for
city
elections
overall,
but
I,
think
the
impact
on
a
policy
level
would
be
much
less
severe
than
removing
other
elected
offices
regarding
the
matchable
amount.
K
They
think
that
it
is
difficult
to
predict
a
dollar
amount
of
potential
reductions,
but
it
is
certainly
the
case
that
by
making
it
harder
for
candidates
to
hit
their
hundred
thousand
or
$300,000
cap,
less
are
going
to
do
so.
The
particularly
good
thing
about
that
proposal
is,
while
it
has
the
aspect
of
cost
reduction.
It
actually
also
forwards.
E
K
E
K
Would
say
to
that
that,
from
our
view,
the
the
main
benefits
of
that
change
or
to
make
the
system
significantly
easier
for
candidates
to
comply
with,
and
particularly
in
the
context
of
the
public
funding
program
where
candidates
are
going
to
have
to
do
a
level
of
accounting
to
track
their
small
dollar
contributions,
not
having
to
worry
about
four
separate
contribution.
Limit
periods
is
going
to
be
tremendously
beneficial
to
them.
N
Just
you
know
in
terms
of
your
opinion,
I'm
interested,
because
my
impression
is
that
the
reason
why
people
complain
about
government
is
it's
they're
not
happy
with
the
results,
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
indicate
that
things
are
not
going
according
to
the
way
that
they
voted.
For
example,
they
voted
for
a
right-wing
candidate.
They
voted
for
a
left-wing
candidate
and
things
aren't
going.
The
way
they
like
I
would
think
that
Jeremy
enduring
gerrymandering
is
a
major
problem
as
to
what
is
that?
N
N
Lowering
the
bar
for
people
to
be
able
to
be
candidates
that,
in
fact,
has
been
done
to
a
large
extent
by
social
media
where
people
can
get
their
message
out
send
out
the
videos.
Technology
certainly
has
helped
a
lot
in
people.
In
these
past,
two
presidential
elections
for
President
Obama
and
for
president
Trump
have
given
lots
of
money
made.
Lots
of
statements
have
been
fully
engaged
and
we
have
a
new
problem
called
fake
news
and
the
Russians
and
all
that.
N
N
N
The
ability
to
get
in
to
get
on
the
ballot
many
times
has
to
do
with
the
obstructions
along
the
way
that
caused
people
who
are
interested
in
running
to
not
be
able
to
get
on
the
ballot
and
they're
there.
Many
times
for
good
reasons
such
as
you
have
to
make
sure
we
live.
You
live
in
the
right
area,
you're,
actually
a
citizen,
but
there's
also
a
lot
of
obstructions
along
the
way
that
discourage
people
from
participating
in
the
race.
N
Smearing
seems
to
be
to
to
me
a
big
reason
why
normal
people,
good
people,
don't
want
to
run.
They
understand
that
when
you
run
for
office,
you
get
horribly
smeared
embarrassed.
Your
family
gets
attacked.
That
type
of
thing-
and
they
just
don't
want
to
do
it,
would
you
address
those
three
issues
and
you
may
say:
well
those
aren't
very
important
issues
or
so
important.
But
what
could
we
do
about
those
sure.
O
E
That
I
suggested
that
this
is
what's
on
people's
minds:
the
state
of
government
politics,
you
know,
obviously
have
to
get
inside
that
poll
and
talk
to
a
lot
of
folks
who
try
to
make
sense
of
that
so
so
in
and
of
itself.
I
do
think
that
particularly
not
just
post
last
November,
but
but
building
up
to
that
there
there
is
a
there
is
an
anger
and
a
frustration
about
the
system.
E
E
You
know
the
there's.
There's
no
right
answer
to
what
kind
of
bar
you
should
be
able
to
clear
to
to
run
for
office,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
things
going
in
there
and
I.
You
may
be
right
that
people's
fear
of
being
publicly
attacked
or
smeared
or
have
their
family
brought
into
it
is,
is
one
powerful
thing.
E
You
know,
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
in
this
proposal.
There
is
a
threshold
that
you
would
have
to
meet
in
order
to
participate
in
the
funding
process.
It
basically
you'd
have
to
prove
that
you
were
able
to
attract
a
certain
number
or
small-dollar
donors
before
this
kicked
in
and
that
level
can
be
adjusted.
E
N
N
I
am
generally
in
agreement
with
that
councilman
greenly,
that
we
have
a
lot
of
things
to
pay
for
with
our
taxes
and
if
we
didn't
have
to
pay
for
them
by
sudden
miracle,
we
should
reduce
taxes
and
let
people
spend
their
own
money
if
they
want
to
run
for
office
run
for
office.
But
the
question
is
how
to
get
them
engaged
and
for
me,
I
would
say
that
my
problem
with
understanding
this
proposal
and
open-minded
glad
you're
here
to
to
to
tell
me
what
what?
N
What
is
wrong
with
what
I'm
thinking
this
bill
seems
to
raise
the
floor.
It
doesn't
reduce
the
ceiling.
So
if
the
concern
is
increasing
the
cost
of
Elections,
the
cost
of
Elections
continue
to
rise,
because
there's
there's
a
couple
things.
You
can't
control
PACs
and
dark
money.
You
cannot
do
anything
about
PACs
and
and
engaging
PACs,
and
so
this
bill
appears
to
me
to
give
more
power
to
power
brokers,
the
bosses
of
the
Machine,
the
bosses
of
whatever
conglomerates
of
power,
who
tend
to
be
the
ones
who
broker
who
runs
and
who
doesn't?
N
Because
anyone
who
participates
in
this
generally
has
smaller
dollar
amounts.
If
they,
if
they
could
get
more
money,
they
wouldn't
participate
if
they
were
personally
wealthy
me,
but
they
wouldn't,
but
for
the
person
you're
trying
to
reach
if
they
agree
to
this,
they
get
a
certain
level.
So
the
floor,
Rises
but
they're
competing
against
people
that
can
have
a
lot
of
money
spent
a
lot
of
non
money
in
volunteer
hours.
N
You
know
hours,
sweat,
equity,
other
things
and
then
people
who
can
spend
millions
of
dollars
without
their
consent
so
to
speak,
and
we
see
that
this
bill
does
not
do
anything
to
prevent
that
and
so
they're,
not
that
many
power
brokers
out
there
and
so
for
the
average
person
who
wants
to
run
now.
They
have
to
go,
see
a
power
broker
or
they
just
don't
know.
N
One
I
would
think
that
if
you're
going
to
encourage
people
to
run
you,
you
may
try
to
assist
them
through
a
non-profit
fund
of
some
sorts,
whereby
every
candidate
who
enters
is
eligible
for
some
type
of
basic
candidates.
Kit,
you
get
some
public
media
through
our
government
access
channel
or
through
some
other
type
of
thing,
or
some
posters
or
whatever
you
do
to
some
extent.
N
If
the
person
just
didn't
have
enough
money
of
a
certain
level,
they
were
candidate.
That
was
unfunded.
That
might
encourage
them,
and
but,
however,
you
know
again,
my
concern
is
that
the
the
process
here
would
because
everything's
relative.
Yes,
somebody
may
have
more
money
at
the
bottom
who
never
had
that
money,
but
the
people
at
the
top
will
have
more
money.
N
They
will
respond
with
more
dollars
to
address
that,
and
so
the
the
issue
for
me
is
that
if
you
want
more
people
to
participate,
you
need
to
lower
the
overall
cost
of
Elections
and
you
need
to
try
to
level
the
playing
field
as
much
as
possible,
and
the
unfortunate
thing
is.
We
cannot
just
cap
elections
because
the
Supreme
Court
has
said
that
a
corporation
or
anyone
else
can
throw
in
three
million
dollars
to
a
City
Council
race.
N
As
long
as
they
don't
coordinate
with
anyone,
and
then
you
have
all
this
stuff
out
there
and
super
PACs
are
just
PACs
can
do
the
same
and
they
can
distribute
money
around
to
other
PACs
and
other
organizations.
And
it's
not
a
thing
this
bill
addresses.
So
it
still
leave
the
fact
that
the
few
very
wealthy
capable
politically
astute
have
a
lot
of
ability
to
to
give
tremendous
favor
to
their
candidates.
Could
you
address
that?
Certainly.
K
Councilman
and
I
would
say
that
you
certainly
identify
that
concerns
that
many
people
have
with
the
way
elections
are
conducted
in
this
country,
especially
in
the
past
few
years,
with
the
rise
of
super
PACs
and
independent
spending
that
we've
seen
at
the
federal
level
and
some
to
some
degree
in
Philadelphia
and
I.
Think,
as
you
pointed
out,
the
frustration
for
a
lot
of
people
is,
you
can't
prevent
it.
K
Given
the
Constitution
and
the
First
Amendment
and
the
Supreme
Court,
it's
simply
not
possible
to
tell
people
that
they
can't
spend
money
to
promote
the
candidates
of
their
choice
independently.
So
no
matter
what
that's
going
to
continue
in
some
form
or
fashion,
as
you
say,
it
is
not
possible
to
lower
the
ceiling
and
so
I
think
from
the
perspective
of
the
sponsors,
and
they
could
certainly
speak
to
it
better
than
I.
Can
they
look
at
the
situation
and
say?
Well,
we
want
to
improve
this
situation
if
we
can't
lower
the
ceiling.
E
Would
just
say
it's
important
to
remember:
well,
two
things:
one
is
this
program
will
work
if
candidates
opt
in
and
I
think
the
experience
at
the
federal
level,
with
the
checkoff
on
your
tax
returns
is
that
increasingly
I
can't
remember
the
last
major
candidate
who
who
opted
into
that,
which
tells
you
that
it's
not
working,
that
there
are
too
many
ways
to
raise
money.
Alternatively,
so
trying
to
get
that
right
in
Philadelphia,
if
this
were
to
go
forward
is
is
really
important.
N
Don't
want
to
interrupt
but
but
but
but
while
I
agree
with
that,
I
think
the
bigger
picture
is
so
you
and
I
may
agree
to
spending
limits.
But
you
know
I
I've
got
XYZ
corporation
behind
me
and
they
throw
a
million
dollars
in
this
race.
So
you've
agreed
to
a
spending
limit,
you're
stuck
and
I'm
happy
to
be
stuck
because
I
got
a
million
dollars
behind
me.
How
does
how
does
how
would
you
address
that?
Well,.
K
Councilmen,
actually,
the
participating
candidate
would
not
be
stuck
because
if
either
an
opponent
or
an
outside
actor
were
to
spend
more
than
the
limit,
then
the
limit
for
all
candidates,
including
the
participants,
would
be
lifted.
So
that
would
give
the
participating
candidate
the
opportunity
to
spend
above
what
had
been
the
limit
to
encounter
that
so.
N
Let
me
make
sure
I'm
clear
on
what
you're
saying
David,
Thornburg
and
I
are
both
candidates.
We
agree
to
this
bill.
We
have
spending
limits
somewhere
back
there.
Corporation
B
start
spending
three
million
dollars
on
unrelated
to
me
just
starting
out
vote
for
David
Oval
for
David,
oh,
and
because
of
that
a
candidate
Thornburg
says:
hey,
look
at
all
this
money
being
spent.
We
don't
know
exactly
how
much
we
don't.
We
won't
know
till
after
the
election.
We
don't
know
how
much
money
is
being
spent.
N
We
can't
even
predict
how
much,
because,
because
because
the
the
television
commercials,
the
cave
all
that
may
come
on
Election
Day
and
then
there
may
be
a
army
of
people
out
there
on
Election
Day
and
we
could
maybe
calculate
if
we
find
some
some
Direct
Mail
and
all
that
we
might
be
able
to
calculate.
But
I.
N
K
A
H
You,
mr.
chairman
and
thank
you,
gentlemen,
both
for
your
your
testimony,
you
I
love
having
public
policy
discussions.
I'm
gonna
say
that
yeah
this
is.
This
is
great
to
hear
this
kind
of
dialogue,
because
I
see
some
testimony
and
I've
heard
some
other
stuff
that
people
don't
even
read
the
bill
and
they're
just
you
know
making
assumptions
off
of
awful
politics
instead
of
policies
which
is
a
disgrace
and
a
shame
for
the
whole
process.
But
that's
that's
beside
the
point.
H
You
know
one
baby,
councilman
and
and
colleague
ed
mentioned
something
about
super
PAC
money
and
disclosures
I.
Think
part
of
the
discussion
that
you
were
talking
about
here
between
the
two
of
you
was.
You
know
in
First
Amendment
rights
and
some
outside
money
in
lekha,
Soros
or
or
the
Koch
brothers
who
have
more
money
than
you
know.
H
Then
we
could
spend
in
a
lifetime,
but
when
they
come
in,
what
we
can
do
as
a
city
is
make
some
of
the
tools
that
we
have
through
our
ability
to
hold
them
a
little
more
accountable
like
disclosure
all
right
so
before
and
I'm
just
using
that
example,
all
right
so
well,
we
while
we
can't
prevent,
nor
should
we
prevent
First
Amendment
right.
We
are
bound
by
the
Supreme
Court
decision
in
Citizens
United,
but
we
have
taken
steps
right,
like
we
are
having
these
conversations
on
policy
with
public
finance
of
Elections.
H
We
have
taken
steps
to
hold
some
of
that
resources
accountable
for
self
disclosing
all
right,
they're
required
to
disclose
where
it
would
be
30
or
60
day,
post
I'm
going
to
cycle
or
two
after
the
election
if
it
was
if
it
was
in
one
of
those
527
stead
had
to
report.
So
now
we
know
before
where
some
of
the
money's
coming
to
say
is
that
correct
that.
K
That's
absolutely
correct
councilman
and
it
we
spend
every
almost
every
day.
You
know
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
We
don't
realize
that
actually
Philadelphia
leads
the
nation
in
these
kind
of
attempts
to
address
these
issues,
the
reporting
requirements
and
our
rules
regarding
coordination
of
expenditures.
Philadelphia
has
been
in
the
vanguard
of
trying
to.
H
Exactly
so,
we
we
have
been
in
at
a
point
I'm
trying
to
make,
although
we
cannot
prevent
outside
entities
coming
in
from
national
resources
or
individual
wealthy
individuals.
There
are
things
that
we
have
taken
steps
progressively
on
such
as
reporting
requirements
of
disclosures
prior
to
the
election,
which
was
it
a
pass.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
step,
and
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
H
What
Public
Finance
of
an
election
is,
although
it's
on
a
larger
scale,
change
the
paradigm
on
how
we
behave
and
how
we've
reported
and
and
how
we
engage
and
and
I
think,
we've
proven
that
we
created
the
board
of
of
ethics.
We
created
a
lot
of
tweaks
since
that,
so
when
mr.
Thornberg,
you
were
talking
about
coming
back
and
in
sun
setting
and
seeing
what
works
and
what
doesn't
work,
and
we
we've
done
that
in
just
our
zoning
codes.
H
H
H
My
concerns
are
that,
when
is
a
good
time
right,
if
we
wait
for
a
good
time,
we're
gonna
be
retired,
right,
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
miss
the
opportunity
for
more
people
to
get
a
gauge
and
get
involved
to
be
good
public
servants.
So
there
is
no
good
time
right.
At
last,
I
heard
the
teachers
were
hiring.
Are
hatin
holding
seminars
throughout
the
city
and
hiring
school
teachers,
so
I
think
we're
on
the
right
steps
and
I
do
have
a
question
for
both
of
you.
E
Do
yes,
I
mean
I
think
it
has
to
the
way
you've
you
framed
it,
but
I
do
think,
because
you
know
not
only
is
that
you're
asking
them
to
either
affirm
or
either
approve
or
disapprove,
but
basic
a
choice
about
their
dollars.
But
this
also
is
is,
would
be
a
you
know,
reasonably
significant
change
to
the
rules
of
the
game
by
which
we
operate,
our
local
elections
and
local
democracy
and
I.
Think
people
need
a
voice
in
that.
K
H
When
the
the
purpose
of
there's
several
purposes
of
the
policy
aside,
changing
you
know
the
you
know
the
system
right
that
everybody
complains
about.
This
is
a
good
way
to
do
it,
because
we
we've
proven
to
do
so
little
at
a
time
all
right,
which
has
been
effective
and
the
reason
why
we
changed
things
is
because
something
either
needs
to
be
tweaked
or
something's
wrong.
H
But
when
I
remember
when
I
was
running
in
2011
and
my
best
best
financial
support
in
the
form
of
a
contribution
was
my
friend's
father,
who
was
a
retired
World
War,
two
veteran
who
gave
me
20
hours.
He
wrote
me
a
$20
check
right
and
I
wasn't
even
good
at
catchy.
I
wasn't
even
gonna
put
it
in
a
bank.
H
I
wasn't
gonna
frame
it
that's
how
much
it
meant
to
me,
but
it
meant
that
much
more
to
him
and
I
think
the
purpose
of
this
policy
is
for
load
our
supporters,
contrary
to
my
fundraising
ability
all
right.
So
the
focus
in
on
people
all
right
citizens
that
can't
afford
to
to
raise
a
lot
of
money
or
contribute
a
lot
of
money,
all
right.
H
They
can
contribute
$50,
$20,
$100,
150
dollars,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
take
a
look
at
the
real
reason
why
this
is
about
not
to
secure
incumbency,
not
to
you
know,
raise
the
ceiling
or
anything
like
that,
and
you
know
and
not
to
engage
in
party
politics
and
say
well.
You
know
this
is
what's
wrong
with
you
know,
with
everything
else,
without
even
understanding.
H
H
We
fall
for
that
right
independently
and
it's
our
country
was
the
family,
so
anybody
can
run,
but
it's
not
as
easy
as
one
would
think
to
be
eligible
to
be
a
candidate
to
qualify
for
all
for
one
to
qualify
for
matching
funds,
but
to
certainly
you
know,
to
reach
its
limit
of
allowable
funds
possible.
So
that's
that's
one
and
the
other
two
things
that
other
top
cities.
You
know
you
talk
about.
K
Regarding
the
eligibility
you're
correct
that
there
are
a
number
of
steps
that
a
candidate
would
have
to
take
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
the
program.
The
first
is
that
the
candidate
used
to
be
on
the
ballot.
You
have
to
have
an
opponent,
there's
no
reason
for
the
city
to
provide
public
funding
to
somebody
who
doesn't
actually
have
an
opponent.
The
candidate
would
have
to
be
current
on
all
required
campaign.
K
Finance
reports
would
have
to
be
current
on
any
debts
owed
to
the
city
so
that
the
city's
not
providing
money
to
someone
who
owes
it
money
that
the
candidate
will
have
agreed
to
comply
with
the
terms
of
the
program,
which
has
a
number
of
limitations
and
restrictions
on
how
candidates
can
spend
money.
There's
the
spending
limit
and
the
limit
on
PAC
money
and
so
on,
and
then
the
the
big
piece
is
that
the
Canada
has
to
demonstrate
their
ability
to
actually
raise
from
small
donor
contributions.
K
So
a
candidate
for
mayor
would
had
to
just
to
be
eligible
have
raised
at
least
$50,000
in
contributions
are
150
or
less
from
Philadelphia
residents
or
if
for
any
other
office,
it
would
be
$15,000
in
contributions
of
a
hundred
and
fifty
or
less
so.
Those
are
fairly
robust
requirements
for
eligibility
and,
as
we
noted,
if
the
matchable
amount
went
from
150
to
a
hundred
or
to
some
lower
amount,
that
would
actually
increase
the
number
of
donors
that
somebody
would
need
to
be
eligible,
which
would
make
that
somewhat
more
challenging.
A
K
K
A
A
J
J
You
know
in
any
given
day,
I
could
be
dealing
with
mold
in
a
school
or
trash,
that's
been
dumbed
or
you
know
a
crime,
that's
been
that's
happened,
and
so
there's
a
number
of
different
things
that
when
I
ask
people,
why
are
they
leaving
the
city
or
why
are
they?
Why
have
they?
Why
do
they
not
live
in
Philadelphia
proper?
J
I'm
sure
that
any
other
district
councilmember
would
be
happy
to
take
and
find
productive
ways
to
spend
to
fix,
to
address
issues
in
their
district.
So
I'm
wondering
how
do
you
balance
the
needs
that
we
have
as
District
Council
members
in
our
respective
districts?
How
are
we
to
balance
our
needs
and
the
needs
of
our
constituents
versus
this
particular
policy
which,
by
the
way,
I
think
is
you
know
an
important
issue?
I
think
it's
a
very
productive
matter
that
we
should
be
considering
and
should
have
had
some
conversation
about.
J
I
think
this
conversation
is
long
overdue,
but
I
think
that
the
timing
of
it
and
the
expenditure
of
funds
at
this
time
when
when
everybody's
belts
are
really
really
tight.
How
do
we
spend
funds
on
this
particular
initiative
when,
at
the
same
time,
we've
got
so
many
other
issues
that
are
pressing
so
that
every
dollar
that's
spent?
Every
single
dollar
is
allocated
for
that.
J
It's
going
into
a
place
that
people
want
to
see
it
spent
it
and,
to
be
quite
honest,
I
just
don't
hear
from
my
constituents
or
from
people
that
I'm
trying
to
get
to
move
into
Philadelphia.
Oh
well,
if
you
had
a
public
financing
system
than
that,
that
makes
a
difference
for
me.
They
talk
about
crime.
They
talk
about
schools,
they
talk
about
blight.
They
talk
about
trash.
J
Those
are
the
things
that
are
important
to
them
and
even
as
councilman
Oh
had
mentioned
earlier,
when
you
talk
about
what's
important,
if
you,
if
you
narrow
it
down
to
election
related
matters,
they
would
say
gerrymandering
is
an
issue
not
so
much
in
Philadelphia,
but
but
that's
one
of
the
issues
that
I
think
people
are
concerned
about.
So
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
that
and
I
know
we're
behind
time.
So
I
just.
K
Try
to
briefly
respond
and
say
that
I
think
it's
not
surprising
that
your
constituents
wouldn't
say
to
you
that
you
know
this
predict
this
particular
policy
piece
is
something
that
they
want
to
want
to
see.
They
might
not
have
the
familiarity
even
with
those
types
of
programs.
What
I
would
suggest
and
again
I
think
other
witnesses
might
be
able
to
speak
to
this.
K
J
What
you're
saying,
but
I
also
know
that
you
know
as
someone
who's
constantly,
you
know
on
the
hot
seat,
that
sort
of
you
know
shuffling
the
deck
changing
the
players.
It
maybe
give
people
confidence
possibly
in
the
system.
Maybe
it
would
increase
their
their
level
of
confidence,
but
at
the
same
time
it
doesn't
change
the
amount
of
resources.
J
The
resources
that
we
have
are
the
resources
that
we
have
so
does
that
give
a
false
sense
of
security
that
you
know
if
I'm
changing
you
know
from
this
person
in
that
person,
then
suddenly
is
all
the
blight
gonna
be
addresses.
All
the
you
know,
all
the
schools
going
to
fix
are
all
you
know
all
the
things
that
are
important
to
me.
Are
they
going
to
be
addressed
because
of
this
person
is
possibly
more
responsive
and
I.
Just
think.
J
K
E
Try
to
make
a
few
useful
comments
in
brief.
You
know,
I
think
you
you
put
your
finger
on
it,
which
is
ultimately
you
know
the
question
that
would
be
tested
at
the
ballot
box
in
this
is
my
concern
about
schools,
crime,
opioid
trash
on
the
street,
whatever
greater
than
my
concern
about
the
system,
the
the
system
of
that
that
represents
me
here.
E
You
know
a
structure,
councilman
green,
reminding
us
that
this
proposal
first
came
up
in
2006
when
there
was
a
huge
amount
of
concern
about
the
role
of
money
in
politics
and
what
had
happened
and
things
going
off.
The
rail
people
were
getting
contracts
and
so
forth,
and
so
on.
That's
often
the
case
around
the
country
that
a
solution
like
this
enters
popular
acceptance.
E
After
some
scandal
that
was
true
in
New
York,
there
is
I
think
a
great
deal
of
anger
and
frustration
out
there,
whether
it's
localized
in
Philadelphia
out
there
about
what's
happened,
what's
happening
in
our
democracy
in
our
government.
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
concern
about
you
know
it's
broken.
It's
rigged.
No
one
listens
to
me
so
forth
and
so
on
again
I'm
not
suggesting
that's
localized
and
in
Philadelphia
or
in
your
district,
but
to
the
extent
that's
that
is
a
concern
of
ours
and
a
concern
of
mine.
Both
of
you
pointed
out.
E
A
Thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
both.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
Wantyou.
You
come
up
folks,
we're
getting
to
you.
I
promise
before
dinner
time.
How
about
that
I
promise
that
so
but
again,
I
ask
everyone.
Please
try
to
be
as
brief
as
possible
with
your
remarks,
because
we're
obviously
running
very
late
and
I
understand.
We
have
a
New
York
council
person
on
the
phone
with
patiently
waiting.
Also
mr.
well,
please
identify
yourself
for
the
record
Percy
hello,.
P
Everyone,
my
name,
is
Ross
wolf,
I
am
a
Republican
ward
leader
here
in
Philadelphia
I'm.
Also
the
chairman
of
the
Philadelphia
Republicans
I'd,
like
to
start
out
by
thanking
chairman
Greenlee
and
vice
chairman
Greene,
for
having
me
here
today,
as
well
as
the
entire
committee.
I,
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
important
policy
matter.
I
know
we're
running
late,
I'm
gonna.
Try
to
keep
this
brief.
I
submitted
written
testimony,
so
I'm
gonna
kind
of
run
through
five
points.
That
I
think
are
very
important
with
this
bill.
The
first
point
is
I.
P
P
So
the
Philadelphia
Young
Republicans
recently
donated
over
300
backpacks
to
11
different
public
schools
in
Philadelphia
in
north,
south
west
and
north
east
and
I
can
tell
you
if
you
have
a
few
million
dollars
to
throw
around
those
schools
can
use
them,
because
you
know
we'd
also
into
it's
a
couple
charter.
Schools
and
the
resources
there
compared
to
the
resources
and
the
public
schools
were
astounding.
P
My
point
number
two
I
think
that
this
the
effect
of
this
bill
will
be
to
help
connected
and
insider
Democrats
and
will
hurt
Republicans
independents
or
third
party
candidates
and
outsider
Democrats.
When
you
look
at
the
minimums
that
are
required
to
qualify
for
this
funding
$50,000
for
mayor
$15,000
for
other
offices,
it's
not
going
to
be
easy
for
any
outsider,
Republican
or
third-party
candidate
to
hit
those
limits,
especially
if
you
look
at
the
mayoral
limits.
If
you
look
at
melissa,
Marie
Bailey
last
cycle
I
think
she
raised
under
$30,000.
P
Look
at
Doug
Oliver
under
$30,000,
now
you're
asking
them
to
raise
$50,000
in
increments
of
150
or
less
third
point.
I.
Think
independent
PACs
are
gonna,
be
strengthened
here.
I
think
that
if
you
people
will
give
that
150
dollars,
but
if
they
want
to
give
five
hundred
six
hundred
seven
hundred
dollars
they're
going
to
they're
just
going
to
give
it
to
an
independent
PAC,
so
they
don't
blow
the
public
contribution.
Part
of
it.
P
Fourth
point:
potential
misuse
of
the
funds,
as
many
of
you
know
at
if,
after
the
election
there's
public
funds
left
over,
it
has
to
be
returned
to
the
city.
I
strongly
believe
that
no
politician
will
let
a
dime
go
back
to
the
city.
They
will
ensure
that
every
bit
of
it
spent
they
will
use
it
on
unnecessary
things.
My
concern
would
be
that
people
who
you
know
would
get
bonuses
would
get
paid
more
money
than
they
otherwise
would
or
get
paid
money
for
doing
things
that
would
otherwise
be
volunteer.
Work.
P
P
They
they
still
gain
a
net
benefit
under
that
the
fifth
issue
I
see
with
it
is
the
fraud
provision,
the
fraud
provision
states,
have
you
submit
false
or
misleading
or
fraudulent
information
in
connection
with
an
application
for
these
funds?
You
are
subject
to
a
that
up
to
a
two
thousand
dollar:
fine,
it's
basically
an
ethics
board
violation
and
in
every
other
context,
if
you
lie
or
give
false
information
intentionally
to
get
money
from
the
government.
That's
a
crime.
P
I
can't
think
of
another
instance
where
it's
not
and
I
understand
that
there
are
many
campaign
finance
rules
that
are
that
if
you
break
they're,
not
criminal
offenses,
but
there
are
no
campaign
finance
laws
where
the
city
is
giving
candidates.
Money.
I
think
that
is
a
big
distinction.
I
think
that
if
you
intentionally
lie
to
the
government
to
get
money
that
that
is,
fraud
and
you
should
be
subject
to
criminal
penalties,
just
like
everyone
else
in
every
other
context.
A
Questions
thank
you.
I
had
before
I
recognized
counsel
and
give
just
for
the
record
I
guess
I
missed
about
an
inside
Democrat
as
as
there
is
and
as
I
said,
I
have
a
problem.
Some
issues
with
this
bill,
so
I
where
I
yeah
I've
read
your
opinion.
I'm,
not
sure
I
agree
with
you
on
that
one
point
as
it
goes
councilman.
Yes,.
Q
Thank
you
very
much,
counseling
Greenlee
chairman,
you
know,
I
just
had
one
one
side
point
in
an
respect
that
you
know
your
testimony
and
all,
but
I
think
it
is
important
to
understand
that
government
does
actually
do
have
a
role
around
elections.
We
have
an
entire
board
of
ethics
that
we
support
very
strongly.
We
will
establish
campaign
finance
reform.
Q
That's
actually
one
of
the
benefit
of
the
Bell
that
anyone
who
runs
on
a
publicly
financed
slate
would
begin
talking
with
Board
of
Ethics
immediately
about
their
responsibilities.
What
are
the
terms
of
the
publicly
financed
laid?
What
are
the
responsibilities
around
it
and
reporting
on
it?
Now?
Obviously
that
doesn't
mean
that
nobody's
going
to
you
know,
go
around
it,
but
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
working
hard
on
is
helping.
People
understand
campaign
finance
laws,
a
lot
better
being
on
a
publicly
financed
slate,
will
certainly
get
them
in
touch.
Q
It
will
be
more
difficult,
I
think
to
gain
the
system.
They
don't
get
anything
that
much
out
of
it.
No
one's
getting
rich
off
of
$150
contributions
and
people
don't
actually
have
to
reach
the
limit,
so
it's
up
to
those
limits
amounts
so,
but
among
those
things
I,
you
know
I
understand
that
your
your
statement,
but
it
is
really
important
that
that
we
do
have
a
role
around
this
okay.
Thank.
L
A
A
O
O
R
Afternoon,
I'm
Amy
lo
press,
the
executive
director
of
the
New
York
City
Campaign
Finance
Board.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
I
have
submitted
my
written
testimony,
so
I
will
just
give
some
highlights.
As
has
been
mentioned
earlier
today,
the
New
York
City's
program
was
started
in
1988
in
response
to
a
series
of
corruption
scandals
and
it
has
been
strengthened
over
the
26
years
by
the
board
and
with
in
partnership
with
our
partners
and
city
government.
R
The
mayor
in
the
city
council,
I
just
want
to
give
a
framework
of
what
the
scope
of
the
New
York
City
program.
It
is
a
nonpartisan
rather
than
a
bipartisan
five-member
board
that
oversees
the
program.
It
covers
59
offices
in
New,
York,
City,
three
that
are
citywide
mayor
public
advocate
and
comptroller,
five
borough
presidents
and
51
City
Council
members.
All
candidates
who
run
for
office
in
New,
York
City,
are
subject
to
contribution
limits
and
prohibitions
and
extensive
disclosure
requirements.
R
As
far
as
the
public
matching
funds
program,
the
city
matches
the
first
175
dollars
of
contributions
from
New
York
City
residents
at
a
rate
of
$6
to
$1.
So
a
$25
contribution
is
worth
175
dollars
to
a
candidate
in
order
to
qualify
for
those
Pro
funds.
Candidates
must
meet
a
2-part
threshold
to
demonstrate
support.
They
must
agree
to
abide
by
spending
limits.
They
must
be
on
the
ballot.
R
Public
funds
are
capped
at
55
percent
of
the
spending
limit,
so
in,
for
example,
in
2007
the
election.
That's
going
on
right
now,
candidates
for
City
Council,
our
L,
can
spend
up
to
one
hundred
eighty
two
thousand
dollars
for
the
primary
and
another
one
hundred
and
eighty
two
thousand
dollars
for
the
general
election
and
are
entitled
to
qualify
for
up
to
a
hundred
thousand
one
hundred
dollars
in
public
matching
funds.
R
So
just
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
results
of
the
program
in
New,
York,
City
and
I'm
sure
councilmember
Lander
will
have
some
additional
comments
on
this
in
2017.
Eighty
three
percent
of
the
primary
candidates
participated
in
the
program
and
65
percent
of
the
general
election
candidates
are
participating
in
the
program
in
2017.
R
We
have
done
some
independent
research
with
the
City
University
of
New
York
and
have
discovered
that
cat
people
who
contribute
to
candidates
are
three
times
more
likely
to
vote
in
that
election.
So
there
is
a
civic
benefit.
In
addition
to
all
the
other
benefits,
and
just
to
give
you
some
facts
in
all
the
citywide
elections
that
have
occurred
in
New,
York
City.
To
date,
the
city
has
paid
out
about
one
hundred
and
seventy
five
million
dollars
in
public
matching
funds
in
the
2017
election,
which
is
going
on
and
the
final
public
funds
payments.
R
I've
not
been
made
because
the
election
is
not
occurred.
Yet
we've
paid
out
about
we
paid
up
fifteen
point:
eight
million
dollars
two
hundred
and
two
candidates
in
2017,
our
largest
payout
in
public
funds,
was
the
elections
in
2001,
where
we
paid
out
forty
two
million
dollars
to
two
hundred
and
five
candidates.
A
O
O
That
new
york
city
campaign
finance
system
is
an
extraordinary
vehicle
for
strengthening
our
local
democracy
in
new
york
city
and,
while
obviously
there's
an
expenditure
involved
and
money
is
scarce.
To
me,
it
seems
that
expanding
participation
and
building
confidence
and
preventing
corruption
is
really
a
priceless
expenditure
for
a
city
government,
so
I
wholeheartedly
support
it.
Here
we
have
work
to
keep
improving
it
and,
of
course
the
details
are
important,
but
I
would
really
urge
you
to
do
it
as
made
and
it
be
different
in
our
service.
O
First,
it
enables
people
to
run,
who
simply
would
not
otherwise
I
know.
The
previous
speaker
spoke
to
the
issue
about
it,
worrying
that
it
would
support
regular
candidates
or
incumbents.
It
puts
people
on
a
level
playing
field.
If
you
look
at
that
map
about
where
people
contribute
to
council
candidates,
small-dollar
donors
and
where
people
contribute
in
new
york
city
to
our
state
elected
officials,
it's
just
night
and
day
you
get
your
constituents
in
small
dollar
amounts
contributing
and
that
not
only
changes
who
participates
in
the
elections.
It
changes
who
can
run
so.
O
My
colleague
Richie
Torres
in
the
Bronx,
my
colleague,
Carlos
menchaca,
and
a
mostly
were
to
reconnect
the
kanay
burr
hood
in
Sunset
Park,
a
new
wonderful
candidate
from
Brownsville
Brooklyn,
one
of
the
lowest
income
neighborhoods
in
the
city.
Alica
empress.
Am
you
they'll
all
tell
you
they
could
not
have
run
if
it
were
not
for
our
matching
program
and
the
ability
to
raise
money
in
neighborhoods
that
people
are
not
traditional
campaign
donors.
Second,
it
really
subsist
substantially
increases
people's
faith
in
government.
O
One
great
feature
of
our
system
is
that
the
contributions
from
people
who
are
doing
business
with
the
city,
developers
or
contractors
with
the
city
aren't
matched
they
can
still
give,
but
at
lower
amount
and
without
matching
funds.
Now
that
was
something
that
got
added
to
our
system.
It
was
not
there
on
day
one,
but
we
realized
at
one
point
that
about
a
third
of
the
contributions
to
City.
O
Council
members
were
coming
from
real
estate
developers
and
people
who
were
doing
business
with
the
city
and
that,
for
understandable
reasons,
was
undermining
confidence
in
the
New
York
City
Council.
So
now,
with
that
law
changed
less
than
5%
of
contributions
to
new
york
city
council
members
come
from
real
estate
developers
or
contractors
or
people
who
do
business
with
the
city,
that's
good
for
our
decision-making,
and
it
is
great
for
talking
to
people
about
how
we're
being
straightforward
and
honest
and
transparent.
O
It
has
made
a
big
difference
in
how
we
can
consider
land
use
issues
when
people
know
that
there's
a
legal
restriction
on
those
contributions
and
I've
really
felt
the
difference.
I'm
third
I
would
say
it's
fantastic
to
have
spending
limits
and
that's
good
for
everyone.
I
mean
I,
know
you
guys.
You
have
to
do
this
to
just
the
amount
of
time
that
elected
officials
in
races,
without
spending
limits
have
to
spend
fundraising,
is
not
good
for
our
public
surface
or
our
lives
and
having
spending
limits
means
you
know
how
much
you
have
to
raise.
O
You
go
raise
that
amount
and
then
you're
gonna
be
on
a
level
playing
field
with
the
other
candidates
in
the
race
and
you
just
don't
wind
up
with
unlimited
arms
or
or
having
to
raise
and
raise
and
raise
to
the
detraction
of
your
ability
to
serve
our
communities.
I
have
a
district
like
the
District
Council
members.
There
makes
a
real
big
difference.
O
Two
very
quick
points
on
super
PACs.
First,
the
New
York
program
releases
the
spending
limit
for
candidates.
Where
big
excuse
me
not
super
PACs,
for
if
you
have
a
large
if
someone
doesn't
participate
in
the
program
or
they
sell
finance
and
spend
very
large
outs
of
month,
large
amounts
of
money
outside
the
program.
In
our
program,
your
spending
cap
is
lifted.
That
doesn't
give
you
the
money
to
compete
with
them
easily,
but
you
can
continue
to
raise
and
we
have
a
great
law
that
we
passed
this
term
for
super
PACs
and
independent
expenditures.
O
That
requires
the
listing
of
the
three
top
donors
to
the
super
PAC
on
the
mail
or
in
the
TV
or
radio
ad,
which
has
done
a
lot
to
force.
Transparency
and
I
think
has
really
made
a
big
difference.
This
term
and
my
final
point
I
will
add,
we
our
program-
has
three
tiers
and
it
might
be
something
you
would
want
to
consider
there.
We
have
the
District
Council
members,
we
have
citywide
elected
officials
and
in
between
we
have
these
borough
presidents
I
know
you
have
citywide
at-large,
council
members
and
some
other
offices
like
that.
O
You
might
want
to
look
at
that
feature
of
our
system
and
add
a
tier
in
between
the
district
council
members
and
the
mayor
as
a
way
just
as
a
practical
implication,
but
I'll
stop
there
I'm
glad
to
answer
questions
as
you
can
hear,
I'm
really
enthusiastic
about
the
system.
It's
a
lot
to
do
and,
of
course
it
costs
money,
but
at
least
here
it
has.
It
has
substantially
strengthened
New,
York,
City's
government
and
local
democracy.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
sir
I.
Just
had
one
question,
I
know
the
other
members.
Do
it
miss
Lowe
president?
You
probably
may
answer.
Maybe
only
answer
this
better.
Do
you
have
any
numbers
on
the
percentage
of
citizens
or
percentage
of
registered
voters?
However,
you
have
it
that
do
participate
that
do
contribute
to
this.
A
R
A
Reason
is
I'm,
just
wondering
how
you
know,
just
because
one
of
the
concerns
and
I
admit,
as
I
said
earlier,
I
have
one
of
one
of
my
concerns.
Is
they
you
know
yeah,
there's
people
there's
a
public
that
that
does
participate
in
this
program,
but
there
there
may
be
a
large
amount
that
chooses
not
to,
but
there
the
tax
money
is
still
going
into
the
program.
That's
the
reason
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
feel
for
how
many
you
know
just
but.
A
Alright,
just
on
move
on
just
on
the
issue
of
involvement
in
people
running
I
think
we
said
earlier,
it
seems
like
filler
I
mean
we
have
people
that
run
here
in
Philadelphia
hasn't
seemed
to
discourage
people
from
running
for
office.
That
I.
Could
you
know
that
we
could
see
and
I
think
even
mr.
Thornberg
said
that
it
didn't
look
like
this
program
really
like
necessarily
push
more
people
to
to
run
for
office?
Maybe
you
found
differently
in
New
York.
But
again
you
do
have
term
limits
which
probably
play
into
that
too
correct.
R
Yeah
I
mean,
as
mr.
Thornberg
points
out
it's
hard
to
parse
the
effects
of
the
program
and
the
effects
of
the
term
limits
the
first
year
that
term
limits
were
in
effect
were
the
first
year
that
they
people
were
term
limit
out
of
office
was
2001,
and
that
was
the
first
year
that
we
had
our
multiple
match
program
at
four
to
one.
So
we
had
a
huge
number
of
people
participating
in
the
program
353
candidates
in
that
year,
so
it's
again
hard
to
parse
the.
R
A
C
R
C
And
it
definitely
seemed
like
it
was
an
increase
in
number
of
candidates
as
a
result
of
public
financing
campaigns,
but
earlier
in
testimony
and
both
the
councilman
lander
as
well
as
was
no
press.
You
both
can
answer
this,
he
said
see
were
three
times
more
likely
to
vote
and
had
to
come
up
with
that
number.
R
O
Add
voters
voters
want
candidates
to
participate
in
the
program
when
voters
asked
candidates,
you
know
they
know
it's
out
there.
Obviously,
if
you
don't
know,
if
you
don't
have
anyone
running
again,
so
you
don't
get
the
matching
funds,
but
in
competitive
elections,
voters
ask
are
you
participating
and
they
want
the
candidates
to
be
participating
because
they
think
it
makes
a
fair
and
level
playing
field?
That's
more
free
from
corruption,
I
can't
say
I've
never
had
someone
say:
oh,
is
that
the
best
use
of
our
money,
but
for
every
self
every
prison?
O
Q
Thank
you
very
much
to
councilmember
Lander.
This
is
Helen
gem.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
comments.
Harry
and
your
enthusiasm
and
in
particular,
I
think
it
helps
that
as
a
citywide
council
candidate,
it
does
help
to
hear
system
works
or
has
been
an
in
New,
York
City.
So
thanks,
Brad
and
then
I
guess
my
other
question
that
I
have
a
little
bit
too.
Tim
is
Lopez.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
very
interested
in.
It
has
been.
Q
You
know,
because
I
am
just
the
most
recent
or
one
of
the
more
recent
people
coming
into
Philadelphia
City
Council
when
I
certainly
ran
for
City
Council.
It
was
a
little
overwhelming
with
the
campaign,
finance
responsibilities,
regulations,
everybody's
afraid
of
making
a
mistake.
Do
you
feel
like
when
people
enter
into
the
public
finance
system?
Are
they?
How
often
are
they
in
touch
with
you?
Are
they
more
in
touch
with
you,
for
example,
than
people
who
do
not
participate
in
the
system?
Do
you
you
know?
Q
R
Let
me
answer
that
in
a
couple
of
different
ways,
and
first
one
thing
that
we
do
in
our
office
is:
we
do
a
lot
of
training
and
outreach
and
provide
a
lot
of
assistance
to
candidates.
One
thing
we
did
for
the
first
time
in
2017
was
create
a
special
training
that
was
new
to
the
campaign
finance
world
and
kind
of.
We
had
a
lot
of
people.
R
Take
that
training,
people
who
wound
up
not
running
people
who
were
already
saying
that
they
were
running
for
a
different
office
because
they
just
wanted
some
information
about
what
it
means
to
run
for
office.
All
the
candidates
and
they're,
a
candidate
or
a
treasurer
are
mandated
by
law
to
attend
our
compliance
and
training
about
our
software,
see
smart,
which
is
what
they
used
to
file
their
disclosure
statements.
We
also
have
candidate
Services
liaisons,
who
are
available
to
answer
all
questions
as
far
as
compliance.
R
One
thing
is
that,
obviously,
in
order
to
receive
the
public
financing,
you
need
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
law
in
requirements.
The
controversial
requirements,
so
the
the
people
who
receive
public
financing
are
more
in
compliance
with
law.
We
do
do
a
rigorous
audit
process
before,
during
and
after
the
election,
to
ensure
that
the
money
that
is
paid
in
public
funds
is
paid
on
valid
contributions,
and
we
do
do
a
post-election
audit
to
ensure
that
the
money
that
is
paid
is
actually
spent
on
campaign
funds.
R
R
We
have
pretty
strict
rules
about
what
you
can
spend
money
on
post-election
and
our
audit
enforces
those
I
mean
now
councilmember
Lander
I
mean
we
know
nobody
likes
to
be
audited.
We
do
a
lot.
We
try
very
hard
to
help
candidates
organize
their
finances,
organize
their
records
so
that
they're
prepared
for
that
audit
process.
O
You
know
with
a
system
that
is
looking
at
how
you're,
raising
and
spending
your
money
I
think
the
New
York
City,
Campaign,
Finance
port,
has
done
a
really
good
job
and
I
say
that
as
someone
who
contested
a
finding
in
my
first
campaign,
you
know
they
they
had
a
finding
I
brought
it
before
the
board.
I
appealed
it.
We
went
through
that
process
and
I
come
out
feeling
like
it's
a
fair
system.
O
Q
Personally,
as
somebody
who
had
a
lot
of
low
dollar
donations
in
the
race,
it
does
matter
for
folks
to
hear
that
who
are
first-time
donors
that
they're
there
that
their
contributions
matter
as
much
as
somebody
who
is
giving
it
multiples
at
that
and
so
very
inspiring
from
New
York.
Thank
you
very
much.
As
always.
Thank
you.
Thank.
N
R
It's
a
five-member,
a
nonpartisan
board,
so
two
members
are
appointed
by
the
mayor.
Two
members
are
appointed
by
the
Speaker
of
the
City
Council,
those
two
members,
the
mayor's
two
members
and
the
speakers.
Two
members
cannot
be
of
the
same
political
party
and
the
chair
of
the
board
is
selected
by
the
mayor
after
consultation
with
the
Speaker
of
the
City
Council.
So.
N
N
R
G
N
What
happened
with
John
Lew
in
his
mayoral
run?
My
understanding
is
that
the
Campaign
Finance
Board
cited
the
fact
that
they
had
concerns
about
his
campaign
fundraising
and
therefore
did
not
release
matching
funds
to
him,
despite
him
not
being
convicted
or
found
in
any
way
to
be
connected
with
any
wrongdoing.
And
therefore,
without
the
campaign
finance,
he
was
not
able
to
run
for
mayor,
and
therefore
people
will
say
that
mayor
de
Blasio
sailed
to
victory
without
competition
from
another
Democrat.
N
R
There's
a
couple
things
there.
That
case
was
probably
one
of
the
most
unique
cases
before
the
board.
In
that
case,
a
campaigns
treasurer
had
been
convicted
of
crimes
related
to
the
campaign
financing
before
the
election
actually
occurred.
The
candidates
are,
and
the
treasurer's
are
all
liable
for
the
conduct
of
their
campaign.
The
board
did
in
its
own
investigation
of
the
potential
straw
donors
scheme
in
that
case
and
made
a
determination
that
mr.
Liu
is
not
entitled
to
receive
public
matching
funds
because
he
was
not
in
compliance
with
the
law
was
part
of
Mike.
R
That
was
part
of
my
answer
to
the
previous
question
was
that
you
have
to
be
in
compliance
as
far
as
the
second
part
of
your
question,
there
were
I
think
seven
Democratic
candidates
on
the
primary
ballot
in
2013
I
may
have
the
number
wrong.
It
might
have
been
six,
but
there
certainly
was
rigorous
competition
in
the
Democratic
primary
in
2013
yeah.
N
R
N
O
Me
chime
in
here
with
chewings
I,
mean
I.
Do
think
it's
worth
noting
that
you
know
there
were
convictions
in
a
court
of
law.
You
know
that
as
a
higher
level
of
the
higher
standards
than
the
campaign
finance
board
instead
of
his
campaign-
and
certainly
you
know-
Christine
Quinn
and
Bill
Thompson
and
at
the
beginning
of
the
campaign
anyway,
Anthony
Weiner
had
an
awful
lot
of
popular
support
as
well.
So
there
was
a
rigorous
primary
thanks
in
large
part
to
campaign
financing.
Yes,.
N
Thank
you,
Thank
You
councilman,
this
councilman
David,
oh
and
listen,
I!
Don't
I!
Don't
disagree
with
that.
However,
the
fact
is
that
you
know
a
very
popular
citywide,
elected
official
was
unable
to
run,
and
my
question
is
because
that
is
my
concern
that
the
campaign
finance
board
rather
than
letting
him
run.
You
know
until
such
time
as
there
was
some
either
conviction
of
him
or
a
court
decided
by
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence
using
the
standard.
N
You
know,
rules
of
evidence
that
you
know
I
think
are
very
very
important
to
our
judicial
process,
but
they
don't
apply
to
the
campaign
Board
of
Finance
a
campaign
Board
of
Finance
has
its
own
standards
and
can
determine
that
it
will
not
release
funds
as
it
did.
For
example,
after
9/11
it
decided
to
push
back
the
the
primary
date
by
two
weeks
and,
and
while
that
may
be
a
good
decision,
you
know
I
don't
know.
N
I
just
don't
know
that
it
is
the
role
of
the
campaign
finance
board
to
decide
that,
because
of
9/11
tragedy,
that
none
of
the
candidates
can
campaign
on
what
had
just
happened.
Just
a
tremendous
tragedy,
a
big
problem,
and
so
some
candidate
might
have
wanted
to
get
get
out.
There
may
have
been
able
to
change
the
dynamic
of
the
race,
but
the
Campaign
Finance
Board
denied
any
distribution
of
funds
to
any
candidates
and
basically
said
in
addition
to
pushing
the
date
back.
R
Okay,
so
let
me
answer
that
question
because
I
think
there's
a
first
in
the
in
the
John
Luke
case
and
there
was
had
been
as
I
said,
it's
a
unique
case
because
there
had
been
convictions
in
a
court
of
law
prior
to
the
board's
determination
to
not
pay
mr.
Liu
and
he
and
so
just
to
clarify.
While
the
board
withheld
his
funds,
he
was
on
the
ballot
and
was
able
to
run
and
received
a
you
know,
a
percentage
of
the
votes
so
I'm
not
denying
that
the
public
funds
are
important,
but
he
was.
R
O
N
Don't
I
don't
know
that
he
was
committing
fraud,
in
other
words,
that
was
not
determined
in
a
court
of
law.
I
wasn't
in
the
election.
All
I'm
saying
is
my
concern
is
that
is
he
the
only
person
that
ever
had
a
similar
situation,
no
other
candidate
or
incumbent,
or
anyone
who
ran
for
office,
never
had
a
similar
situation
in
the
history
of
New
York?
Well,.
R
There
I
mean
no
candidate
had
ever
had
their
treasurer
convicted
of
a
crime
related
to
their
campaign.
Financing
before
that
is
true,
certainly
there
have
been
other
I
mean
this
isn't
unfortunate,
but
this
is
event,
but
of
course
it's
why
you
have
rigorous
enforcement
is
certainly
there
have
been
other
candidates
who
have
engaged
in
nominee
contribution
attempts
to
submit
nominee
contributions
to
receive
public
matching
funds
and
have
not
received
public
matching
funds.
Some
of
them
have
been
prosecuted
in
court.
R
R
Unfortunately,
the
tragedy
of
September
11th
2001
occurred
on
New
York
City's
primary
day,
so
many
primary
locations
polling
sites
were
disrupted
because
of
the
tragedy.
Obviously,
the
city
was
in
a
fair
amount
of
chaos
and
the
day
decided
to
push
the
the
date
of
the
election.
The
campaign
finance
board
had
nothing
to
do
with
that
decision,
decided
to
rerun
the
primary
entirely.
R
What
the
position
was
that
the
Campaign
Finance
Board
was
in
at
the
time
was
that,
since
it
was
primary
day-
and
there
are
primary
spending
limits,
candidates
reasonably
had
had
budgeted
their
entire
budget
for
the
spending
limit
up
to
the
date
of
the
primary.
When
the
when
the
state
moved
the
date
of
the
primary,
the
board
was
not
allowed
by
law,
but
this
law
has
actually
since
been
changed.
In
response
to
this,
which
is
part
of
the
dynamic
nature
of
our
system,
did
not
have
the
authority
to
increase
the
spending
limit.
R
They
was
they
just
as
it
was
not
allowable
by
law.
So
what
the
Board's
decision
was
was
to
allow
candidates
to
spend
recreate
their
spending
for
the
primary
day
operations
so
as
not
to
advantage
candidates
who
had
not
spent
up
to
the
spending
limit
before
the
primary
as
compared
to
people
who
had
well
within
their
rights,
budgeted
and
spent
up
to
the
primary
spending
limit
up
to
primary
day,
and
that
decision
was
supported
by
the
major
mayoral
candidates
at
the
time,
most
of
whom
felt
that
they
were
not
going
to
be
campaigning
anyway.
J
You
so
much
and
I'll
be
brief,
because
I
know
we
have
other
people
to
testify.
I
want
to
thank
you.
I,
wouldn't
think
councilman
Greenlee
for
allowing
us
to
have
this
discussion.
It's
never
a
right
time
to
talk
about
priorities
and
money.
If
you
listen
to
Phil
emag
I'm
I'm
the
establishments
our
worst
nightmare,
so
you
could
see
we
go
from
all
extremes
here.
I,
never
considered
you
a.
J
Just
this
weekend,
I
was
hosting
a
an
election
training
for
folks
in
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
they're,
just
tired
of
all
of
the
fraud
and
campaign
stuff
in
in
districts
like
mine's.
You
know,
particularly
the
Latino
community
and
you
just
her
people's
frustration
in
particularly
election
poor
people
who
are
really
innocent
in
all
of
this.
So
you
know
kudos
to
New
York,
and
you
know
again,
I'm
happy
that
we
can
have
that
discussion.
Just
like
the
Board
of
Ethics.
J
We
should
be
okay
with
feeling
uncomfortable
with
some
components
of
this
and
talking
about
it
and
ultimately,
hopefully,
given
that
the
voters
an
opportunity
to
make
a
decision.
So
thank
you
for
sharing
it.
I'm
sure
we're
gonna
have
more
conversations,
because
this
is
by
any
means
done
deal
I'm.
Sorry,
yes,
thank.
A
O
A
A
M
M
Quickly,
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
satisfied
today
in
support
of
the
matching
funds:
public
financing
legislation.
The
campaign
Legal
Center
has
carefully
reviewed
the
bill
and
we
believed,
as
a
well-crafted
constitutional
piece
of
legislation,
if
enacted
the
bill,
would
establish
the
public
finding
sink
system
for
the
city
of
Philadelphia
and
propel
the
city
into
the
national
forefront
in
this
area.
M
We
believe
that
the
multi-million
dollar
contributions
from
individuals
to
super
PACs
and
other
political
entities
have
left
many
Americans
feeling
excluded
from
the
democratic
process.
Public
financing
offers
an
alternative.
Public
funding
can
elevate
the
voices
of
all
citizens
in
the
political
process,
not
just
those
who
can
afford
to
write
extremely
large
checks.
Although
there
are
many
important
and
effective
and
effective
reforms,
the
council
might
wish
to
consider
the
campaign.
Legal
Center
believes
public
financing
is
a
particularly
promising
option.
M
My
testimony
also
covered
goes
more
into
detail
in
terms
of
the
constitutionality
of
public
financing
programs
and
offers
a
couple
suggestions
for
the
bill,
and
the
other
panels
have
touched
on
what
I
would
characterize
as
a
systemic
problem.
Systemic
problems
were
facing
with
our
democracy.
At
this
time
we
have
seen
poll
after
poll
serious
questions
from
the
electorate,
reflecting
a
loss
of
faith
in
the
system,
the
loss
of
faith
in
our
democratic
institutions
and
a
feeling
that
the
system
is
designed
to
minimize
their
voice
and
minimize
their
vote.
M
M
There
just
isn't
one
instead,
I
think
that
you
know
you
have
to
take
it
bit
by
bit
and
address
each
of
those
problems
in
turn
and
we're
facing
a
very
complicated
system
that,
unfortunately,
can't
be
covered
by
one
piece
of
legislation,
but
I
think
that
this
bill
is
an
important
stuff
to
begin
to
restore
some
faith
in
our
democratic
institutions
and
engage
more
voters
and
more
citizens
in
the
process,
and
with
that
I'll,
look
forward
to
your
questions.
Okay,.
C
Briefly,
so,
you've
had
a
chance
to
hear
a
lot
of
testimony
and
I'm
curious
your
perspective
on
removing
either
the
marrow
either
changing
the
matching
amount
to
a
lower
threshold
or
moving
on
the
mayoral
election
from
public
Minds
and
campaigns.
If
you
have
any
opinion
on
that,
based
on
what
you've
heard
today,
well.
M
I
think
in
terms
of
budgeting
consideration,
we've
seen
other
systems
like
Seattle.
For
example,
they
have
started
their
voucher
program.
This
election
cycle,
just
covering
a
couple
of
council
seats
to
see
how
it
goes,
give
the
body
that's
administering
the
program,
a
chance
to
figure
it
out,
see
what
they
need
to
do
and
also
a
chance
to
educate
the
electorate
and
what's
going
on
and
that's
been
a
successful
system.
M
You
know
under
this
first
election
cycle,
and
it
also
gives
the
city
a
chance
to
build
some
revenue
to
eventually
expand
the
program
and
covers
mayoral
races
as
well.
So
I
think
that
there
could
be
some
advantages
in
terms
of
the
city
adjusting
to
this
new
program
and
building
up
a
revenue
source
to
pay
for
it
to
a
phase
in
the
implementation
and.
M
A
A
L
L
My
testimony
goes
into
one
of
the
reasons
to
pass
a
small
donor
public
financing
program
from
the
voters
perspective,
which
is
that
voters
have
lost
confidence
at
all
levels
of
government
that
their
elected
leaders
are
working
for
the
benefit
of
everyone
because
of
the
perception
and
sometimes
the
reality
that
money
is
corrupting
our
politics.
A
poll
in
2016
showed
money
in
politics
being
three
of
the
four
top
concerns
in
the
election
with
the
economy.
Only
being
one
of
those
four
concerns.
L
Another
graph,
and
my
testimony
shows
that
over
ninety
percent
of
voters
now
think
that
the
government
works
in
the
interest
of
a
few
big
donors
in
less
than
10
percent.
Think
that
the
government
works
for
the
benefit
of
all,
and
we
see
this
concern
at
the
federal
state
and
local
level
in
our
polling.
L
L
However,
I
do
want
to
note
that
while
voters
are
very
aware
of
the
problem
of
money
in
politics,
they're
less
aware
that
there
are
solutions
to
it.
So
that's
why
you
don't
here's
people
saying
hey?
We
want
public
financing,
they
know
that
there's
a
problem
and
they
think
there
may
not
be
a
solution.
L
So
that's
why
they're
it's
important
to
pass
solutions
to
this
problem
of
big
money,
distorting
our
democracy.
I'd
also
like
to
note
that
is
a
good.
It
is
a
good
policy
because
it
has
been
passed
in
32
jurisdictions.
It's
at
some
level.
We
actually
know
how
it
works
so
in
helps
bring
a
reality
check
to
a
lot
of
speculation,
some
of
which
we
heard
today
like
this
will
empower
bounce
packs
as
opposed
to
reducing
their
influence
or
just
any
kind
of
speculation.
L
You
know
organizations
like
every
voice
and
like
some
of
the
organizations
testifying
in
person
or
written
today,
really
carefully
study
these
programs.
Are
they
meeting
the
intended
outcomes?
Are
they
not
having
any
unintended
consequences
and
so
that
so
they
do
look
at
well?
How
did
you
know
the
campaign?
You
know
the
campaign
spending
compared
to
independent
expenditures
before
the
system
after
the
system.
I
actually
wish.
I
had
some
of
that
data
with
me
today
and
I
don't,
but
our
research
director
has
it
if
anyone's
interested,
we're
happy
to
share
it.
L
So
I
mentioned
a
my
written
testimony
that
these
programs,
you
know,
can
reduce
the
barriers
to
elected
office
and
can
result
in
elected
leaders
that
are
more
reflective
of
their
constituents.
It's
by
it's,
not
it's
by
race,
but
it's
not
just
by
a
race.
It
also
increases
gender
diversity
and
income
diversity
and
that's
something
that's
rarely
studied.
L
But
when
people
do
look
at
it,
they
usually
do
find
that
elected
leaders,
incomes
prior
to
office
is
usually
more
than
the
median
income
of
the
people
they
represent
and
one
one
person
to
James
the
the
first
african-american
woman
to
win
citywide
office
in
New
York
credits,
the
matching
program
with
her
ability
to
win,
partly
because
she
doesn't
have
family
members
who
could
give
you
know
large
contributions.
She
doesn't
have
a
network
of
people
who
could
give
large
contributions
because
she's
she's,
not
really
you
know
strongly
from
you-
know.
L
It
starts
pretty
steeply
skewing
to
more
white
and
it's
really
flat
lines
at
two
hundred
and
fifty
dollars.
So
and
then
you
know
similarly
there's
another
graph
that
shows
that
actually
at
no
income
level
or
at
no
donor
level,
our
donors
like
in
its
showing
this,
like
that
economic
diversity
of
New
York,
but
the
lower
the
donation
level,
the
closer
it
is
to
sort
of
the
average
New
York
income
and
I
have
some
other
charts
for
other
jurisdictions
in
there
as
well.
L
L
And
then
it's
the
same
map
except
it's
have
donors
to
New,
York,
City
races
and
where
they
do
have
a
matching
program
and
donations
are
being
drawn
from
ninety
percent
of
neighborhoods.
So
it
really
shows
that
a
program
just
like
the
one
you
guys
are
contemplating
today
very
successfully
and
dramatically
broadens
and
diversifies
the
donor
base.
I
also
like
to
show
this
to
elected
officials
when
they
are
fretting
that,
like
can
I,
really
broaden
my
divert
my
donor
base.
Will
small
donors
open
up
their
wallets
and
give
and
I
show
them
this
say?
L
L
We
also
analyzed
the
figures
in
the
program
to
make
sure
that
they're
in
alignment
with
the
cost
of
winning
elections
for
each
type
of
race
and
that
they're
in
alignment
with
the
existing
donor
bases
of
candidates,
and
then
we
kind
of
scale
it
to
what
we
see
in
other
jurisdictions
under
these
programs
and
almost
all
of
the
numbers
in
this
proposal
are
in
very
nice
alignment
with
the
realities
of
winning
elections
in
Philadelphia.
But
we
do
have
two
spots
where
we
think
you
guys
might
consider
adjusting
the
program.
L
One
has
been
mentioned
before
the
matchable
amount
appears
to
be
unnecessarily
high.
The
graph
on
the
top
of
page
nine
shows
that,
without
even
increasing
donor
basis,
council
candidates
can
hit
their
match
cap.
If
they're
matched
only
to
$50.00,
they're,
actually
blowing
way
past
their
match
cap,
if
they're
matched
all
the
way
up
to
one
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
on
their
current
donor
base
and
then
on
the
next
page,
we
we
do
the
same
calculation,
but
we
double
the
donor
base
because
that's
that's
the
number.
L
Every
voice
uses
to
estimate
the
increase
in
the
donor
base
when
candidates
spend
the
same
amount
of
time
fundraising
but
focus
it
on
small
donors
and
they're
using
under
a
small
donor
matching
program.
They
pretty
easily
double
their
donor
base
and
we
actually
think
that
you
know,
even
if
the
program
only
matched
up
to
twenty-five
dollars,
candidates
will
mostly
for
council,
will
most
likely
be
able
to
hit
their
match
cap
when
matched
five
to
one
if
they
double
their
donor
base.
So
we're
not
saying
for
sure
it
should
be
$25
or
$50.
L
There's
a
lot
of
judgment
that
needs
to
be
made.
Do
is
this.
You
know
you
want
to
kind
of,
on
the
one
hand,
balance
trying
to
amplify
the
smallest
contributions.
On
the
other
hand,
you
want
to
make
sure
the
program
is
generous
enough
that
candidates
who
participate
can
raise
enough
to
compete.
So
there's,
as
we
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
there's
some
wiggle
room
to
lower
that
amount
and
it
will
also
save
the
city
money
and
then
the
second
piece
to
consider
is
just
about.
Could
ask
you,
oh
sure,.
A
L
Second
piece
is
just:
we
think
that
the
council
spending
cap
and
match
caps
are
just
a
little
bit
low
and
when
you
look
at
what
a
number
of
council
candidates
spend
and
we
recommend
raising
those
up
a
little
bit
and
it
that
would
cost
the
city
a
little
bit
of
money.
But
there
are
ways
to
offset
that
or
that
we're
happy
to
talk
to
you
about
and
then
I'll
skip.
L
I've
asked
what
the
increase
of
pretty
candidate
participation
is
under
these
programs,
and
what
we
have
found
in
other
jurisdictions
is
that
it
varies
between
as
no
increase
in
candidate
the
number
of
candidates
running
to
about
an
8
percent
increase,
and
even
though
that
the
increase
in
the
number
of
candidates
who
run
is
quite
modest,
it's
this
program
still
successfully
enable
different
types
of
candidates
to
run
then
than
before.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
Please.
B
Afternoon,
my
name
is
you're
from
common
cause.
Right
I
am
with
Romeo
Paz.
Yes,
sorry
as
you
can
tell
I'm,
not
Paul
Ryan
I'm,
Marilyn
carpenter,
I'm,
the
director
for
state
operations,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
colleague,
Paul
Seamus
Ryan,
so
common
cause.
Just
briefly,
is
not
partisan.
I'm,
proud,
nonprofit
organization
that
really
works
to
ensure
that
we
create
an
open
and
accountable
government.
We
have
over
1
million
members
across
the
country
in
all
50
states
and
5,000,
specifically
just
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
B
B
There
are
also
difficult
and
running
for
public
office
and
gaining
and
getting
access
to
public
funds.
It
shouldn't
be
easy,
so
we
do
think
that
you
know
a
mayor
running
for
office.
We
need
to
get
three
hundred
thirty
three
donations
to
total,
though
the
the
minimum
threshold.
So
again
the
numbers
are
setting
these
requirements,
make
sense
and
I
know.
B
Do
just
want
a
whole
light
highlights
another
key
provision.
The
ordinance
is
the
requiring
the
Board
of
Elections
to
provide
regular
reports
to
the
mayor
and
council
regarding
the
efficiency
administration,
the
impact
you
know.
As
you
well
know,
campaign
finance
is
constantly
evolving
and
with
any
program
they
require
regular
review
and
changes
to
keep
it
relevant
and
responsive.
B
Even
the
best
public
financing
systems,
like
New
York,
goes
under
regular
review
under
after
every
election.
They
hold
public
hearings,
they
have
the
campaign,
people,
they
have
the
candids
themselves
and
the
public
at
large
weighing
in
so
it's
the
city
is
invested
in
the
system
and
together
they
work
with
the
campaign
finance
board
to
make
the
recommendations
and
to
strengthen
their
program.
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
that
highlight,
and
also
with
the
city
councilman
of
New
York
has
said,
ensuring
that
there
is
that
the
agencies
that
oversee
the
implementation
of
the
elections
and
this
system
are
adequately
funded
and
equity,
supported
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
fall,
that
there
is
the
infrastructure
in
place.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
out
there
that
common
cause
works
in
a
number
of
states
across
the
country
on
supporting
these
systems
and
on
implementation.
B
So
I
would
be
happy
to
if
you
would
like
to
hear
from
other
constituents
and
I'm
sure
other
my
colleagues
here
at
campaign,
Legal
Center
and
every
voice.
I
think
we
all
collect
would
be
happy
to
weigh
in
and
provide
additional
resources
or
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
other
states
me
experiencing
or
have
experienced
over
the
years.
So
thank.