Defeat feared for ethics measure

By Marcia Gelbart
Inquirer Staff Writer

With Philadelphia voters about to get their first crack at breaking down the cozy relationship between politicians and their campaign donors, advocates of the changes are getting a little worried.

They are concerned that a ballot question seen as key to long-term change could fall victim to any number of problems, including voter lethargy, unanticipated political opposition, and the muddy wording of the initiative question itself. Even the possible mayoral ambitions of the initiative's author could prove fatal, they say.

"I'm a little afraid that something bad can happen," said Zack Stalberg, executive director of the election-watchdog group the Committee of Seventy.

Marc Stier, a Temple University professor and organizer of the political group Neighborhood Networks, said, "This is a tiny baby step toward political reform. But if it goes down in defeat I think it will kill the reform movement."

The ballot question, to be put to the voters Nov. 8, was the product of a nearly yearlong struggle by City Councilman Michael Nutter, who made overhauling the city's pay-to-play political culture a central theme of his last Council term.

With the question, residents will decide whether to change the Home Rule Charter to limit donations from private firms seeking no-bid city contracts. FBI scrutiny of such deals has led to the conviction of more than a dozen political players over the last year.

Nutter acknowledged last week that good intentions alone would not likely be enough to get the initiative passed.

"The 'yes-to-reform' campaign is something that clearly needs to be organized," he said. "... We need to remind people: If you are tired of the corruption, of the perception of corruption, of the perception the game is fixed, vote yes for reform."

Nutter and other charter-change supporters say they know of no organized opposition. But in interviews last week, it also was apparent there was no one driving the effort to pass the initiative.

That particularly troubles supporters who fear the initiative will be overlooked at the polls.

Voters will face 39 choices on the November ballot, among them the races for district attorney and city controller. The ethics question likely will be among the last items on the ballot. With no hotly contested races, voter turnout is expected to be minimal, increasing the influence of ward leaders and other political groups in the outcome.

"There is likely to be such a low turnout that just about anything can happen," Stalberg said.

somebody wants to deprive him of a win."

Of five other potential mayoral hopefuls, just one - electricians' union leader John Dougherty - said he was opposed to the ballot question. "He does not support it because it does not go far enough," said his spokesman, Frank Keel. Dougherty, however, will not lead a campaign to stop it, Keel said. "John is content to let the democratic process unfold," Keel said.

In favor of the initiative were these other potential candidates: insurance executive Tom Knox; U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Phila.); State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), and City Controller Jonathan Saidel.

Stier, the Temple professor, said he had heard "vague rumors" that certain ward leaders would be pushing a no vote. A handful of them, contacted last week, denied such efforts.

"Ballot questions, usually without being touched, win," said the city Democratic Party chairman, U.S. Rep. Bob Brady. Of 24 municipal ballot questions proposed since 1991, only one (on whether to adopt a new Home Rule Charter in 1994) failed. However, in every other case, a substantial minority of voters, up to 45 percent, said no.

There also are concerns about the ballot itself, which is one word shy of the 75-word state limit on ballot questions. "Most people reading it for the first time will not understand it," said Gregory Harvey, a Philadelphia lawyer who specializes in election law.

Joseph P. McLaughlin, a city government veteran who is now a fellow at Temple's Institute for Public Affairs, said that without organized opposition, he doubted the question would fail. "It does, however, give me pause, because it seems exceedingly complicated."

Nutter, who worked on the question, said, "Yes, it's wordy, because there's a lot in it."

The new rules, if approved, would bar businesses - including officers, partners and related political action committees - from receiving no-bid contracts valued at $25,000 or more if they donate more than $10,000 a year to any city candidate or elected official. Individuals would be restricted to giving $2,500 a year if they still wanted to vie for contracts of $10,000 or more.

Mayor Street, who signed the Council bill, said he had not yet focused on the ballot question. But he instructed his procurement, finance and other departments to start work on the tedious, wholesale changes - such as building new software systems - that would be required to carry it out.

For now, Nutter said he was hopeful that concerned parties would "step up to the plate and donate money" for radio ads and more. He said he also intended to meet with African American ward leaders; Brady and his GOP counterpart, Michael Meehan, and black elected officials.

Stier last week was polling members of his organization on the extent they planned to get involved, from campaigning door to door to making talk radio appearances. And while the Committee of Seventy last week began to campaign in favor of the question on its Website, Stalberg said the group was still mulling its role in directly raising and spending money for a campaign.

Campaign consultant Neil Oxman was surprised to learn the question was on the Nov. 8 ballot. But with the airwaves relatively free of campaign ads - save the New Jersey governor's race - he said it wouldn't take much to engage voters. Specifically, he said, it would take about two weeks and $200,000.

"If you market things for a couple of weeks to the group of people who are here who are going to vote," he said, "you can pass this thing."

Ethics-Reform Ballot Question