Campaign $$ limits argued in high court

The future of Philadelphia's first-ever campaign-contribution limits may boil down to a single question:

When the state Legislature rewrote Pennsylvania's campaign-finance laws nearly 30 years ago, without putting any limits on individual donations, did that omission mean the Legislature was prohibiting contribution limits, in Philadelphia or anywhere else?

"The call for us is whether or not nonaction is action," the state's chief justice, Ralph J. Cappy, summarized yesterday as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard opposing arguments on what should happen to the city's campaign-finance ordinance.

The ordinance, adopted by City Council, bars individual contributors from giving more than $2,500 to a candidate for city office. Political-action committees, law firms and other unincorporated businesses can give no more than $10,000 to a candidate.

The city's Board of Ethics decided to double the limits for this year's mayoral candidates because a wealthy insurance executive, Tom Knox, was writing million-dollar checks to his own campaign. Because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings equating campaign expenditures with the exercise of free speech, Knox was allowed to spend as much of his own money as he wanted.

Commonwealth Court upheld the city's ordinance by a 6-1 vote in April.

But U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, who finished fourth in the five-way Democratic primary for mayor after a dismal performance at fundraising, is seeking to have the city's limits thrown out. Joining him is former Democratic Party Treasurer John Dougherty, leader of the regional electricians' union.

The city Law Department and the Democratic primary winner, Michael Nutter, are defending the ordinance.

"We want those who govern to be immune from the pernicious effect of large contributions," Nutter's attorney, Susan Burke, told the seven justices.

Fattah's attorney, Gregory Harvey, argued that when the Legislature rewrote the laws in 1978, it was paying careful attention to the federal campaign-finance laws, rewritten in 1974 after the Watergate scandal.

Like the federal statute, the Pennsylvania law imposed new restrictions on cash donations, Harvey pointed out. But unlike the federal law, it did not limit contributions made by check.

"In 1978, the Legislature was very well-aware of the contribution limits in the federal statute," Harvey said, but it decided that in Pennsylvania, "we're not going to cap contributions."

Deputy City Solicitor Richard Feder countered that there were many other aspects of the federal law that the Pennsylvania law did not adopt or address, including taxpayer financing of election expenses and creation of a commission to enforce the law.

The Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based nonprofit, submitted a brief supporting the city ordinance.

Throughout the country, it said, about 115 municipalities have enacted contribution limits.

Dougherty's lawyer, George Bochetto, argued that under the state's Home Rule Act, municipalities such as Philadelphia may not enact ordinances that limit powers granted by the Legislature.

Since the Legislature has allowed individuals to make unlimited campaign contributions, the city is not permitted to impose limits, Bochetto said.

Responding, Feder noted that the Legislature has imposed state regulations on the operators of beauty shops.

Under state law, there's nothing to stop them from smoking while they work on customers' hair, Feder said, but the city of Philadelphia has lawfully imposed no-smoking rules for beauty shops.

The justices provided no clues how they may be leaning. Attorneys said they expect a decision before January, when three of the seven justices are expected to leave office. *