What's future in city campaigns?

Philadelphia's campaign finance law, regarded by some as the seed of the city's current reform movement, survived a mayoral veto in 2003 and overcame a legal challenge in the state Supreme Court just this past weekend.

Still, observers say, the law needs to be updated and could be vulnerable if opposed in federal court.

Other observers say the law, like all campaign finance laws before it, is being evaded by smart people and will require constant review to remain effective.

"I think that what you'll find - that it simply requires people who want to use money and other means of gaining influence to get more creative," said Randall Miller, a St. Joseph's University history professor and observer of city politics.

Born in the midst of the 2003 "bug" scandal that sent the city treasurer and others to jail and produced hours of wiretaps painting a gaudy picture of the city's pay-to-play culture, Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr.'s law limits contributions to $2,500 annually for individuals and $10,000 for political committees.

As a city councilman, Mayor-elect Michael Nutter authored a campaign-reform measure that regulates contributions by companies that seek no-bid contracts from the city.

The changes already have holes, as evinced by the 2007 city elections, said Zack Stalberg, president of the government ethics watchdog the Committee of Seventy.

"This year's first test of the city campaign-finance ordinance revealed that it is by no means foolproof," he said in a statement, pointing out the lack of regulations regarding nonprofit "527" committees that mounted personal attack ads in the days leading up to the May primary. Stalberg also wants the limits extended to a four-year election cycle, not just calendar years.

The Committee of Seventy has called on Nutter to hold hearings on the effectiveness of the laws within his first 100 days of office.

There lurks another danger to the law, campaign-finance experts said.

When Goode's law was written in 2003, state campaign limits were relatively secure. Then the U.S. Supreme Court shot down aspects of Vermont's strict limits in 2006, and later pushed aside restrictions on ads aired by nonprofit organizations leading up to elections in Wisconsin.

"I think the campaign-finance-reform crowd have lost a lot of momentum as a result of the Vermont and the Wisconsin decisions," said Steven Simpson, senior attorney for the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which was involved in the fight to throw out the Vermont law and other campaign limits it views as contrary to the rights of free expression.

The court's rulings indicate a willingness by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the legitimacy of local limits, said Bruce Ledewitz, professor of constitutional law at Duquesne University. The campaign reformers' victory in Philadelphia "may prove fleeting," he said

"It's certainly unclear that the Philadelphia campaign limitations can stand under the First Amendment," Ledewitz said.

Nutter said he would deal with all of this after he takes office - his inauguration will be Monday - but he shook his head at the the suggestion that the fresh victory in the state Supreme Court might not endure.

"Some days," he said, "you just need to celebrate that a good thing has happened."