Knox's spending, not campaign law, is issue

Zachary Stalberg

is president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy

Since his first strong showing in the polls, some of the mayoral campaigns have been sniveling about millionaire Tom Knox's ability to outspend their candidates. They place the blame on the city's tough new campaign-contribution limits.

If I were them, I probably would be whining, too.

But the other candidates should realize the law isn't their problem. Knox's approach is.

It is time for the multimillionaire Knox to voluntarily cap his spending and, especially, to make an ironclad pledge to give - as opposed to lend - his money to his own campaign.

One of Knox's messages is that he will end the practice of pay-to-play. But that vow doesn't mean much if people who are interested in buying access to the apparent front-runner - or to the administration he'll lead if he wins - line up to help him pay off his debt to himself.

And to go one step further, if donors give Knox money, now or after a Knox victory, it doesn't matter much whether the dough goes back into his own passbook savings account or into his political treasure chest. He benefits in either case.

It's understandable that Knox's campaign-financing methods have become a matter of concern, but the city's campaign-finance law is getting a bad rap as a result. The Committee of Seventy has worked hard to defend the law, which simply prevents the candidates from getting corrupted in the time-honored Philadelphia way.

Knox's approach is protected by a long-ago U.S. Supreme Court decision, which said a rich candidate has a First Amendment right to spend as much of his own filthy lucre on his campaign as he desires. The Supreme Court, however, did not rule that a rich candidate is obligated to do what Knox has said he would do - "spend whatever it takes" to get elected mayor.

The Committee of Seventy is nonpartisan and has no dog in this fight. We know a little about elections, however, and feel obligated to mention a few things:

In addition to reducing the risk of pay-to-play, the campaign-finance law was aimed at slashing the cost of elections and especially the extraordinary influence of TV advertising. Saturation advertising is precisely what the Knox campaign is about.

A candidate's ability to self-fund can make him seem more honest and independent, especially if the notion is well-sold via sound bites. But integrity and the ability to accumulate great wealth are not necessarily related qualities.

There are at least four televised debates in the next several weeks. Perhaps the best test of the candidates' true style, depth and vision will be their performance in these unscripted TV battles.

The other candidates should also remember that Knox has snared voters' interest with more than just his checkbook and free pasta dinners. His outsider image and his vow to fundamentally change government and politics in this town have played a big part.

Still, the campaign-finance law designed by Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. is, for the most part, working.

It is certainly tougher for Messrs. Fattah, Brady, Nutter and Evans to raise money in the smaller increments required by the new law. But that is also the primary reason the race for the Democratic mayoral nomination remains genuinely competitive, far more issue-oriented and far less expensive than it would have otherwise been.

But big spending can still undermine all that progress.