Ethics Board keeps it clean

The city's campaign-finance ordinance serves an important public purpose, and the Philadelphia Board of Ethics has made every effort to help political candidates follow it.

When the Board of Ethics was given the charge of enforcing the new campaign-finance ordinance in 2006, we quickly set out to educate political candidates and their campaign treasurers. Letters explaining the ordinance were sent to all 79 candidates for city office months before the 2007 primary election. Candidates and treasurers were also invited to attend training seminars. More recently, the candidates for district attorney and city controller and their treasurers were invited to attend similar seminars.

Information about the ordinance is also posted on our Web site, and "plain English" statements of it are published in newspapers every six months. Our staff is available to answer questions by e-mail and phone.

The campaign-finance ordinance was adopted by City Council and could be changed by Council. It was modeled after ordinances that have been in effect for many years in other cities, which have agencies similar to the Ethics Board to administer and enforce the ordinances.

Philadelphia's ordinance is relatively simple and straightforward. It has two main features: contribution limits and mandatory disclosure.

The contribution limits act as a vital deterrent to a "pay-to-play" culture that might otherwise permit government decisions based on influence rather than the efficient use of tax dollars. The disclosure lets the public know who is contributing to candidates before an election.

To support the limits and disclosure, the ordinance also requires candidates to use only one campaign committee. This single-committee rule prevents candidates from hiding contributions and expenditures.

The vast majority of candidates in the last two election cycles followed the ordinance, staying within the limits and accurately and completely reporting the contributions and expenses of a single committee.

While some who violated the ordinance claimed they didn't understand it, it's not that complicated. It's also easy to get an answer to any question about it. Nevertheless, a few candidates accepted more money than permitted, misreported or failed to disclose significant financial information, or used more than one committee.

Some of the violations were the product of carelessness and ignorance. But others were clearly deliberate - committed with the hope that they would go unnoticed, be ignored, or eventually be permitted by the courts.

In the last two years, the board has conducted more than 35 investigations of violations of the city's public-integrity ordinances, which include the campaign-finance ordinance. These resulted in 10 enforcement actions filed in court and 10 settlement agreements. The board has imposed $114,000 in fines and deterred many other violations.

The board handles all cases fairly and consistently. When an investigation uncovers violations, we offer an opportunity to settle before we pursue enforcement actions. Most take advantage of this opportunity, but sometimes we have been unable to reach a settlement, which compels us to enforce the rules.

Perhaps inevitably, public attention has focused on the few candidates who have been cited for violations. Our mission has always been to prevent violations through education and training, but the board has a mandate to enforce the ordinance when it is broken.

While some claim, in an effort to minimize an infraction, that the board pursues "technical" violations of the ordinance, it has only pursued significant violations of the ordinance.

Over the last three years, the campaign-finance ordinance has enhanced public confidence in government by helping to ensure clean elections - free of dirty tricks and free of the unlimited political contributions that bought undue influence, went unreported, or were buried in a thicket of anonymous campaign committees.

We all need to keep in mind that the rules are not there to set "technical" hurdles for candidates. Rather, they are to assure the public that political donors don't have undue influence, and to guarantee that citizens have access to complete, accurate information about all the money flowing into and out of the campaigns. Simply put, the ordinance exists to safeguard the public interest.