No more loopholes

True to form, poor ethics has seeped back into the Philadelphia political system. New campaign-finance laws enacted in 2003 by City Council were supposed to cap political donations to mayoral candidates at $2,500 from individuals and $10,000 from businesses or political action committees.

Not surprisingly, potential candidates have done little to comply with the law.

As of Feb. 1, the six Philadelphians, all Democrats, who have reported contributions for the 2007 mayoral race have a combined war chest of $8.2 million. Only one of the candidates, City Councilman Michael Nutter, has abided by the new standards.

The other ones appear to not understand the meaning of the word "candidate."

In crafting the law, Council did not clearly define the word candidate, instead assuming that mayoral hopefuls would use the state definition: any person who raises more than $250 for political office.

Yet, all candidates except for Nutter have decided they do not need to abide by this interpretation because they have not publicly declared their candidacy.

Nearly $8 million raised between five people who aren't running for the position?

Give this city a break.

The spirit of the campaign-finance law is diminish the influence of large donors and Philadelphia mayors. Not abiding by the law simply because the candidates have not "officially" begun their campaigns, cheats the citizens of Philadelphia out of a more effective, honest and transparent municipal government.

A recent $200,000 donation from television mogul Gerry Lenest to Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah -- who represents Penn's district in Congress and has a so-called "exploratory committee" for a possible mayoral run -- epitomizes why this bill was passed in the first place.

Lenest's donation now makes up the majority of Fattah's fundraising.

Less than 6 percent of Fattah's war chest would fall within the limits of the code if he were an official candidate for mayor.

The citizens of Philadelphia deserve to have mayoral candidates who will not stretch the meaning of well-intentioned laws to achieve political office. And the public agrees: In 2005, voters approved landmark ethics reform to the City Charter by a margin of nearly nine to one.

Fortunately, the power to compel mayoral candidates to abide by the law still lies in the hands of these voters. When next year's mayoral primary comes around, the public must embrace only those candidates who abided by the true spirit of the campaign-finance law.

Hopefully, it won't come to that.

The Committee of Seventy, Philadelphia's oldest government watchdog organization, has asked City Solicitor Romulo Diaz to clarify the meaning of the term "candidate." Diaz has already announced he will not respond, and the committee should undertake legal action to enforce the fundraising code.

In addition, City Council should take proactive action and modify the ethics code to expand the definition of a candidate.

With ethics scandals and an FBI probe into the mayor's office still fresh in the memory of Philadelphians, all parties involved should act to fulfill the spirit of the new campaign-finance law.

And for those who do not, Philadelphia residents must punish them at the voting booth.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.