Over the last week, Councilman Goode has
1. Defended his original campaign finance bill that guts our campaign finance laws by defining a candidate in a way that creates, as I have explained below, massive loopholes in the contribution limits.
2. Said both publicly and privately, that he would put forward an amendment that would define a candidate as anyone who is raising money for a political campaign. This was a major improvement although not quite as good as it might have been.
3. Failed to introduce the amendment at Council
What Does Goode Say is Going On?
Goode has explained his failure to put forward the amendment in at least three different and equally implausible ways:
1. He has blamed activists, including me and the Committee of Seventy for not agreeing to his amendment. This makes no sense. We all said that his amendment, while not perfect, was better than the unamended bill. And, anyway, since when does a Council member need my approval to introduce an amendment.
2. He has implied that the members of Council were not ready to vote for the amendment. This makes no sense unless his ego is so wrapped up in always winning that he can’t bear put forward an amendment that is defeated
3. He has said that Council could have passed the Committee of Seventy amendment, but that it would have been an illegal act, because the city does not have the authority to regulate campaign finance. This makes no sense for multiple reasons. First, it contradicts (2). The Committee of Seventy amendment was stiffer than his own amendment. If the Seventy amendment could have passed, his could have as well. Second, if the Seventy amendment was illegal, so was Councilman Goode’s own amendment. There was not that much difference between them. Indeed, if these two amendments were illegal because the city has no authority to make campaign finance laws, then the whole bill was illegal. Third, if he thought his own amendment were illegal, why did he agree to put it forward in the first place? And, fourth, there is simply no good reason to think that either the bill or the amendment is illegal. The whole issue of whether the city has the authority to regulate campaign finance is still in the courts and there has been no final decision. In addition, the House of Representatives just passed Rep. Dwight Evan’s bill that explicitly authorized the city to make laws regarding campaign financing.
What’s really going on?
I wish I knew but can only make some guesses.
1. Goode held his amendment because his fellow Council members did not want to be forced to vote on it. As I have pointed out, Goode’s original bill is heavily biased toward incumbents. Had he brought it forward, they would have had to go on record and either vote for a an amended bill that really limited campaign contributions or a obviously hobbled one that protected themselves. Like most politicians they preferred not to do that.
2. Goode held the bill to protect Chaka Fattah’s campaign for mayor. One of my concerns all week was that the Goode amendment was not sufficient because it would not bring unauthorized campaign committees under the contribution limits. I had specifically raised the question of Congressman Fattah’s exploratory committee with Goode, not because I have any animus towards the Congressman. I have not made endorsed or supported any candidate for mayor, have always been friendly with Congressman Fattah, and have contributed to his Congressional campaigns many times over the years. Rather my concern is that no candidate for Mayor or Council should have an unfair advantage by being able to take contributions above the limits. I asked Goode whether the Fattah exploratory committee was authorized or not. He said it was irrelevant to him. I then found out that in fact was authorized, although the various committees controlled by John Dougherty were not. I told this to Goode Thursday morning. So perhaps what happened is that Goode did not know that his own amendment would have an impact on the Fattah campaign. And once he found that out, he pulled his amendment.
3. Goode is just so mad at the Committee of Seventy and me for questioning him that he is just acting out of pique. It is hard to believe that any adult would act this way. But the unremitting personal attacks he has made against me on Young Philly Politics blog makes this an almost plausible explanation.
4. Goode was just stringing us along to undermine our public campaign to pressure Council into adopting a good amendment to his bill. This was a difficult campaign to get going partly because so many activists are focused on the election and partly because it took some time to evaluate the various alternatives. We were further delayed when Goode proposed an amendment to the bill which was clearly a great improvement and which I hoped would be entirely satisfactory.
At any rate, we have learned one thing about Goode: You can’t count on what he says.
My daughter often tells me she is worried about me in politics because “politicians always lie.” And I tell her that this is, in fact, not true. Most politicians don’t lie because doing so undermines them with their constituents and their colleagues. And they don’t have to lie because most politicians are circumspect and clever enough not commit themselves too openly and clearly to a position from which they might retreat.
I don’t know whether Wilson Goode just isn’t clever enough to keep his story straight or whether he doesn’t care if he is caught saying one thing and doing another. But he clearly is the exception to my notion that politicians rarely lie.