Dave Davies | Knox's $5 million came with fine print

THERE AREN'T A lot of laughs in the mayor's race, but I always get a chuckle when millionaire candidate Tom Knox says he's running to take the "for sale" sign off city hall.

I mean, the guy's dumping millions into 30-second TV spots, mucking up our first-ever chance to see what a mayor's race with campaign contribution limits would look like, and he says he wants to prevent the sale of the mayor's office.

At a community forum last Monday, Knox put his proposition a little more candidly. "I'm trying to spend money for Philadelphia, so I can buy City Hall back for the people of Philadelphia," he said.

It's at least a more straightforward version of his pitch: If he buys the mayor's office with his own money, he doesn't owe anybody, and can govern without worrying about pleasing the pay-to-play crowd asking for access and favors.

The notion has some appeal in a city sick of municipal corruption, but is it really convincing? When Knox put $5 million into his mayoral campaign more than a year ago, little attention was paid to what may be a crucial detail: The money was not a contribution to his campaign committee, but a loan.

Which means that if he wins the race and occupies the mayor's office, he could start holding fundraisers and use any cash he collects to repay his personal loan.

And make no mistake – a first term mayor in Philadelphia can raise a ton of money. Anybody interested in city jobs, contracts, zoning approvals or just access to the mayor's office for the next eight years might well want to buy a little good will with a contribution.

While City Council has imposed limits on political contributions by those seeking city business, they don't apply to companies going for competitively bid contracts, many of which write big checks.

And those who are bound by the limits can give the maximum every year, so a mayor can raise plenty of cash if he wants to.

In fact, in a strange perversion of the usual game, a Mayor Knox fundraiser could be creepier than a Mayor Anybody Else fundraiser.

Normally, the money a mayor raises goes to his campaign fund, where it's used to ensure his re-election and expand his political influence.

But if Mayor Knox's campaign committee owes him $5 million, money from his fundraisers can be used to repay his campaign loan, in effect steering special interest money straight into his pocket.

And this would of course be perfectly legal.

Am I being too cynical here? Would a guy worth tens of millions bother trying to get his $5 million back by hitting up contributors?

I can't read anybody's mind, but Knox is known as a tough businessman, and people with money can surprise you.

If federal prosecutors are right, Vince Fumo, also worth tens of millions, preferred to have a community nonprofit pay for power tools and paint for his house.

I'm not saying Knox is Fumo, but in politics and government, we're generally better off when incentives for funny business are removed, and motives are as clean and transparent as we can make them.

I bounced the pay-back scenario off Knox campaign spokesman Brad Katz, and asked why Knox had chosen to loan, rather than give, his campaign the big bucks.

He noted that Knox's $5 million infusion came in December 2005, and he said Knox did it the way he did "in case something tragic happened to him. Counting it as a loan would have allowed his family to reclaim the unused funds."

It seems to me that if Knox had suddenly departed the scene, his estate could have recouped most of his contribution in any case. Katz said Knox's first $5 million has been spent, and "any future donations to the campaign will be counted as contributions, not loans."

I'm glad to hear that, but Knox's commitment to end pay-to-play at City Hall would have more credibility if his campaign forgave that $5 million loan.

If somebody says they want to buy City Hall back for me, I'd like to know they aren't doing it with a $5 million mortgage. *