Donations help choose Philly's next mayor

The most important story of this campaign is the rise of Super PACS and the influence they have had in the selection of our next mayor.

For years, the city has tried to close the door on big contributions in an attempt to tamp down on the influence of mega-donors. The current contribution limit is $2,900 in a year for an individual and $11,500 for an entity like a regular political action committee.

Unfortunately, the door was blown off its hinges by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United ruling of 2010. It allowed the current federal, state and local contributions limits to remain in place, but allowed businesses, unions and special-issue advocacy groups to establish independent expenditure political action committees - so-called IEs - with no limit on how much can be raised or spent. The only proviso is that they must be "independent" and cannot have any contact with the candidates or their campaigns.

IEs showed up in force this year in Philadelphia, with no fewer than six Super PACS setting up shop. Some were more super than others.

American Cities, a Super PAC financed by the three men who run Susquehanna Partners, has spent nearly $6 million - most of it on buying TV time - to promote the candidacy of Anthony H. Williams. The partners are fervid supporters of school choice and backed Williams in both his 2010 run for governor and his campaign for mayor this year because of his pro-charter, pro-school choice stance.

There were two major union Super PACS: Forward Philadelphia (Teachers Union and AFSCME) and Building a Better Pennsylvania (trade unions with a big boost from John Dougherty, head of the local electricians union). Together, they spent $2.5 million to purchase broadcast and cable time to run ads supporting Jim Kenney.

In total, the candidates and the Super PACS spent $9.6 million on TV ads during this primary season, with the Super PACS outspending the candidates' own campaigns by a ratio of 6 to 1.

So much for eliminating the influence of big money and special interests.

By effectively handcuffing candidates without Super PAC support to the existing contribution limits, the new rules of the game give an immense advantage to those people and institutions with (to paraphrase Lord Palmerston) no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

A case in point is Kenney. When aligned with Vince Fumo he was a sworn enemy of John Dougherty as the two camps feuded over... well, pretty much anything. The rule of thumb was: If Vince was for it, Johnny Doc was against it and vice versus.

After Fumo went to federal prison in 2009, there was a major power realignment. Dougherty emerged as a kingmaker - electing his guys to City Council and the state legislature (and defeating his opponents). Kenney aligned himself with Doc. It was a practical political move: without the insulation Fumo provided, Kenney was vulnerable to a challenge financed by Doc, a passionate competitor who plays to win.

In the narrative of this year's campaign, the Main Line billionaires have been the problem, not the union Super PACS. But, my bet is that the Susquehanna Partners will not be permanent players. They will find other outlets to promote their issue.

But, the unions are here to stay. And they may be joined by other groups that want to live in a exhilarating world of spending without limits.

To oversimplify, I always divide the world of political givers into two camps: the believers and the investors (with some gradation between each). The Susquehanna Partners are believers: they do no business with the city, they do not own or operate charter schools (nor to they want to). They have an ideological stake in the outcome of the race, but not any business stake.

The unions are investors. Mayors come and go, but they have permanent interests when it comes to what they want from city government, which has control over their member's work lives.

In my view, the trade unions don't want much, other than maintaining the status quo, which is their virtual monopoly over construction in the city.

It's ironic that while the construction unions were pumping money into the mayor's race many of them were cutting a deal in the suburbs to give a second, lower rate to builders there. (The Carpenters Union has long had a two-tiered rate system. It is now joined by many of the others, mostly because they want to work and suburban builders use a mixed union/nonunion work force.)

The teachers' union and the city employee unions have a specific agenda they want met, including pent-up demand for pay raises and favorable contracts. To them, Mayor Nutter was an enemy of unions. They want a friend in City Hall.

When campaign finance limits were in place, the unions, law firms, businesses, wealthy givers, and other interests were forced to play by the rules. When it came to money, they were forced to compete as middleweights.

Under the new rules, these interests can pump up their influence and power by using the Super PAC route, while the other chumps are left playing by the old rules.

On one level, it is a win-win. The reformers get the limits on campaign giving within the normal channels. They can at least pretend that all is well.

Meanwhile, into the ring comes a 250-pound brute pumped up on a steroid called money.

Let the fight begin, though the squeamish may want to avert their eyes. This is going to get ugly.

Tom Ferrick writes columns for The Next Mayor, a collaborative project hosted by Philly.com and made possible by a grant from the Wyncote Foundation.