A judge ruled against the Philly ethics board in its case against super PAC that supported mayoral candidate Jeff Brown

A Philadelphia judge has dismissed the city Board of Ethics’ high-profile case against a “super PAC” that spent millions to back Jeff Brown’s unsuccessful mayoral campaign this year.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Joshua Roberts ruled Tuesday that Brown did not illegally coordinate with For a Better Philadelphia, a political action committee, as the board had argued in its lawsuit against the group in April.

The board’s lawsuit was one of the most dramatic moments in the Democratic primary, a crowded race in which Brown appeared to jump out to an early lead only to finish fifth. Brown had already stumbled on the campaign trail by early April, and the lawsuit, which came the day before the first televised debate, made it all but impossible for him to recover.

Former City Councilmember Cherelle Parker won the nomination and is now running against Republican David Oh in the Nov. 7 general election.

» READ MORE: Inside the Board of Ethics’ case against the super PAC supporting mayoral candidate Jeff Brown

Roberts’ ruling neither rejected any of the facts laid out by the board nor challenged the board’s authority to regulate super PACs, which are allowed to accept unlimited donations but are prohibited from coordinating with campaigns.

Instead, the judge focused on a debate over definitions that had been central to the case from the start. Candidates are not allowed to raise money for the super PACs that back them, and all sides agree that Brown solicited donations for the super PAC in the months before he launched his campaign in November 2022.

The board contended that Brown’s fundraising for the PAC, which included money donated from his chain of grocery stores, amounted to illegal coordination. For a Better Philadelphia, which spent $2.9 million on the race, more than any other outside group, argued that Brown’s involvement with the PAC before he officially launched his campaign cannot be considered coordination because he was not yet a candidate.

Roberts sided with the super PAC, saying that the board engaged in “a bit of sophistry” in making its case against Brown because its arguments relied on an overly broad interpretation of its own regulations.

“The board rationalized that because Jeff Brown, then a private citizen, was involved with the PAC in 2022, then the ‘Jeff Brown campaign’ coordinated with the PAC in 2022 and 2023,” Roberts wrote. “But we know that the ‘Jeff Brown campaign’ did not exist until November 16, 2022.”

Although Brown was not a defendant in the case, he was dogged by questions about it for the final month of the race, which ended up being the most expensive election in Philadelphia history with at least $37.7 million in campaign spending.

A grocer who had never run for public office, Brown cast the ethics board’s investigation as an example of the political establishment attempting to attack a City Hall outsider. He also at times repeated a strange claim that the case had already been settled, even though it was still tied up in court.

On Tuesday, Brown said he was “vindicated.”

“From the very beginning, I said that this entire matter was a politically motivated sham, with the intent of affecting the results of the election,” Brown said in a statement. “The voters of Philadelphia should be outraged that an entity charged with safeguarding ethical conduct has incorrectly and inappropriately inserted itself in such a politically motivated manner. Those responsible for interfering with the fair and free election process, without any legal cause, should be held accountable for their actions.”

Dan Siegel, a senior adviser for For a Better Philadelphia, said the ruling “demonstrates that the board overreached when it filed its unsupported litigation.”

“The more significant public policy question is why the board decided to put its thumb on the scale of one of the most consequential elections in recent memory,” Siegel said.

Shane Creamer, the ethics board’s executive director, declined to discuss the ruling in detail and said the board had not yet decided whether to appeal.

“We’re disappointed in the ruling, and we are considering our options,” he said.

If Roberts’ ruling stands and if the board takes no further action to change its regulations, candidates in future city elections could be allowed to coordinate with super PACs on fundraising — and potentially other decisions, such as advertising strategy — up until the minute they launch their campaigns.

That would be a major change for local elections in Philadelphia, where for at least five years the ethics board has interpreted its regulations to mean that there can be no coordination between a super PAC and a candidate for one year before the election that the super PAC is seeking to influence. That included coordination that involved someone who had not yet launched a campaign, as laid out in a board advisory opinion from 2018.

Consequently, Roberts’ ruling would greatly weaken the separation between candidates and the super PACs that back them. Being able to influence how super PACs operate effectively gives candidates access to more resources — as well as giving top-dollar donors more opportunities to influence them — because campaigns are limited by the city’s ethics rules in how much money they can take in.

For much of the mayor’s race, the campaign contribution limits were $6,200 a year for individuals and $25,200 a year for political groups. For a Better Philadelphia, meanwhile, was able to take in much larger checks, such as a $250,000 donation from a professional sports team that appears to be the 76ers. (The team has neither confirmed nor denied that it gave to the super PAC.)

Patrick Christmas, policy director of the good government group the Committee of Seventy, said he was concerned that the ruling could undermine the board’s efforts “to mitigate the impact of well-heeled interests and people with big checkbooks on our elections.”

“The way this particular judge is trying to read the regulations, it would disrupt the 12-month lookback we have in place and that we need to ensure that sort of coordination isn’t happening up until very close to an election,” Christmas said.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision known as Citizens United, which spawned the “super PAC” era, many state and federal elections have been dominated by deep-pocketed donors pouring millions into outside spending groups through anonymous contributions. Philly’s elections have been relatively tame and transparent when it comes to political cash, thanks in no small part to the city’s strong campaign finance laws and its aggressive ethics board, Christmas said.

“We still believe the board did its job in enforcing the city’s campaign finance rules in the 2023 primary,” he said.

Brown, who has previously threatened to sue the board, doesn’t see it that way.

“Those responsible for interfering with the fair and free election process, without any legal cause, should be held accountable for their actions,” he said Tuesday.