Progressive vs. pro-business? Philly City Council’s ideological divide emerges in crowded at-large race

An ideological divide appears to be emerging in the fight for Philadelphia City Council.

With just five weeks until the primary election, frontrunners in the packed Democratic race for five at-large seats have begun separating into distinct but occasionally overlapping camps.

In one corner is a wing of progressive candidates with grassroots backing, running with an emphasis on investing in city libraries and recreation centers, increasing affordable housing, and financing alternative solutions to policing.

In the other corner is a trio of business-aligned candidates with support from urbanist and pro-development groups, who want to improve quality-of-life city services and create friendlier economic conditions for small businesses.

And then there are two at-large incumbents, Councilmembers Katherine Gilmore Richardson and Isaiah Thomas, who enjoy broad support from both quarters, while Jimmy Harrity, a third incumbent, hasn’t received much attention from either faction but is backed by Democratic party insiders.

The race comes at a time of extraordinary turnover in City Hall. While very few of Council’s 10 district races are competitive this year, the at-large contest remains a toss-up that will help shape the ideological balance of Philadelphia government for the next four years, especially on such issues as budgetary priorities, taxes, and development policy, where Council has the greatest influence. Years of clashing with progressive lawmakers over worker protections and tax reform have also pushed often-siloed business groups to align behind a slate of candidates.

Campaign finance reports filed last week show that about a dozen candidates have raised enough money to stay competitive, and are on track to pull in at least $100,000 each. On a crowded ballot of 28 Democrats, this cohort collectively raised more than $2.3 million and began building the kind of coalitions that are typically needed to win a citywide race.

Several of those top candidates will likely also see a boost from independent expenditure groups, or super PACs, that have stormed local elections in recent years. A building industry-aligned PAC has raised seven figures and plans to air TV ads backing what it views as a business-friendly slate in the Council race. Progressives groups plan to spend, too, while leaning heavily on door-knocking campaigns to get out the vote.

Political observers said such alliances will prove as important as campaign money in a race in which voters get very little information about the candidates before Election Day.

“We have a very solid pool of candidates, so it becomes about how you are speaking about the issues, instead of what issues,” said Kyle Darby, president of Darby Public Strategies, a political consultant who is not advising any candidates in the race. “It’s about their style, what relationships they have, and where they’ve worked prior.”

The top five Democratic vote getters in the May 16 primary will advance to the general election for at-large Council seats, which they are likely to win, given Philadelphia’s deep blue leaning. Two additional at-large seats are reserved for minority parties.

Many progressive groups are throwing their weight behind housing lawyer Rue Landau, immigrant rights activist Erika Almirón, and political organizer Amanda McIllmurray, as well as incumbents Thomas and Gilmore Richardson.

Business-friendly groups are also lining up behind those two incumbents, as well as former City Council staffer Eryn Santamoor, small business champion Donavan West, and Old City District executive director Job Itzkowitz.

Some candidates dispute that there’s a binary choice between the two camps.

“Clean streets are progressive and pro-business,” Itzkowitz said. “Safe neighborhoods are progressive and pro-business.”

Sergio Cea, political director for Reclaim, a progressive group that has been influential in local elections, said it comes down to candidates’ records and rhetoric around such issues as policing and community investment.

“A lot of candidates will say we need more police or we need more surveillance, or talk about the interests of big business or real estate instead of investment in community,” Cea said. “We’re talking about the interests of working class Philadelphians — community-based solutions to violence, investing in city institutions like parks, rec centers, and libraries, and affordable housing.”

Business interests view the leftward gravity in City Council as a threat to progress, as ideas such as implementing rent control and a wealth tax gain traction against a push to lower business and wage taxes, which business groups view as necessary for job growth.

John Hawkins, a veteran City Hall lobbyist who represents business groups in the development industry , said the turnover rate amplifies those concerns. Five of the six Council members who resigned to run for mayor were viewed as moderate Democrats.

“Those vacant Council at-large seats represent the best opportunity to elect new members who would send the signal that the city is still open for business,” Hawkins said.

Philadelphia 3.0, an independent political action committee that supports business-friendly policy and is backing the more moderate group of Council candidates, emphasized the city’s economic competitiveness and delivering basic city services such as street sweeping in its endorsement announcement. (3.0, which reported more than $540,000 in the bank last week, did not return a request for comment.)

That slate will also have support from Philly for Growth, an independent expenditure group financed by the Building Industry Association and other development interests. The group, which backed pro-business candidates in the 2019 Council race, as well, reported raising $1.1 million as of last week. It has since spent $157,000 to run the first cable commercials in the Council races, according to Ad Impact, a media tracking firm.

The factions emerging in the race are not cut-and-dried alliances, and it remains to be seen how many voters will cast ballots along these lines.

The Democratic party has endorsed the incumbents and Landau, while urging ward leaders to back either Santamoor, Almirón, or Nina Ahmad for the fifth seat. The city’s building trades unions are mostly aligned behind incumbents and party-approved candidates, while other unions have spread endorsements among different frontrunners.

Gilmore Richardson and Thomas, who won at-large seats in 2019 and are now seeking second terms, have endorsements from both progressive groups and pro-business groups. But Harrity — despite widespread support within the Democratic party and the backing of labor unions — has not won favor with many progressives or business groups. Harrity won a special election in November and is seeking his first full term.

And the special interest groups seeking to influence the election are not monoliths, either. For example, 5th Square, an urbanist political action committee, endorsed Santamoor and Itzkowitz alongside Landau, noting that their platforms aligned around road safety policy and transit access.

There are also a handful of other candidates who appear competitive without falling into neat ideological camps.

Ahmad, a scientist and women’s rights advocate who has previously run for statewide office, has endorsements from labor unions, social justice groups, and prominent Democratic officials. Although her campaign hasn’t raised as much as rivals, she remains competitive thanks to a $90,000 personal contribution.

“I’m glad I don’t get put into one of these buckets or silos, because that’s not who I am,” Ahmad said. “It speaks to my independent voice — I’m going to be speaking to all kinds of constituents across the city.”