The Philly ethics board dropped its case against the ‘super PAC’ that backed mayoral candidate Jeff Brown

The Philadelphia Board of Ethics has dropped its lawsuit against the “super PAC” that supported Jeff Brown’s unsuccessful run for mayor, ending a high-profile legal saga that shook up the election and contributed to Brown’s fifth-place finish in the Democratic primary.

The board announced Monday that it will instead focus on revising the campaign finance regulations that were at the center of the dispute.

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

The ethics board is a city agency that enforces Philadelphia’s good government laws. In April, the board filed a lawsuit alleging that he had illegally coordinated with For A Better Philadelphia, an outside spending group, or “super PAC,” that spent millions to boost his candidacy but was required by law to operate independently from his campaign.

Brown, a grocery store proprietor and first-time candidate, was once considered a frontrunner in the race. But because of the ethics board probe and other controversies, he fell out of contention by the May 16 primary, which was won by Mayor-elect Cherelle Parker.

The board’s lawsuit, however, was still working its way through the courts. In September, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Joshua Roberts dismissed the suit, saying it contradicted part of the board’s own regulations, and the board announced weeks later announced it would appeal Roberts’ ruling to the Commonwealth Court.

But on Monday, the board reversed course.

“While the Board disagrees with the court’s reasoning and conclusions, the goals of meaningful contribution limits and transparency in City elections are best served by amending Regulation 1 to remove any doubt about the coordination rules,” Shane Creamer, the board’s executive director, said in a statement.

Neither Brown nor a lawyer for For A Better Philadelphia immediately responded to a request for comment.

The dispute centered on whether Brown was allowed to raise money for the super PAC and its related nonprofit in the months leading up to the launch of his campaign in late 2022.

Super PACs are allowed to raise money in unlimited amounts, unlike campaigns, which in Philadelphia are subject to contribution limits. Consequently, they are prohibited from coordinating with the candidates they seek to benefit, and the ethics board includes fundraising in its definition of prohibited coordination.

Neither Brown nor the super PAC denied that he raised money for the group. (More than $1 million came from Brown’s family’s company.) Instead, For A Better Philadelphia argued in court that Brown was allowed to do so because he had not yet launched his mayoral campaign.

The group pointed to the ethics board’s regulations, which define a candidate as “an individual who files nomination papers or petitions for City elective office, or publicly announces his or her candidacy for City elective office,” and noted that Brown had done neither of those things at the time that he solicited donations for the super PAC.

The ethics board’s regulations state that there is illegal coordination between the candidate and super PAC if the candidate or “the campaign has solicited funds for or directed funds to” the super PAC “within the 12 months before the election.”

The board has contended that last phrase means there is a retroactive 12-month period before elections in which future candidates cannot work with the super PACs that eventually work to boost them, a position it has held since at least 2018, when it published an advisory opinion on the subject.

But Roberts sided with the super PAC’s interpretation and dismissed the board’s case without a trial. At the time, Brown said the decision was a vindication for him.

“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 September. “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.”

Creamer said in Monday’s announcement that the board is dropping its appeal of Roberts’ ruling to focus on clearing up the disputed language in advance of the next municipal election, which will take place in 2025 when district attorney and city controller races will be on the ballot.

“Focusing on amendment rather than appeal allows the Board to provide certainty to the public in months (rather than years for an appeal),” he said.