Editorial for February 8, 2007 edition:


The cost of freedom

What could be worse than a perception that Philadelphians get the government they pay for, literally, and that to get anything from their government, they have to pay to play?
Here’s what’s worse: A perception that in Philadelphia, people and corporations that strongly support a candidate for mayor are not entitled to a total freedom of speech — in other words, they are not allowed to let their money speak for them by way of generous campaign donations.
That goes to the heart of legislation proposed by City Councilman at-large Jim Kenney, who wants to lift limitations on campaign contributions to any mayoral candidate who has spent more than $2 million of his own money.
To be sure, on this issue Mr. Kenney is right for the wrong reason. He merely wants to help his pal Bob Brady get elected mayor of Philadelphia. But when all is said and done, Mr. Kenney’s ends justify the means.
If filthy-rich people are able to buy their way into political office, be they New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or possibly this year, Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox — or anybody else who has a burning desire to be a public servant, for that matter — more power to them. If somebody has the ability to raise and spend tons of money to mount a campaign, there’s nothing wrong with their supporters donating what they wish to try to help propel their man or woman into office.
Limiting campaign donations has a chilling effect on people who want to take part in the political process. "Curb your enthusiasm," it tells them.
Even people of considerable financial means have rights, too. Don’t stifle anybody’s free speech. Free speech is supposed to mean that all people of all backgrounds and income levels are allowed to put their money where their mouths are, no matter how much or how little that is. That’s what America is all about. ••

Respond to this editorial . . .

Letters to the Editor . . .