Committee Hearing, March 22, 2011 (part 1)

Yes, it would be19 a direct request or suggests that the20 second PAC contribute that money to the21 candidate of the first PAC's choice. And22 so, that would depend upon a factual23 inquiry. We'd have to have evidence of24 communications between the two PACs where25 54 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 the first PAC directs, suggests, or2 requests either -- you know, whether it3 be a phone call, if we can get them to4 admit to a conversation, or if there's an5 e-mail or a cover letter for the check,6 something like that, some communication7 that demonstrates that the first PAC was8 controlling the money, even though the9 money was given to another PAC.10 We'd have to find proof of that11 sufficient to convince the Ethics Board12 in an administrative hearing or the Court13 of Common Pleas for that matter, if we're14 going there, that by a preponderance of15 the evidence, the first PAC was16 controlling that money and did, in fact,17 direct, suggest, or request that the18 money be given to the candidate of the19 first PAC's choosing.20

So I don't21 understand that, because the language of22 the statute clearly does not implicate23 control or common control or any standard24 like that at all.25 55 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731

That's correct.2

So I don't3 read the law to say what you just said.4

The statute just5 says -- and, again, there are four6 contribution rules in 20-1002. Three of7 them already have this provision; we're8 just seeking to add the "to or through9 one or more political committees" to the10 fourth provision.11

To or12 through --13

To or through;14 that's what it says.15

-- has16 nothing to do with common control or17 control or even like or the same18 treasurer and chairman of different19 PACs --20

I agree.21

-- or22 anything like that.23

I agree, but our24 regulation number one has interpreted25 56 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 this language in the other three2 contribution limit rules to mean that to3 or through another -- making a4 contribution to or through another5 political committee means that you have6 given them money and that you have7 directed, suggested, or requested that8 they give that money to the candidate of9 the donor's choosing.10

Well --11

That's our12 interpretation under regulation number13 one.14

Okay. I15 would say that the terms "suggested or16 requested" are not a fair reading of that17 language in the statute under -- I mean18 are not -- are overbroad and are not19 fair, and I'll -- or not a reasonable20 interpretation of what City Council has21 legislated.22 For example, people can give23 money to a PAC and then -- and they can24 be constant contributors to that PAC.25 57 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 And there is -- I don't see anything2 wrong with them exercising their First3 Amendment rights and soliciting from that4 PAC money for a candidate that they have5 already supported.6

I think,7 actually, our interpretation is narrower8 than the language in the law because "to9 or through a political committee" has no10 intent attached to it.11 So you could argue that a12 reasonable interpretation would mean that13 if an individual makes a contribution to14 a PAC and then has no idea what happens15 to that money afterwards but that the16 money winds up in a donation to a17 candidate that that individual has18 already given money to, you could take19 the position of, Well, that individual20 has effectively made a contribution to a21 candidate through another political22 committee and that, therefore, that23 contribution from the committee should24 count towards that individual's25 58 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 contribution limits.2

Right, but3 the law --4

But our5 interpretation is narrower because we'd6 have to prove that there was some7 communication, some -- we've actually8 added a level-of-intent burden for us9 that doesn't really appear on the face of10 the law.11

Right. It's12 not in the law right now with respect to13 PACs.14

It is for15 post-candidacy contributions for PACs.16 It's not -- again, there are four17 provisions; two apply to contributions to18 candidates and --19

Right, I20 mean --21

-- two apply post22 --23

-- in terms24 of what we're discussing, it's under the25 59 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 law with respect to PACs, and I will2 respectfully disagree with your3 interpretation of the City Council4 ordinance with respect to "suggests or5 requests."6 You know, it's basically what7 exists in State law, and I'm not sure I8 have an objection to it, but I may have9 some language suggestions that, you know,10 we can discuss with the sponsor and the11 Ethics Board to try to make this and the12 other bill precisely clear as to what it13 means, as your testimony has.14 I'm not sure -- I'd rather not15 have to rely on legislative history for16 figuring out what this means, and maybe17 we can --18

Nor would I, and19 I'd be happy to talk to you in the future20 about this.21

Okay.22 Thank you very much, Madam23 President.24

Thank25 60 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 you.2 Are there any other questions3 or comments from members of the4 committee?5

I'm sorry,6 Madam President. I have one more7 question.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:9 Councilman Green.10

Thank you.11 Who is liable for a violation12 if a -- let's just take the example of an13 individual.14 If I gave Councilwoman Sanchez15 $1,000 in cash and asked her to make a16 contribution of that money to Councilman17 Kenney --18

Oh, no, no,19 no.20 (Laughter.)21 I'd send it back. Thank you.22

So the23 question is: Who violates the law if24 Councilman Kenney was not aware of the25 61 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 interaction between Councilwoman Sanchez2 and I.3

(Not4 completely audible; off-mic.) Point of5 information? I didn't hear the whole6 question. Cash?7

Cash.8

If a third9 --10

I mean, is11 it check or cash?12

If I gave13 Councilwoman Sanchez a check or cash --14

Cash.15

Cash.16

Right, I17 understand that. My point is --18

We're19 talking checks here, right?20

-- if she21 then took a thousand dollars and gave it22 to another person at my request --23

Thank you.24

-- who would25 62 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 be liable under the law, in your view.2

Under our law?3

Assuming the4 person receiving the money had no5 knowledge of that transaction?6

Under our law,7 nobody. Under the State law, I think you8 would violate the conduit provision.9 If I could change your10 hypothetical a little bit. If you gave11 $2600 to Councilman Kenney and then gave12 $10,000 to Councilwoman Sanchez's13 candidate committee and directed her to14 give the money to Councilman Kenney --15

Point of16 order. (Not completely audible;17 off-mic.)18

Here19 we go again. Wait a minute. Let's20 clarify that.21 (Laughter.)22

Then you would be23 in violation of the contribution limit24 rule, not Councilman Kenney.25 63 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731

Not2 Councilman Kenney.3

Not Councilman4 Kenney, no.5

Okay. Thank6 you.7

(Inaudible8 off-mic.)9

Any10 other questions or comments from members11 of the committee?12 (No further questions.)13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Hearing none, gentlemen, thank you.15

Thank you very16 much.17

Do we18 have anyone else to testify on these19 bills?20 (No response.)21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 Anyone else to testify on these bills?23 (No response.)24

This25 64 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 will conclude our public hearing, and we2 will now go into our Public meeting.3 And the Chair recognizes4 Councilwoman Tasco.5

Madam6 President, I move that we move Bill7 110072 out of committee with a favorable8 recommendation and that the rules of9 Council be suspended so that this bill10 can be heard at Council's next session.11 (Motion duly seconded.)12

It13 has been moved and seconded that Bill14 No. 110072 be reported out of committee15 with a favorable recommendation and,16 further, that the rules of Council be17 suspended so as to permit first reading18 at our next session of Council.19 All in favor will say aye.20 Those opposed?21 The ayes have it, and the22 motion carries.23 Again, the Chair recognizes24 Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill25 65 3.23.11 COMM. OF THE WHOLE, BILLS 11072, 731 No. 110073.2

Madam3 Chair, I move that Bill No. 110073 be4 reported out of committee with a5 favorable recommendation and a request6 for the rules of Council to be suspended7 so this bill can be heard at Council's8 next session.9 (Motion duly seconded.)10

It11 has been moved and seconded that Bill12 No. 110073 be reported out of committee13 with a favorable recommendation and,14 further, that the rules of Council be15 suspended so as to permit first reading16 at our next session of Council.17 All in favor will say aye.18 Those opposed?19 The ayes have it, and the20 motion carries. And this concludes our21 public meeting.22 Thank you.23 (Proceedings end at 11:13 a.m.)24 * * *25 66 C E R T I F I C A T E2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the4 proceedings of the City of Philadelphia5 Council Committee of the Whole are contained6 fully and accurately in the stenographic notes7 taken by me on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, and8 that this is a true and correct statement of9 same.10 11 12 13 ________________________________14 JOSEPHINE CARDILLO15 Registered Professional Reporter 16 17 18 19 20 (The foregoing certification of21 this transcript does not apply to any22 reproduction of the same by any means, unless23 under the direct control and/or supervision of24 the certifying reporter.)25