Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MRichards18 t1_j6x10wr wrote

I believe there is a stat that 85-90% of the winners in electoral races are the party who spends more money. Kind of sad, but that’s reality.

19

oliver_babish OP t1_j6x2jaw wrote

That kind of stat is tricky, because so many races are relatively uncontested because of political geography (or gerrymandering). And I think it's more the case that money is contributed to the predicted winner rather than that spending of money causes the victory.

10

bukkakedebeppo t1_j6xlfvy wrote

I like how Rebecca is second only to Cherelle Parker in terms of how local her funding is. And look how much of Helen Gym's funding is from outside of the PA / NJ area altogether!

19

ConfiaEnElProceso t1_j6ym0u0 wrote

I get why they framed the local vs. outside money in terms of percentages. That said, if you look at the totals, Parker is way behind Rhynhart, Domb, and Gym in terms of how much she has raised within the city limits. She has gotten a higher percentage only because she has raised so much less money overall. Rhynhart and Gym, followed by Domb have raised the most money in the city. Parker is way behind.

(I know they are using two slightly different sources of money, but i believe the numbers are large enough that the point still stands.)

4

TreeMac12 t1_j6x8lcv wrote

Why does anyone from out-of-state donate money to a local mayor's race?

15

Marko_Ramius1 t1_j6xbtpi wrote

That's the case with pretty much every political race these days. IIRC the Senate race in PA last year was the highest-spending race in the country, and hundreds of millions came from outside the state. The best local Philly example is Larry Krasner getting $1.5M from George Soros when he first ran for DA. But I do agree with you that if there's to be a limit on campaign spending, it should be that non-residents spending money on local races gets severely limited (i.e. people from Florida don't spend money on PA races, and vice versa)

21

Hoyarugby t1_j6xr6hq wrote

The Inky has been doing a great job with this election

I really do not like Rhynhart paying Street as a consultant.

It is perfectly defensible in theory - if you want to win an election, getting the guy who turned federal corruption investigations into an electoral asset to advise you makes sense! And anecdotally, a couple people who took Street's class at Temple said he's been touting Rhynhart as a future Philly mayor for several years

But Rhynhart positioning herself as the "good government" candidate whie paying $22K to somebody who later endorsed her, and who has a reputation for corruption, just has a stink about it

12

Little_Noodles t1_j6xt3mi wrote

If it helps, she’s not the only one who has hired Street. He also did consultant work for Brown, and possibly others.

If anything, the fact that he’s been effectively endorsing her for years in private settings goes a fair way to indicate that all she bought from him was consulting work. It seems to be his genuine opinion then, and he’s been giving it away for free for years.

Should candidates not hire professionals that might later endorse them? Only hire consultants that don’t want them to succeed?

9

Hoyarugby t1_j6yocq4 wrote

I agree that it is perfectly defensible in theory. There's just an ick factor of the one candidate who makes the most out of anti-corruption pro-accountability politics having that cloud even near her

5

Little_Noodles t1_j6ypckj wrote

“Ick factor” is a pretty good description for most campaign work, so I can’t bring myself to get that worked up about it. And I certainly don’t want candidates I like to handicap themselves unnecessarily. Everyone in the race needs to be able to play practical politics, and it’s not going to stop once they’re elected.

We’re gonna have to vote for one of these candidates. And they’re all going to do something that we’d rather they hadn’t, and have hung out in rooms we rather they didn’t during this campaign. If you think they haven’t, all that means is that you didn’t find out about it (and/or that they’re not going to be mayor).

So my line requires like, actually unethical behavior or actual conflicts of interest. The appearance of opening the door to impropriety isn’t popping my monocle unless there’s actual evidence of impropriety

I wouldn’t want to put Street back in office, but when it comes to the things Rhynhart’s campaign needs to build up, given that she’s not coming from a council background that gives her an extant constituency of local allies to help rally needed voting blocs, Street is actually a pretty good and qualified choice to turn to for assistance.

Would I rather she hired someone less messy? Sure! But I can’t think of anyone offhand that could offer a comparable tier of needed services that hasn’t also been implicated in some bullshit and would be interested in working with her (like, anyone in Kenney’s camp is going to say no, Nutter was thinking of running himself at the time and wasn’t for hire, etc.).

8

ConfiaEnElProceso t1_j6zwkuf wrote

"practical politics" sure seems like code for the same slimy shit that has plagued city politics since time immemorial. One may very well need that to win, but it hardly inspires confidence in a reform candidate.

Haha, you made me chuckle with the Kenney line. How far away would ANY candidate run from his possible endorsement. Talk about a kiss of death!

Why not Nutter? I get the part about not being able to hire him as a consultant when he was (supposedly) considering a run. But he declared that he was out prior to Street's endorsement. He also was the one who brought Rhynhart in to city hall in the first place, no? He seems like a blindingly obvious choice, as far as i know he hasn't been implicated in anything illicit. Why wouldn't he want to work with her? Why wouldn't he endorse her? Why hasn't he?

1

Little_Noodles t1_j6zxvw7 wrote

Oh, I meant that she and Kenney hate each other. None of his allies would have been viable alternatives to Street as consultants. But yes, I’m sure that every time Kenney is asked for his opinion, everyone is hoping he keeps his mouth shut or says someone else’s name.

And it looks like Rhynhart paid Street for his work in November 2022. Nutter didn’t formally exit the field until mid-January 2023, and there was still chatter about the possibility in the news right up until the end. At the time she needed the work done, he wasn’t an option, and there was a possibility that he never would be.

And he hasn’t endorsed anyone because he said he’s doing the whole interview the candidates series, and issuing an endorsement before that series wraps would be dumb. He basically jumped straight from not running into some high profile vetting of the candidates business, so he’s still not an option. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he did when it was all over. She did good work in his administration.

I get not liking that politics can call for making alliances out of practicality rather than ideological perfection. But there’s no prize for finishing in fifth place with the sparkliest reputation. If there’s a candidate you want to win, they’re going to have to actually run for office.

Barring something wild, one of these candidates is going to be the mayor. I’m not going to hold her to a higher standard than the person I’d pick after her, just because she currently has a better reputation than my next pick. Anyone that can’t make strategic partnerships with people they don’t personally agree with is going to make a terrible mayor - it’s how the job works. So long as you don’t do unethical shit yourself, or knowingly put unethical people in a position of power to do something they shouldn’t, that’s the bar for me.

And if hiring someone to do work they’re qualified to do, and that you need done, but that you wouldn’t personally hang out with otherwise is an ethical failure, then my bathroom remodel is going to send me to hell.

2

oliver_babish OP t1_j6xx4ku wrote

Huh. I don't see anyone else paying Street but Rebecca here:

https://apps.phila.gov/search/expeditures

1

Little_Noodles t1_j6xzo2y wrote

See the article on the recent interview with Brown and Nutter.

… He went on to ask Brown a series of probing questions, including who is advising him about how municipal government works. Brown responded that about two years ago, he hired former Mayor John F. Street to work for nine months as an adviser …

Brown hired him as a consultant before launching his campaign. His own money, prior to the campaign, not gonna be on disclosure forms. We have no idea how much he paid, and only know about it because he offered the information.

Also, the only reason Street is brought up in the article posted by the OP is because he later endorsed her. I guarantee you that other candidates have also spent money on consultants. Some of which will go on to endorse the candidate, encourage others to do so, or assist in other ways.

It’s notable, especially if it coincides with other things that might make it suspect - a larger sum, evidence that no real work was performed in exchange, if the endorsement contradicted things the endorser had said in the past. But it’s not that unusual or inherently damning in and of itself.

7

oliver_babish OP t1_j6y6f0o wrote

That is a really good catch, and it highlights how much we don't know about what Brown was doing to seek influence (and advice) before officially getting started.

4

Little_Noodles t1_j6y9x6x wrote

I think it’s probably safe to assume every single serious candidate spent some money and spent time with the right people before declaring their candidacy.

Nobody sane announces that they’re running for mayor without getting into position to start the race first.

Of course, the more money you have on hand from your personal budget, and Brown has a lot, the more you can do to set things up in your favor off the books before making that announcement.

4

oliver_babish OP t1_j6ya4a2 wrote

Yeah, but everyone else was already an elected official and therefore had to disclose what they were spending at all times. I think that's the difference.

1

Little_Noodles t1_j6yaiai wrote

Would they have had to if it was their own personal funds?

Like, Domb has plenty of his own cash. If he dipped into his own personal bank account that he pays for groceries and shit out of to hire a consultant to evaluate his chances of success in a mayoral race prior to announcing, he could afford to do that.

Would he have to report that? Or would he have to start the Allan Domb for Philadelphia fund first with his own cash, at which point it’s reportable?

I always assumed that until the campaign is launched, as long as it’s not coming from a designated fund (and you only need to create the fund if you’re taking other people’s money) it’s not required to be reported. But I could be wrong about the mechanics of that.

Either way, yeah, it does make me wonder about the surprise, unscheduled AFSCME vote for Brown.

3

MagnusUnda t1_j6yk1g4 wrote

Careful, Reddit is full Rhynhart cultists, or perhaps Rebecbots? Prepare to take a karma hit for sharing actual facts!

0

ConfiaEnElProceso t1_j6ymtrb wrote

Yep. I pointed out the hypocrisy last week and got shouted down by the hive mind here.

I don't see anyone else paying Street 20k on this list. Maybe Brown did years ago, but the others have been public officials and i doubt they could hide it for long.

I also don't see anyone else running on good governance as their primary campaign message.

Street has a stench to him and Rhynhart is getting more and more of it on her.

1

Little_Noodles t1_j6yvg71 wrote

There’s no “maybe”. He said he did. He hired him “about” two years ago, for nine months (aka recently) specifically as a consultant for this campaign.

5

Probability-Bot t1_j6ybocp wrote

This is how we got Kenney in. I remember the first time around his Ads were everywhere. Before that i bet half the city didnt know who this drunk dude was.

3