When Tom Knox spent millions of his own money to finance his campaign in last month's mayoral primary, a city law was triggered that automatically doubled how much his four rivals could raise.
But with Knox no longer in the race, should the caps sink back down?
That question has been posed by Zack Stalberg, president of the election watchdog group Committee of Seventy.
City rules say the higher limits stay in effect all year long - which Stalberg says doesn't make sense.
"Once the self-funded candidate exits the race, a strong argument can be made for reverting to the original contribution limitations," he wrote in a letter to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics. "To do so would hold down the total cost of the elections and also reduce the opportunity for pay-to-play - two key reasons for imposing limitations in the first place."
Stalberg hasn't called for changing the rules before the November election, but for the election cycle that follows.
So what says the author of the millionaire's exception? Not much right now. "It might be a legitimate issue," City Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. said. "It's not something I have thought about."
- Marcia Gelbart
The thinking is that a few thousand Democratic defectors wouldn't hurt the chances of the five Democratic at-large candidates, at least not in a city where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 5-1. Meanwhile, they surmise, the progressive vote might be enough to tip the balance in the Republican contest to Oh, whom they see as a step up from incumbent Republican Councilman Jack Kelly.
The city charter reserves two of the seven at-large Council seats for the minority party. Each party has five Council nominees, but it would be stunning if the Democratic candidates didn't win their spots running away. Incumbent Councilman Frank Rizzo seems likely to win the top GOP spot, and Oh and fellow Republican nominees Patricia Mattern and Phil Kerwick will fight Kelly for the final Republican slot.
