|
REPRINTED FROM THENEXTMAYOR.COMApril 2, 2007 press release, (submitted via e-mail) |
New Leadership. New Direction. A New Philadelphia.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 2, 2007
CONTACT: Melanie Johnson
(215) 545-9700
(267) 984-2027 cell
melanie@nutter2007.com
Philadelphia, April 2, 2007— “Finally, this is over,” said Michael Nutter, of the fight over Philadelphia’s campaign finance limits. “This debate seems to have gone on for so long. My original lawsuit was filed exactly one year ago this month to ensure compliance with the campaign finance limits; it seems fitting that the court’s final decision over this matter came down today.”
“Some of the candidates contested whether the campaign finance limits were legally permitted, and took matters into their own hands by ignoring the limits when raising money last year. My campaign has been in compliance with the limits since the beginning. We proved through our fundraising efforts that you can run a successful campaign with campaign finance limits,” said Nutter.
“This decision is great for the City of Philadelphia and especially great for this election. The people of Philadelphia are tired of the corrupting influence of money contributed by big donors overwhelming the intensity of our elections. The Court has reaffirmed the City’s right to pass campaign contribution limits. We are all the better for it.”
“I hope the other candidates will not appeal,” said Nutter. “Philadelphia should have the right to govern itself. Clearly, the pay-to-play system does not benefit regular people. Instead, it only benefits those politicians willing to accept huge funding from special interest. As we have seen from the spate of corruption trials, such contributions inevitability lead public servants to forget the overall cost to the people that you are supposed to be governing.”
The Commonwealth Court stated the matter clearly: “The purpose of the Ordinance is to change the political culture extant in elections for local office by eliminating large political contributions to current or potential public officials, which the City determined has the potential to undermine the integrity of the electoral process.”
###