<p>Philadelphia's Democratic mayoral primary this week brings the national focus on Super PACs to the local level. In that primary, which is the most important election in that Democratically-inclined city, most of the money that was spent was spent by Super PACs, not by candidates.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/super-pacs-next-target-local-el…; target="_blank">an article in the <i>National Journal</i> this week</a>, the three committees that spent the most on TV in the primary race were all super PACs. According to <a href="http://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/05/19/philadelphia-mayor-electio…; target="_blank">an article Tuesday on the <i>Philadelphia</i> magazine site</a>, as of early this month, one Super PAC, American Cities, had raised $6.8 million dollars for a losing candidate. The winning candidate had two Super PACs that each spent over a million dollars in his support. The original frontrunner did not have a Super PAC supporting her, and her campaign seriously faded.<br />
<br />
The <i>National Journal</i> article sees this as possibly the beginning of a trend:</p>
<blockquote>The largesse of a few wealthy donors can struggle to make a dent in hyper-competitive Senate and presidential races, where even tens of millions of dollars are just drops of water in the ocean. In smaller races, however, a few million or even thousands of dollars can swing the outcome. And the potential for that kind of influence could encourage their proliferation in races that usually don't see the kind of big-time spending of their federal brethren.</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The problems this creates are huge. Super PACs can seriously affect the tenor of a local race. They can turn it into an ugly match that does not reflect on the candidate or, as in Philadelphia, they can be totally positive when the candidate has some important negative things to point out.<br />
<br />
Those who either do not believe in Super PACs, do not want to coordinate with them, or are not politically connected are at a disadvantage, and any message they have will be swamped by spending they cannot dream of. The result will be that many good potential candidates will choose not to run.<br />
<br />
The public will be put off by overwhelming campaigns by candidates who appear to have been bought. This will make them less likely to pay attention to the campaign and less likely to vote, not only in that campaign, but at all. It is no accident that in a lively campaign without an incumbent or a clear favorite, where more people should vote than usual, fewer people voted.<br />
<br />
The best solution is for candidates to reach what is called a People's Pledge, whereby they agree to donate to a charity of the other candidate's choice a sum equal to 50% of any advertisement run by any outside group or PAC. This is a legal way to prevent PACs from becoming involved in elections. For more on how the People's Pledge has been applied in local races, see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/peoples-pledge-mayoral-races" target="_blank">my blog post on the topic.</a><br />
<br />
It so happens that one candidate did challenge the two Super PAC-supported candidates to sign a People's Pledge, and they rejected it. Usually, a Pledge can only be reached when at least one candidate that could have this support is willing to give it up. However, a coalition of community groups supporting a Pledge may be able to put pressure on major candidates to run their own campaigns.<br />
<br />
Robert Wechsler<br />
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br />
<br />
---</p>