An Our Philadelphia Blog Post
Wilson Goode Jr.'s term limits and the issue of incumbency
With the opening of City Council's 2010 session, W. Wilson Goode Jr. introduced a resolution to limit Councilmembers to three four-year terms in office. The bill, co-sponsored by Bill Green, is intended to give more citizens an opportunity to serve on the Council. Goode Jr. began his third term in 2008, while Green was elected for the first time in the same year. Philly.com posted a useful infographic detailing how long each Councilmember has held office.
Incumbents are traditionally very difficult to unseat in all levels of elections, as they benefit from name recognition and an established voter and donor base. Stark evidence of the famed "incumbency advantage" exists in campaign finance data, as shown here by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Goode's resolution has spurred much discussion online and in forums regarding the need for term limits in local government. In his post on website Young Philly Politics, lead blogger Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg rejects the notion that imposing term limits in Philadelphia would greatly empower seasoned staffers not subject to term limits, effectively making them the driving force behind a rookie Councilmember's office. "This is one of the most persuasive reasons to not have limits on a national level," he writes. "But, is that a danger in Philly? I don’t think so. The big money people here are the Comcasts of the world, the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates, Unions and Law Firms. Much of that will not change. The scale of money in our political system is much, much smaller, and focuses largely on keeping incumbents in office (like developers paying large donations to their district council people, who have to sign off on everything)."
In November of 2003, Wilson Goode Jr. introduced a bill limiting annual campaign contributions to $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political-action committees (PACs) in City Council and mayoral elections. The bill passed in December and is seen as the city's first campaign finance law, a point that has been raised in recent days as Goode has stirred up controversy with term limits. "The perception that campaign contributions influence the awarding of city contracts is a lingering one, and one that Council moved to change with its vote last week," Nancy Phillips wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 7.
Goode's efforts in 2003 gave Philadelphia, lagging behind other major cities, much needed election reform. But with his eye on the problems of incumbency, Goode should consider introducing another campaign finance bill that addresses inadequacies in our election system that continue to dissuade other citizens from running for City Council. As we wrote in our recommendations for our most recent report, "Hurry Down Sunshine," "Common Cause recommends changing the annual limit on campaign contributions to a limit on contributions made during each four-year election cycle. Limiting contributions on an annual basis greatly advantages incumbents, who are better positioned to raise money than challengers in the early part of an election cycle. Incumbents can more easily raise the annual limit during each year of an election cycle—something a challenger might only be able to do if he or she were running a full-bore campaign for the four years preceding an election. Encouraging candidates to get their donors to “max out” every single year also has the effect of lengthening campaigns and forcing incumbents and challengers alike to run perpetual campaigns."
While he's at it, Goode should introduce resolutions that update our city's campaign contributions database and require lobbyists to register and report expenses. These are commonsense reforms that can only benefit voters through the freedom and accessibility of crucial information.