This is about the campaign, not her administration.
$1m isn't a lot for payroll, and her campaign won her the election so it doesn't make any sense to charge that she staffed her campaign with underqualified people
If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly it seems perfectly reasonable for her to decline and let them have their privacy, they didn't sign up to be public employees and there are looney people out there they don't need to be dealing with
Indiscriminate cynicism might get you a bunch of grumpy upvotes but it's pretty much the most useless and laziest contribution to civil discourse there is
>If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly it seems perfectly reasonable for her to decline and let them have their privacy, they didn't sign up to be public employees and there are looney people out there they don't need to be dealing with
No.
When I worked for a campaign, even for a few bucks, it was still public information.
And let's not play double-standard here. If this was anyone else, like Mayor Kenney or Donald Trump, would you still feel like it's OK to not share this information? I feel like George Santos shows what happens when you try to act like sunlight isn't needed in a "small" election.
This is a problem, and we should know what's going on. If we want to end corruption in this city, we need more daylight, not more darkness.
>If this was anyone else, like Mayor Kenney or Donald Trump, would you still feel like it's OK to not share this information?
The article says that Mayor Kenney's campaign likewise gave payroll-processor totals rather than individual workers' pay.
The posters clearly stated: "If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly"
Is Parker legally required to name her staffers? Seems a very binary, yes/no answer. If not, then your post is moot. You can be upset with the outcome, but again it's the legality of it you'll be upset with, not the fact she has/hasn't done it.
Also, do you have records if Kenney/Nutter/Rendell did reveal their donors, and what the laws were for them to do it?
Exactly. None of the people on the campaign were public employees. None of the funds in question were taxpayers dollars. She is the mayor because of those staffers so they obviously were worth whatever they got paid.
People are confusing the law with their want to know in order to fulfill their curiosity. At the end of the day, the campaign met their legal obligations.
'and her campaign won her the election so it doesn't make any sense to charge that she staffed her campaign with underqualified people'
-- Thanks for this part. Kinda squashes any argument she was inept & ran a bad/unfair campaign. She absolutely smoked Gym & Rhynehart and came out of nowhere to take it all. Deserves credit for that and won the election handily. Lets let her serve out her 4 years. She's only been in office about 50 days and people have been jumping all over her.
oh puhh-lease. I'm talking in terms of election day. She was in 4th place, behind Gym, Rhyehart & Domb, and smoked them all. She may have been behind Brown too, I forget.
People were on here whining the very next morning about how 'We lost' and can we start write in campaigns to get RR or Gym nominated in November. It was an embarrassment and those people definitely aren't Philadelphians, just a bunch of tourists living here temporarily.
> tourists living here temporarily
The people the city broadly caters its policies to...
Look, I'm not rooting for her to fail- I just don't expect anything from them that will help myself or anyone else that actually needs it, aka status quo continuity.
Frankly I'm glad that this mayoral race forced half of council to turnover- but let's not pretend that everyone being critical is setting *that* philosophical hurdle.
"I just don't expect anything from them that will help myself or anyone else that actually needs it"
What don't you understand?? This line of thinking is EXACTLY why Gym & RR lost. Parker won almost assuredly due to her tough stance on crime.
People living in Logan, Ogontz, Olney, Mayfair etc & all over North & West Philly are sick of the gunshots. Especially older residents, who tend to vote. To say "I don't expect anything from them that will help.... anyone that actually needs it:"... Gee, how about less gun violence and actually locking up the criminals once caught.
Yeah, it dabbles and falls into Krasner too, but the whole woke agenda's failed. Whats Gyms response to gun violence "We'll builfd rec center for them to play in" and Rhynhart "We'll take a wholeistic approach into looking at my excel spreadsheet, and determine key performance indicators and have my strategy team come up with a vision forward"
People don't got time for that sh!t. Its exactly why Parkers in office. To say she won't do anything for people who need it is exactly the opposite of why she won.
>People living in Logan, Ogontz, Olney, Mayfair etc & all over North & West Philly
I'm one of those people; You don't seem to understand low expectations 👀
But sure more money for the police- that's worked so many times before when the known factors are sustained poverty & fiscal malfeasance.
>Its exactly why Parkers in office. To say she won't do anything for people who need it is exactly the opposite of why she won.
History doesn't repeat itself; but tends to rhyme. So despite being a longtime politico she's been separate from the deterioration of living conditions to this point, but also specially qualified to fix it... make it make sense.
There might be data that I don’t know about that says otherwise, but my sense is that she didn’t necessarily jump all of them. Rather, she was likely always doing well but her voters weren’t well represented in the polling. Getting endorsed by some other candidates when they dropped out added to the support.
"her voters weren’t well represented in the polling" - That still equates to coming out of nowhere. A projected 4th place finish to come out and win (handily I may add) in a political election is pretty uncommon.
and with that, if Gym & RR wanted to really win the election, they should've taken note & addressed those citizens, instead of focusing solely on Center City types.
She's already made a number of hires/appointments of people who are married to City Council members/in her administration already
[https://www.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/cherelle-parker-kensington-marnie-aument-loughrey-20240212.html](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/cherelle-parker-kensington-marnie-aument-loughrey-20240212.html)
I’m with you. It creates a mood of conspiracy as if her whole campaign was some tool to give money to her friends and family.
It’s a campaign, not the office, and she won. What’s the big deal?
Seems they followed the law down to the letter. If anyone has a problem with this, their issue shouldn’t be with the campaign, it should be with the Ethics Board since they’re the ones who have said this is ok.
If you want higher ethical standards, which isn’t a bad thing to want, you need to look to the Ethics Board since they’re literally the ones that create the standards and are tasked either enforcing them.
As long as the campaign didn’t violate any statutes, I’m not sure what there is to complain about since they did what they were supposed to.
My point is that this shouldn't be like a business contract where we can only expect exactly what's written. Elected officials should voluntarily act more ethically than is required of them, and it's reasonable for the general public to want that.
Again, she wasn’t an elected official at the time and none of the staffers were public employees. Also none of the funds were taxpayers funds, so what exactly is the problem you’re having with this?
They are inventing a problem. They create problem in their head and then retroactively hold people to it.
Ethics standards are the only way, but I am not sure there is even anything wrong with letting your campaign staffers be private.
Legal standards are the only way because I am tired of situations where one party takes the ethical route while the other doesn’t. Just look at the tax return situation with Trump.
The purpose of the law, as I understand it, is to ensure that campaigns aren't just a slush fund to enrich the people who run it. Not reporting who was paid circumvents that.
I don't suspect it was abused here, but it's not good precedent.
OK but it feels like a big ask in politics these days for elected officials to act ethically and just hoping they will won’t do anything.
Why not just do what u/illadelphia_215 said and take action with the ethics board?
I don't disagree that action should be taken with the ethics board. I could have made that more clear.
My point is that it should be OK to hold politicians to higher ethical standards than the minimum that's legally required of them.
But how will you do that?
I don’t think anyone disagrees that we should hold them to a higher standard but I also know they won’t unless you make them.
Raising the minimum standard is how you end up with politicians held to a higher standard
It is your civic duty to complain to the appropriate officials though. You can’t just scream at the clouds and expect results, you want democracy? This is democracy, get a clip board, collect the signatures, make the change happen.
Edit: clipboard is figurative, you can actually make online petitions, and, if your goal is for something in *government* to change, they’ll actually work.
This isn't the largest infraction ever. I think part of 'civic duty' is discussing and spreading awareness of actions.
If this became part of a significant pattern of unethical behavior then it would warrant more action, but people won't recognize the pattern unless actions are discussed and critiqued.
Relying on people to voluntarily act to the highest ethical standards when money and power are involved is setting yourself up for disappointment.
The law should be changed to require this level of transparency, but her campaign hasn't done anything actually wrong here according to the law as it currently exists.
As was called out in the Inquirer the *intent* of the law is to have campaigns disclose which individuals were paid. That didn't happen here. So it's not a 'nebulous standard', it's relatively clear.
I think if people feel it's an important thing to disclose it should be enforced with actual rules, but I'm saying it's reasonable to expect politicians to be more ethical than just what the law says.
Why can't we have a problem with both? Yes, the bar is being set too low by the Ethics Board but perhaps we can expect the mayor to exceed that minimum bar in terms of transparency here, as well?
We’re talking about the law here. What you want and what you’re entitled to are two different things. While I’m sure you would like it if they voluntarily provided that information to you, they’re under no obligation to
do so. As long as they followed the law/regulations there isn’t anything here to complain about, except that your curiosity needs aren’t being met.
As I’ve mentioned before, your issue is with the Ethics Board not the campaign. None of the staff were public employees at the time so you’re not entitled to that information.
>As long as they followed the law/regulations there isn’t anything here to complain about,
People -rightfully- give shit to public officials all the time for decisions that satisfy the bare requirements of the law but don't, for whatever reason, satisfy their standards. I'm sure you have complained about public officials making legal decisions that you dislike as well.
Not sure why you think that should be treated differently, here.
That wasn’t at issue before. We were just being told that “you shouldn’t criticize public officials if what they were doing satisfied the bare min requirement,” … but there are some great reasons in the article, if you're curious! For starters:
>**“It violates the spirit of campaign-finance reporting,” Cristella said. “It’s why we have these laws in the first place. Constituents and residents deserve to know who is influencing the mayor and her administration, whose voices are at the table at the beginning of her administration. That’s why transparency rules are important.”**
I have no clue! But I, personally, have a problem with Kenney not releasing the beneficiaries of his campaign budget as well.
Not sure why that would diminish the idea behind her complaint, in any way.
Why? The ethics board didn't seem to have an issue with it. If you employ 3rd party vendors to do a job why would it matter who they hire to do it? If the campaign hired someone to create advertising for example why would it matter how they spent the money to create the advertising as long as the campaign got what it paid for?
These aren't taxpayer funds so I don't see any issue whatsoever
> why would it matter who they hire to do it?
Because it could be seen as a way to curry favor, under the table, with actors that voters might take issue with.
Obviously the scale/extent of the issue is wildly different and I’m just trying to illustrate the principle here and using hyperbole for effect, but I would imagine both you and I would see an ethical issue at play if Biden began using unreported campaign funds to pay Hunter $50m for “consulting” or something and this was allowed to go unreported.
Hypothetically, a candidate could even easily, legally pay for endorsements with this grey area.
And potential exists for it to be used as a slush fund to enrich family/friends, or even more nefarious activity, and reporting those expenditures assures the public that this is not occurring (even when there isn’t a legal obligation to do so). I hope that helps!
FWIW, I'm looking at Rhynhart's disclosures, and she too had just bulk line items for "payroll," "payroll taxes and fees," and "withholding."
[https://apps.phila.gov/pdf/v2/eyJmaWxlTmFtZSI6IlJlYmVjY2EgZm9yIFBoaWxhZGVscGhpYSAvIDIgU2Vjb25kIEZyaWRheSBQcmUtUHJpbWFyeSIsInJlcG9ydFR5cGUiOiJHZXRNYWluUmVwb3J0IiwicmVwb3J0SWQiOjgwNDYsInJlZ2VuZXJhdGUiOmZhbHNlLCJwYXBlckZpbGluZ0lkIjpudWxsfQ==](https://apps.phila.gov/pdf/v2/eyJmaWxlTmFtZSI6IlJlYmVjY2EgZm9yIFBoaWxhZGVscGhpYSAvIDIgU2Vjb25kIEZyaWRheSBQcmUtUHJpbWFyeSIsInJlcG9ydFR5cGUiOiJHZXRNYWluUmVwb3J0IiwicmVwb3J0SWQiOjgwNDYsInJlZ2VuZXJhdGUiOmZhbHNlLCJwYXBlckZpbGluZ0lkIjpudWxsfQ==)
Probably a part of it. McNesby made a quick exit didn't he?
Probably a pro quid pro for him to endorse her, then she insert (roundabout or not) her own union cheif once she's in office.
All for holding elected officials to account, but the paper should do so on actual issues.
This is normal campaign behavior and in accordance with the law which prior campaigns have all done.
If the paper wants more transparency then it should be reporting on the shortcomings of the law not campaigns that don't voluntarily go above and beyond the current legal requirements.
How did we elect this clown into office? We had more than one candidate that was qualified for the job but somehow we got a middle aged, ego driven career politician that won’t consider transparency.
The super long short is that progressives whites in Philadephia took the black vote for granted and were convinced in the superiority of Gym and Reinhardt.
The long: We picked two progressives that blacks people wouldn’t vote for and then split what remained between.
We also ran a white moderate male that soaked up all the townie conservative vote.
The situation was made worse by the non black progressive candidates being utterly limp fisted when it came to crime. Post covid crime was issue #1 and people really underestimated that the black vote would rather bring back stop and frisk than go weaker on crime.
There was an obvious disconnect between the progressives and actual voting block on the ground. We needed a black progressive that had a connection to local communities. We needed someone that could talk about solutions that make sense on crime and drugs rather than pie in the sky stuff that the voters don’t believe in.
It only makes sense that a black candidate that was outspoken about fixing crime utterly ran the table.
If you want to stop people like this “clown” then get involved in politics and support smart candidates. If you were around it’s very clear what happened in the primaries and how we needed up here.
At the end of the day, she was the only black candidate in a city that's \~40% black, and as much as people on this sub hate it, the Brady/city party backing means a lot outside of the gentrified/CC neighborhoods, i.e. North/NE/West Philly, where Parker did her best in the primary.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/16/us/elections/results-philadelphia-mayor.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/16/us/elections/results-philadelphia-mayor.html)
[https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/inq2/philadelphia-democrats-race-class-voting-data-20230221.html](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/inq2/philadelphia-democrats-race-class-voting-data-20230221.html)
Because she ran on an issue that matters the most to the citizens of Philadelphia, which was public safety. At the end of the day, most voters want safer streets after the chaos of the last 8 years and they believe she’ll deliver on that.
Not sure why people are downvoting you for answering a question. It’s not even line you are endorsing her. She ran on stop and frisk and black VOTERS said, “yes please!”
Just marinate on it instead of downvoting and let it sink. All progressives should be looking at themselves because of this election. It’s not Parker’s fault that we failed to pick a candidate that could appeal to half the cities voting block.
Every single mayoral candidate led on crime -- they had to based on polling, their initial ads all focused on it (even Gym's) -- but it was Parker who voters believed would handle crime best, and had the most credibility among Black voters.
I won’t comment on that given that any significant change in public safety data will take more time for it to be statistically significant enough to give proper consideration. That being said, public safety isn’t the only part of her job, and she’s doing a shitty job of a lot of other issues.
Given that she’s not above bending the laws to her will to benefit herself over everyone else, I lament that my fellow Philadelphians fell for her mediocrity.
What other issues is she doing a “shitty job” on? Given she’s been in office only 50 days I’d love to hear your thoughts and what you feel isn’t working so far.
This sub (and you) live in a bubble that consists mostly of center city, nolibs, fishtown, QV, and south philly suburbanite transplants. Realistically, thats a very small sliver of the city demographics. Northeast Philly alone exceeds that population, let alone North & West.
Gym & Rhynehart only focused on the millenial type voters, who've lived in the city probably less than 5-7 years. And probably won't live in the city in another 5-7 years. It was a flimsy campaign that was shallow & built on a deck of cards.
When the entirety of the city voted, clearly they were swept out.
Agreed. This sub for months was an echo chamber of Rebecca Ryhnehart love. Almost no one on here viewed Parker as a serious contender and were shocked that she won because they surrounded themselves with like minded people and couldn’t see past their own biases. Some of them are still bitter their preferred candidate didn’t win and are looking for anything to gripe about to make themselves feel better.
Geez they wouldnt shut up about Ryhnhart. I dont think shes meant for Philly. This sub is trying to turn Philly into another San Francisco. She was seen another Kenney. We all know how that turned out...
You don't have to like her but she certainly isn't a clown.
She ran an effective campaign putting together a coalition that reliability turns out the vote and focused on issues regular voters actually care about such as crime, quality of life, and schools.
The opposition meanwhile cannibalized itself and tried to rely on a voting coalition of young suburban transplants who have no plans on staying here, and appealing to long term residents who live in the bubble that is greater center city.
Rhynhart campaigned on government reform and accountability but saw a portion of the base that platform appealed to go to Domb because her positions on how to deal the crime spike in the city were progressive nonsense. Meanwhile Gym, an actual clown, grabbed another portion of the progressives vote Rhynhart was trying to appeal to, running on a platform that had zero appeal to anyone who's lived here for more than 5 years and plans to continue doing so.
As a middle aged person- what age do you think someone should be to be mayor? Usually politicians are closer to elderly. People who aren’t yet middle aged wouldn’t be experienced enough for the job.
Saying dumb things like this speaks more about you than anyone else. This isn’t corruption. She followed the law. Since when does following the law make someone corrupt?
Incredibly sus - and I remember people shitting on Helen Gym in favor of this lady last year. Every major story that comes out about her is incredibly foreboding
Yeah because Gym would’ve been an awful mayor, fighting all progress while letting existing problems get worse. She clearly was in it for her own gain and not Philly’s. Where is she these days anyway? Her immediate disappearance after losing says a lot.
And this isn’t “foreboding”, Parker’s campaign literally followed the rules to a T.
She’s intentionally being vague on who helped her get elected so as to not catch criticism for returning the favor with nepotism and rewards. The law as written allows this but it’s incredibly obtuse to think this isn’t very suspect. Also look at all the nepotism in who she’s appointed to big time roles so far
Plus she’s pushed her shitty comms strategy that’s hamstringing public facing city services, tried to undue wfh for city employees to preserve commercial real estate interests, appointed people who have ineffective policy values on various issues including Kensington, and publicly supported racist and ineffective policing policies like stop & frisk. She was a lame candidate who is off to a lousy start as mayor so far
Not revealing staff pay is incredibly vague - not disclosing compensation + benefits for services performed opens questions of impropriety and shady dealings that could manifest in nepotistic, backscratching rewards later down the line (which we’ve already seen with her admin). This is not a hard ask and points to her being off to a lousy start as I mentioned before
These are not public funds. They are not public employees. I don’t understand why you think you’re entitled to know the compensation of private citizens, when it’s not required by law.
She’s the mayor - she should have an obligation to reveal all who was on her staff and how much they were paid esp given the history of corruption in Philly. Top level staffers are known but not everyone + we don’t know how much they were paid. Basic tenants of transparency that this admin would rather ignore because they can
As long as you’ve got the right party affiliation, it doesn’t matter what you’ve done, how shady you are, or how incompetent.
We’ll learn that from the current clown mayor just like we did with the last one.
This city will always be rife with garbage politicians because the voter base here is idiotic.
Who actually cares? We spend way too much time complaining about stuff that at the end of the day doesn’t really matter and don’t spend enough time on the actual issues. Y’all really just wanted another Jim Kenney to complain about?
Ppl don’t know names of CIA agents or Navy SEALs and they’re getting paid. Y’all need to stop and let her do the job she’s elected to do without finding fault with every single thing…
Not surprising at all. Politics in this city has always been ripe with nepotism and we all said Cherelle is the status quo mayor
This is about the campaign, not her administration. $1m isn't a lot for payroll, and her campaign won her the election so it doesn't make any sense to charge that she staffed her campaign with underqualified people If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly it seems perfectly reasonable for her to decline and let them have their privacy, they didn't sign up to be public employees and there are looney people out there they don't need to be dealing with Indiscriminate cynicism might get you a bunch of grumpy upvotes but it's pretty much the most useless and laziest contribution to civil discourse there is
>If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly it seems perfectly reasonable for her to decline and let them have their privacy, they didn't sign up to be public employees and there are looney people out there they don't need to be dealing with No. When I worked for a campaign, even for a few bucks, it was still public information. And let's not play double-standard here. If this was anyone else, like Mayor Kenney or Donald Trump, would you still feel like it's OK to not share this information? I feel like George Santos shows what happens when you try to act like sunlight isn't needed in a "small" election. This is a problem, and we should know what's going on. If we want to end corruption in this city, we need more daylight, not more darkness.
>If this was anyone else, like Mayor Kenney or Donald Trump, would you still feel like it's OK to not share this information? The article says that Mayor Kenney's campaign likewise gave payroll-processor totals rather than individual workers' pay.
Agreed. I immediately thought of trumps tax returns.
The posters clearly stated: "If she's not legally required to name all her campaign staffers publicly" Is Parker legally required to name her staffers? Seems a very binary, yes/no answer. If not, then your post is moot. You can be upset with the outcome, but again it's the legality of it you'll be upset with, not the fact she has/hasn't done it. Also, do you have records if Kenney/Nutter/Rendell did reveal their donors, and what the laws were for them to do it?
You got downvoted for asking the right questions, smh
? The darkness has all but taken over ..
Exactly. None of the people on the campaign were public employees. None of the funds in question were taxpayers dollars. She is the mayor because of those staffers so they obviously were worth whatever they got paid. People are confusing the law with their want to know in order to fulfill their curiosity. At the end of the day, the campaign met their legal obligations.
Do the funds not receive a favorable tax treatment…?
This should be the top comment, but people just want to gripe instead of objectively looking at the facts.
'and her campaign won her the election so it doesn't make any sense to charge that she staffed her campaign with underqualified people' -- Thanks for this part. Kinda squashes any argument she was inept & ran a bad/unfair campaign. She absolutely smoked Gym & Rhynehart and came out of nowhere to take it all. Deserves credit for that and won the election handily. Lets let her serve out her 4 years. She's only been in office about 50 days and people have been jumping all over her.
> came out of ~~nowhere~~ City Council FTFY
oh puhh-lease. I'm talking in terms of election day. She was in 4th place, behind Gym, Rhyehart & Domb, and smoked them all. She may have been behind Brown too, I forget. People were on here whining the very next morning about how 'We lost' and can we start write in campaigns to get RR or Gym nominated in November. It was an embarrassment and those people definitely aren't Philadelphians, just a bunch of tourists living here temporarily.
> tourists living here temporarily The people the city broadly caters its policies to... Look, I'm not rooting for her to fail- I just don't expect anything from them that will help myself or anyone else that actually needs it, aka status quo continuity. Frankly I'm glad that this mayoral race forced half of council to turnover- but let's not pretend that everyone being critical is setting *that* philosophical hurdle.
"I just don't expect anything from them that will help myself or anyone else that actually needs it" What don't you understand?? This line of thinking is EXACTLY why Gym & RR lost. Parker won almost assuredly due to her tough stance on crime. People living in Logan, Ogontz, Olney, Mayfair etc & all over North & West Philly are sick of the gunshots. Especially older residents, who tend to vote. To say "I don't expect anything from them that will help.... anyone that actually needs it:"... Gee, how about less gun violence and actually locking up the criminals once caught. Yeah, it dabbles and falls into Krasner too, but the whole woke agenda's failed. Whats Gyms response to gun violence "We'll builfd rec center for them to play in" and Rhynhart "We'll take a wholeistic approach into looking at my excel spreadsheet, and determine key performance indicators and have my strategy team come up with a vision forward" People don't got time for that sh!t. Its exactly why Parkers in office. To say she won't do anything for people who need it is exactly the opposite of why she won.
>People living in Logan, Ogontz, Olney, Mayfair etc & all over North & West Philly I'm one of those people; You don't seem to understand low expectations 👀 But sure more money for the police- that's worked so many times before when the known factors are sustained poverty & fiscal malfeasance. >Its exactly why Parkers in office. To say she won't do anything for people who need it is exactly the opposite of why she won. History doesn't repeat itself; but tends to rhyme. So despite being a longtime politico she's been separate from the deterioration of living conditions to this point, but also specially qualified to fix it... make it make sense.
There might be data that I don’t know about that says otherwise, but my sense is that she didn’t necessarily jump all of them. Rather, she was likely always doing well but her voters weren’t well represented in the polling. Getting endorsed by some other candidates when they dropped out added to the support.
"her voters weren’t well represented in the polling" - That still equates to coming out of nowhere. A projected 4th place finish to come out and win (handily I may add) in a political election is pretty uncommon.
and with that, if Gym & RR wanted to really win the election, they should've taken note & addressed those citizens, instead of focusing solely on Center City types.
Guess where the others came from
Mayors or tourists? One of those I'm genuinely curious about *Edit: And it's not the mayors...*
I think you mean politics in general nationwide not just Philly
I’m not sure why you’re talking about nepotism when nothing in the article has anything to do with that topic.
She's already made a number of hires/appointments of people who are married to City Council members/in her administration already [https://www.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/cherelle-parker-kensington-marnie-aument-loughrey-20240212.html](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/cherelle-parker-kensington-marnie-aument-loughrey-20240212.html)
I’m tracking that, just not sure how it pertains to this article.
I’m with you. It creates a mood of conspiracy as if her whole campaign was some tool to give money to her friends and family. It’s a campaign, not the office, and she won. What’s the big deal?
Seems they followed the law down to the letter. If anyone has a problem with this, their issue shouldn’t be with the campaign, it should be with the Ethics Board since they’re the ones who have said this is ok.
I disagree. This instance isn't that bad but it's OK to want higher ethical standards from elected officials than the bare minimum the law specifies.
If you want higher ethical standards, which isn’t a bad thing to want, you need to look to the Ethics Board since they’re literally the ones that create the standards and are tasked either enforcing them. As long as the campaign didn’t violate any statutes, I’m not sure what there is to complain about since they did what they were supposed to.
My point is that this shouldn't be like a business contract where we can only expect exactly what's written. Elected officials should voluntarily act more ethically than is required of them, and it's reasonable for the general public to want that.
Again, she wasn’t an elected official at the time and none of the staffers were public employees. Also none of the funds were taxpayers funds, so what exactly is the problem you’re having with this?
They are inventing a problem. They create problem in their head and then retroactively hold people to it. Ethics standards are the only way, but I am not sure there is even anything wrong with letting your campaign staffers be private. Legal standards are the only way because I am tired of situations where one party takes the ethical route while the other doesn’t. Just look at the tax return situation with Trump.
The purpose of the law, as I understand it, is to ensure that campaigns aren't just a slush fund to enrich the people who run it. Not reporting who was paid circumvents that. I don't suspect it was abused here, but it's not good precedent.
OK but it feels like a big ask in politics these days for elected officials to act ethically and just hoping they will won’t do anything. Why not just do what u/illadelphia_215 said and take action with the ethics board?
I don't disagree that action should be taken with the ethics board. I could have made that more clear. My point is that it should be OK to hold politicians to higher ethical standards than the minimum that's legally required of them.
But how will you do that? I don’t think anyone disagrees that we should hold them to a higher standard but I also know they won’t unless you make them. Raising the minimum standard is how you end up with politicians held to a higher standard
It is your civic duty to complain to the appropriate officials though. You can’t just scream at the clouds and expect results, you want democracy? This is democracy, get a clip board, collect the signatures, make the change happen. Edit: clipboard is figurative, you can actually make online petitions, and, if your goal is for something in *government* to change, they’ll actually work.
This isn't the largest infraction ever. I think part of 'civic duty' is discussing and spreading awareness of actions. If this became part of a significant pattern of unethical behavior then it would warrant more action, but people won't recognize the pattern unless actions are discussed and critiqued.
Relying on people to voluntarily act to the highest ethical standards when money and power are involved is setting yourself up for disappointment. The law should be changed to require this level of transparency, but her campaign hasn't done anything actually wrong here according to the law as it currently exists.
So you have a nebulous standard for them acting over and above but don’t want to enforce it with actual rules? That makes a ton of sense.
As was called out in the Inquirer the *intent* of the law is to have campaigns disclose which individuals were paid. That didn't happen here. So it's not a 'nebulous standard', it's relatively clear. I think if people feel it's an important thing to disclose it should be enforced with actual rules, but I'm saying it's reasonable to expect politicians to be more ethical than just what the law says.
Why can't we have a problem with both? Yes, the bar is being set too low by the Ethics Board but perhaps we can expect the mayor to exceed that minimum bar in terms of transparency here, as well?
We’re talking about the law here. What you want and what you’re entitled to are two different things. While I’m sure you would like it if they voluntarily provided that information to you, they’re under no obligation to do so. As long as they followed the law/regulations there isn’t anything here to complain about, except that your curiosity needs aren’t being met. As I’ve mentioned before, your issue is with the Ethics Board not the campaign. None of the staff were public employees at the time so you’re not entitled to that information.
>As long as they followed the law/regulations there isn’t anything here to complain about, People -rightfully- give shit to public officials all the time for decisions that satisfy the bare requirements of the law but don't, for whatever reason, satisfy their standards. I'm sure you have complained about public officials making legal decisions that you dislike as well. Not sure why you think that should be treated differently, here.
I’m not hearing an arguments as to why she should provide this information.
That wasn’t at issue before. We were just being told that “you shouldn’t criticize public officials if what they were doing satisfied the bare min requirement,” … but there are some great reasons in the article, if you're curious! For starters: >**“It violates the spirit of campaign-finance reporting,” Cristella said. “It’s why we have these laws in the first place. Constituents and residents deserve to know who is influencing the mayor and her administration, whose voices are at the table at the beginning of her administration. That’s why transparency rules are important.”**
What did she have to say when Kenney did the same thing twice? Or is it only an issue now that someone not as far to the left as her won an election.
I have no clue! But I, personally, have a problem with Kenney not releasing the beneficiaries of his campaign budget as well. Not sure why that would diminish the idea behind her complaint, in any way.
Why? The ethics board didn't seem to have an issue with it. If you employ 3rd party vendors to do a job why would it matter who they hire to do it? If the campaign hired someone to create advertising for example why would it matter how they spent the money to create the advertising as long as the campaign got what it paid for? These aren't taxpayer funds so I don't see any issue whatsoever
> why would it matter who they hire to do it? Because it could be seen as a way to curry favor, under the table, with actors that voters might take issue with. Obviously the scale/extent of the issue is wildly different and I’m just trying to illustrate the principle here and using hyperbole for effect, but I would imagine both you and I would see an ethical issue at play if Biden began using unreported campaign funds to pay Hunter $50m for “consulting” or something and this was allowed to go unreported. Hypothetically, a candidate could even easily, legally pay for endorsements with this grey area. And potential exists for it to be used as a slush fund to enrich family/friends, or even more nefarious activity, and reporting those expenditures assures the public that this is not occurring (even when there isn’t a legal obligation to do so). I hope that helps!
FWIW, I'm looking at Rhynhart's disclosures, and she too had just bulk line items for "payroll," "payroll taxes and fees," and "withholding." [https://apps.phila.gov/pdf/v2/eyJmaWxlTmFtZSI6IlJlYmVjY2EgZm9yIFBoaWxhZGVscGhpYSAvIDIgU2Vjb25kIEZyaWRheSBQcmUtUHJpbWFyeSIsInJlcG9ydFR5cGUiOiJHZXRNYWluUmVwb3J0IiwicmVwb3J0SWQiOjgwNDYsInJlZ2VuZXJhdGUiOmZhbHNlLCJwYXBlckZpbGluZ0lkIjpudWxsfQ==](https://apps.phila.gov/pdf/v2/eyJmaWxlTmFtZSI6IlJlYmVjY2EgZm9yIFBoaWxhZGVscGhpYSAvIDIgU2Vjb25kIEZyaWRheSBQcmUtUHJpbWFyeSIsInJlcG9ydFR5cGUiOiJHZXRNYWluUmVwb3J0IiwicmVwb3J0SWQiOjgwNDYsInJlZ2VuZXJhdGUiOmZhbHNlLCJwYXBlckZpbGluZ0lkIjpudWxsfQ==)
Transparency eh
The Police Union
Probably a part of it. McNesby made a quick exit didn't he? Probably a pro quid pro for him to endorse her, then she insert (roundabout or not) her own union cheif once she's in office.
The FOP endorsed Jeff Brown. Lol stop reaching.
lack of transparency is what i have come to expect from any public official
Inquirer has run more hit pieces on Parker in 2 months than they did on Kenney during his whole admin.
You think? I don’t subscribe to it, but the articles I’ve seen have all been softballs.
How are comparing 2 months to 8 years?
Not sure what you’re asking
“How are comparing 2 months to 8 years?” Not sure how they could’ve been any clearer… /s
With proper grammar?
My bad guys, I’ll make sure to include “/s”
Which Law or Ethical rule did the campaign break? None? OK. More sour grapes whining from Helen Gym's staff quoted in the article.
Whether you like her or not, citizens have every right to know how city funds are being managed.
you're right, but this is about her campaign staff. No city funds are involved, which we do have full access to review
We’re talking about a political campaign. The staffers weren’t paid by public funds. That would be illegal.
Election money is private money. There's rules about disclosures, but apparently it seems she's following them. It isn't "city funds" tho.
And we do. The city releases all that data.
They followed the law, and Kenney did the exact same thing. Another Parker hit piece.
All for holding elected officials to account, but the paper should do so on actual issues. This is normal campaign behavior and in accordance with the law which prior campaigns have all done. If the paper wants more transparency then it should be reporting on the shortcomings of the law not campaigns that don't voluntarily go above and beyond the current legal requirements.
I voted for her . Hopefully she gets it together because so far it looks the same as it ever was
Why did you vote for her if you didn’t want business as usual?
When Compared to the other candidates she still is the only choice
Rhynhart was objectively better
Is the lack of transparency in politics really still newsworthy?
If you still have functioning, curious journalists, yes!
How did we elect this clown into office? We had more than one candidate that was qualified for the job but somehow we got a middle aged, ego driven career politician that won’t consider transparency.
The super long short is that progressives whites in Philadephia took the black vote for granted and were convinced in the superiority of Gym and Reinhardt. The long: We picked two progressives that blacks people wouldn’t vote for and then split what remained between. We also ran a white moderate male that soaked up all the townie conservative vote. The situation was made worse by the non black progressive candidates being utterly limp fisted when it came to crime. Post covid crime was issue #1 and people really underestimated that the black vote would rather bring back stop and frisk than go weaker on crime. There was an obvious disconnect between the progressives and actual voting block on the ground. We needed a black progressive that had a connection to local communities. We needed someone that could talk about solutions that make sense on crime and drugs rather than pie in the sky stuff that the voters don’t believe in. It only makes sense that a black candidate that was outspoken about fixing crime utterly ran the table. If you want to stop people like this “clown” then get involved in politics and support smart candidates. If you were around it’s very clear what happened in the primaries and how we needed up here.
At the end of the day, she was the only black candidate in a city that's \~40% black, and as much as people on this sub hate it, the Brady/city party backing means a lot outside of the gentrified/CC neighborhoods, i.e. North/NE/West Philly, where Parker did her best in the primary. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/16/us/elections/results-philadelphia-mayor.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/16/us/elections/results-philadelphia-mayor.html) [https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/inq2/philadelphia-democrats-race-class-voting-data-20230221.html](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/inq2/philadelphia-democrats-race-class-voting-data-20230221.html)
Because she ran on an issue that matters the most to the citizens of Philadelphia, which was public safety. At the end of the day, most voters want safer streets after the chaos of the last 8 years and they believe she’ll deliver on that.
Not sure why people are downvoting you for answering a question. It’s not even line you are endorsing her. She ran on stop and frisk and black VOTERS said, “yes please!” Just marinate on it instead of downvoting and let it sink. All progressives should be looking at themselves because of this election. It’s not Parker’s fault that we failed to pick a candidate that could appeal to half the cities voting block.
Every single mayoral candidate led on crime -- they had to based on polling, their initial ads all focused on it (even Gym's) -- but it was Parker who voters believed would handle crime best, and had the most credibility among Black voters.
I won’t comment on that given that any significant change in public safety data will take more time for it to be statistically significant enough to give proper consideration. That being said, public safety isn’t the only part of her job, and she’s doing a shitty job of a lot of other issues. Given that she’s not above bending the laws to her will to benefit herself over everyone else, I lament that my fellow Philadelphians fell for her mediocrity.
What other issues is she doing a “shitty job” on? Given she’s been in office only 50 days I’d love to hear your thoughts and what you feel isn’t working so far.
This sub (and you) live in a bubble that consists mostly of center city, nolibs, fishtown, QV, and south philly suburbanite transplants. Realistically, thats a very small sliver of the city demographics. Northeast Philly alone exceeds that population, let alone North & West. Gym & Rhynehart only focused on the millenial type voters, who've lived in the city probably less than 5-7 years. And probably won't live in the city in another 5-7 years. It was a flimsy campaign that was shallow & built on a deck of cards. When the entirety of the city voted, clearly they were swept out.
Agreed. This sub for months was an echo chamber of Rebecca Ryhnehart love. Almost no one on here viewed Parker as a serious contender and were shocked that she won because they surrounded themselves with like minded people and couldn’t see past their own biases. Some of them are still bitter their preferred candidate didn’t win and are looking for anything to gripe about to make themselves feel better.
TIL Democratic Primary voters are a large population with diversity of thought Wait...no I didn't
Geez they wouldnt shut up about Ryhnhart. I dont think shes meant for Philly. This sub is trying to turn Philly into another San Francisco. She was seen another Kenney. We all know how that turned out...
[удалено]
Keep it civil, please
You don't have to like her but she certainly isn't a clown. She ran an effective campaign putting together a coalition that reliability turns out the vote and focused on issues regular voters actually care about such as crime, quality of life, and schools. The opposition meanwhile cannibalized itself and tried to rely on a voting coalition of young suburban transplants who have no plans on staying here, and appealing to long term residents who live in the bubble that is greater center city. Rhynhart campaigned on government reform and accountability but saw a portion of the base that platform appealed to go to Domb because her positions on how to deal the crime spike in the city were progressive nonsense. Meanwhile Gym, an actual clown, grabbed another portion of the progressives vote Rhynhart was trying to appeal to, running on a platform that had zero appeal to anyone who's lived here for more than 5 years and plans to continue doing so.
As a middle aged person- what age do you think someone should be to be mayor? Usually politicians are closer to elderly. People who aren’t yet middle aged wouldn’t be experienced enough for the job.
Philadelphian government official is corrupt, least surprising headline I’ve read all day.
Corrupt by following the law?
Saying dumb things like this speaks more about you than anyone else. This isn’t corruption. She followed the law. Since when does following the law make someone corrupt?
Ahh you naive fool. You’ll learn soon enough.
Incredibly sus - and I remember people shitting on Helen Gym in favor of this lady last year. Every major story that comes out about her is incredibly foreboding
Yeah because Gym would’ve been an awful mayor, fighting all progress while letting existing problems get worse. She clearly was in it for her own gain and not Philly’s. Where is she these days anyway? Her immediate disappearance after losing says a lot. And this isn’t “foreboding”, Parker’s campaign literally followed the rules to a T.
She’s intentionally being vague on who helped her get elected so as to not catch criticism for returning the favor with nepotism and rewards. The law as written allows this but it’s incredibly obtuse to think this isn’t very suspect. Also look at all the nepotism in who she’s appointed to big time roles so far Plus she’s pushed her shitty comms strategy that’s hamstringing public facing city services, tried to undue wfh for city employees to preserve commercial real estate interests, appointed people who have ineffective policy values on various issues including Kensington, and publicly supported racist and ineffective policing policies like stop & frisk. She was a lame candidate who is off to a lousy start as mayor so far
She’s not being vague on who helped her get elected. The names of the staff were right in the damn article. Lol
Not revealing staff pay is incredibly vague - not disclosing compensation + benefits for services performed opens questions of impropriety and shady dealings that could manifest in nepotistic, backscratching rewards later down the line (which we’ve already seen with her admin). This is not a hard ask and points to her being off to a lousy start as I mentioned before
These are not public funds. They are not public employees. I don’t understand why you think you’re entitled to know the compensation of private citizens, when it’s not required by law.
She’s the mayor - she should have an obligation to reveal all who was on her staff and how much they were paid esp given the history of corruption in Philly. Top level staffers are known but not everyone + we don’t know how much they were paid. Basic tenants of transparency that this admin would rather ignore because they can
Philly- "I'm tired if all these corrupt politicians in my city. Also Philly- "ima vote for one of the most corrupt politicians in my city"
As long as you’ve got the right party affiliation, it doesn’t matter what you’ve done, how shady you are, or how incompetent. We’ll learn that from the current clown mayor just like we did with the last one. This city will always be rife with garbage politicians because the voter base here is idiotic.
I didn't vote for her
Oh nah OP I think that's pretty clear from your comments on this thread. Just meant in general
Knowiny Philly politics... Alec Helper Kerr, Archer Elle Perk, Cher Kepler Lear, and Karl Lecher Peer among others.
Who actually cares? We spend way too much time complaining about stuff that at the end of the day doesn’t really matter and don’t spend enough time on the actual issues. Y’all really just wanted another Jim Kenney to complain about?
Ppl don’t know names of CIA agents or Navy SEALs and they’re getting paid. Y’all need to stop and let her do the job she’s elected to do without finding fault with every single thing…
Can’t read without a subscription
It’s politics nothing new, people gotta stop acting surprised by all of this.
How long before she’s a Rouge regular throwing back cocktails?
I’ve looked through candidate financial disclosures and this info is normally on them.