If you were running for political office, funding your campaign entirely out of your own pocket, not from contributions, donations, or PAC money, and someone told you to “stop spending so much money,” what would you do?

If that same person told you to stop spending your money “so freely because it isn’t fair to the other candidates,” what would you say?

That same person approaches you a day or so later and says: “Look, you’re taking advantage of election rules and doing a nasty because the other candidates can’t compete with you!” They are limited by campaign finance rules for how much money they’re allowed to spend since it is coming from contributions to their campaigns. You’re spending your own money on ads and stuff, but you’ve spent a couple million more than your closest competitor. Will you just stop? Please?” that you are allowed to spend as much as you want, but those seeking donations are limited by campaign contribution rules? What would you say now?

Sure, for most people this is hypothetical, sort of like the old games of “If you were on a boat with three people and had to toss someone over or risk sinking …” kind of thing, but let’s take this situation to reality, shall we?

Here in Philadelphia, the 2007 primary is coming down to the wire. There are too many people in the field — mostly blowhards who aren’t convinced themselves they can win, as they haven’t resigned from other elected posts they hold. Right now, with several people with hats in the ring, the chief contender and prime unknown is Tom Knox.

Knox, who served as Deputy Mayor for the [1] City of Philadelphia in the 1990s, is running for mayor of the city. Under now-Governor Ed Rendell, Knox was part of a dynamic team that helped turn Philadelphia area.

When Rendell took over as mayor, the city was bleeding financially. By the time he left office, the city had a budget surplus — pretty much the same scenario that Bill Clinton handed to George W. Bush when he became president. In the years since, however, in Philadelphia and in Washington, budget surpluses have been sucked dry — then deficits enough to make a saint swear created by current inept politicos.

Knox, who retired from the corporate world in order to run for office of the mayor here in Philadelphia, is funding his own campaign. That’s right: he is seeking public office, is spending his own money to seek that office, and hasn’t sought campaign contributions to fund his advertising blitz.

As Deputy Mayor, Knox was pretty much a faceless, behind-the-scenes man. That’s the role of deputy mayor: serve the mayor, and, if needed, step in and serve should something happen to the incumbent mayor. After his time in City Hall came to an end in 1999, Knox returned to the private sector, returning to a place where he commanded a well-deserved salary.

Now, though, when he tossed his hat into the ring, most people had no idea who Tom Knox was, only that he wanted to be mayor. Well, his first campaign ad touted the fact that he and former Mayor Rendell — taking salaries of $1 per year — led the city from the brink of bankruptcy to financially solvent in a handful of years. That’s an impressive feat — especially in Philadelphia.

About a week ago, [2] Zack Stalberg, head honcho of the [3] Committee of Seventy, a self-appointed watchdog group here in Philadelphia, challenged Knox to limit his spending in a [4] Op-Ed piece that appeared in the [5] Philadelphia Inquirer.

Mind you, Stalberg is former head honcho at the [5] Philadelphia Daily News, the Inquirer’s sister paper, so there could be politics at the two papers, supporting him because of the two decades he spent wandering the Ivory Tower on Broad Street.

Knox, who has repeatedly said he will spend “whatever it takes” to win, has still not agreed to knot the purse strings, and rightly so.

Now, according to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Knox’s rivals:

“[A]re struggling to raise money. Without Knox’s deep pockets, they are left to operate under the city’s campaign-finance caps, which limit donations to $20,000 from political committees and $5,000 from individuals.”

They are struggling? Is that the reporter’s interpretation or comments by one of his rivals? Since it wasn’t attributed to any of his rivals, it can only be seen as a statement made by the reporter, Catherine Lucey, as her opinion. That’s sad, especially since newspaper reporting is supposedly based on neutrality. When I worked in newsrooms, if there was a perceived conflict — in an article, in your personal life, or anything — the story was dumped or rewritten — and you often lost the beat. In this case, since I don’t read the Philadelphiia Inquirer, a newspaper that was once a leader, I can’t really say what the situation is.

Lucey went on, writing:

The resulting disparity between Knox and his rivals set off a short-lived effort in City Council this spring to undo the caps.

Although Knox is free under the law to spend what he wants, his doing so “has the ability to overwhelm the other candidates, and that concerns me,” Stalberg said yesterday.

Is it time to break out the violins?

Stalberg may have a point, but right now spending personal funds freely and without limit is legal. Knox has been a successful businessman. He grew up in Philadelphia, poor, and his mother struggled to make ends meet — and to feed her children. How do I know that? It is in one of his campaign ads. He also earned all the money he is spending. It isn’t like he is doing anything illegal, immoral, or getting money from “suspect” sources.

Knox, a successful businessman, former deputy mayor, and now retired corporate executive, has the money to personally finance his campaign, and since there’s no mandatory cap on his spending, he should spend freely. That’s what makes America free. This issue has before — around the country. Until it is illegal to freely spend all your money — to the point of going broke, if you want — let the candidates spend freely.

I would rather have someone like Tom Knox, who is spending his own money to get elected, than some two-faced politico, especially a few who are running against Knox, get elected — but, I would like to see them fund their own campaigns, as well.

If the politicos are so concerned, create a new campaign reform bill that limits total spending to $200,000 — all of being self-financed. If you don’t have the $200,000, tough. If you can’t do a successful campaign with $200,000, tough.

Until politicos sit back, decide how a wealthy person cannot spend their money at will — blowing it wildly on a primary campaign, to the tune of $5 million — let Tom Knox spend his money.

In the meantime, Stalberg and all the other cronies, get off his back. In fact, why don’t you go challenge Bob Brady about that money he forgot to claim when he first filed his petition? Why don’t you go after all three candidates — each of whom saying the door to Room 215 at City Hall will have their name on it — and ask why they are ignoring their primary, elected duties to run for mayor? If they were serious, they should resign their elected post. That’s the only fair thing to do. Ignoring their duties is a travesty. In some cases, their, being AWOL actually helps the constituents. Perhaps if each resigned, their former constituency would be that much they better.