Chalk one up for the "pay to play" crowd.Legislation similar to that being considered in Bethlehem and Northampton County has been murdered in Pittsburgh. Keystone Politics and The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl vetoed an ordinance limiting individual and PAC contributions because it would somehow give the rich an unfair advantage while penalizing that union dough.
"While almost every other state and city across the country has adopted sensible campaign contribution limits to limit the amount of influence special interests can buy, Pittsburgh continues to be ruled by the political machine." Those words, from Pittsburgh sponsor Bill Peduto, sum up my sentiments.
7 comments:
Bernie is a pay to play guy. He took $60.00 as settlement in a case against Bethlehem Steel and forged his clients signature because he needed the money to pay a $60.00 filing fee. Wodda guy. And he wonders why he's being called a liar all the time. Would you trust Bernie?
My license was certainly suspended in '85 for unethical conduct. I did improperly dismiss a case that had no merit without bothering to obtain the client's consent and did forge his name to the dismissal. I have mentioned this many times. I have never dodged my past.
You come on here daily and anonymously post the same accusations over and over. If this gives you some satisfaction, good for you. But I don't think you're doing yourself or Team Casey any favors. You folks are just diminishing yourselves.
What are the specifics of the law. Can a candidate spend any amount of his/her own money? If so that is a rich guy law. What about independent groups like the "Swiftboaters", who can claim to be non-partisan and slam a particular candidate. They are even able to do it without mentioning names.
I like the concept but as usual the Devil or God is in the details. This could be drafted in such a way to be a backdoor to disuading private individuals from taking on 'chosen' candidates.
Anon,
The legislation contained provisions increasing spending limits against candidates who were self-funded.
Bernie,
As far as I know the proposal in Bethlehem has NO provision in it to protect candidates that are running against self-funders. I would NEVER want to see the Mayor's position to be limited to only the wealthy, which is precisely what would happen if this was passed in the way it's been proposed. ANON 4:42 is correct; the devil IS in the details and there should be plenty of them in this proposal.
"Anon,
The legislation contained provisions increasing spending limits against candidates who were self-funded."
those provisions are red herrings, Bern. Pittsburgh's had a 250k limit. if a rich candidate self-finances, and exceeds 250k, then the cap is lifted. so what if said rich person does it in the waning days of the campaign, and dumps a ton of his/her own money in? the opponent's cap is lifted, but can't possibly raise enough money in the shortened time frame remaining in the race to remain competative.
Anon 6:31,
I have to bow to your superior argument. I believe we can still engineer campaign finance reform, but have a few different ideas. I'm more interested in prompt online disclosure than anything else.
Post a Comment