MacKenzie Campaign Expands on Need For Stock Ban and Transparency in Grant Funding

Yesterday, I told you that GOP Congressional candidate supports term limits, a ban on insider stock trading by Congress members and a need for more transparency in grant funding. I asked for clarification about stock trading and the need for transparency in grant funding. His campaign sent this response: 

• The current laws in place are woefully inadequate to oversee Members of Congress and their influence-peddling.  
• The STOCK Act of 2012, which supposedly banned insider trading for Members of Congress, has clearly not sufficiently addressed the issue. 
• The New York Times highlighted the issue in its 2022 reporting through a series of articles and noted that, “Some members of Congress have strangely good timing when it comes to stock investments…With inside knowledge about forthcoming policy changes or economic developments, the members could buy stocks shortly before they rose in price or sell them shortly before they fell.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/briefing/congress-stock-investments-profits.html)
• To further address this, Congress has introduced a number of good proposals they should pass. Two of those that I would support are the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act and the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act. 
• While the media and legislators are talking a lot about possible conflicts with stock trading, which is good, less attention has been paid to grant funding and possible conflicts of interests in that space. 
• In 2022, it came to light that “House Dem [Congresswoman Susan Wild] Lands $1 Million for Former Client Implicated in Child Rape Case.” (https://freebeacon.com/democrats/wild-spending-house-dem-lands-1-million-for-former-client-implicated-in-child-rape-case/)
• Congress should address these types of conflicts as well and Congresswoman Wild should have been required to disclose that she was seeking this funding for a former legal client. Without such a law in place, this particular case only came to light through investigative reporting.

Should Grants Be Awarded During Election Season?

Governor Tom Wolf got himself elected on a platform of reform. He crisscrossed the state in his Jeep, a millionaire pretending to be one of the guys. After he was elected, he did impose a gift ban on state workers. He also refused to live at the Governor's mansion, but that's pretty much it. I see little difference between him and the man he beat. There have been no meaningful reform proposals from him since the day he took office. It's been business as usual. Since he's the likely winner in November, I expect things will stay that way. But a man who claims to be ethical really should refrain from handing out taxpayer money at election time. 

Wolf's opponent is a rich garbageman who can't seem to get out of his own way. At the rate he's going, he should be arrested several times for assault before November. It is little wonder Wolf has agreed to only one debate. But this is all the more reason why he should limit himself from handing out taxpayer money at election time.

I was sent a Wolf news release yesterday announcing a $750,000 grant to Fountain Hill for a 40 by 75-foot addition to its existing public works building. This might very well be a good use of taxpayer money. The renovation will alleviate issues caused by numerous additions made to the original 100-year-old public works building. The completed $1.5 million project is expected to house borough street department vehicles, a salt shed and stone bins, an environmentally safe fueling station, locker, shower and break rooms for employees, and areas for storage of the borough’s equipment.

But the timing stinks.

This is just a legal bribe to the residents of Fountain Hill.

The news release includes gushing statements from State Rep. Jeanne McNeill and State Senator Lisa Boscola, both of whom are up for re-election as well. Though neither has a frickin' opponent, the Wolf news release has to make both of them look good.

I will give either Lisa or Jeanne $100 if either of them can prove to me that they've ever set foot in Fountain Hill's Public Works building before today.

If Tom Wolf really is interested in reform, and I tend to think he is only slightly more interested than his opponent, he should stop handing out any taxpayer candy during an election year. State Senators and State Reps Reps should be barred from their oh-so-informative mailers during the year of their re-election.

Gerrymandering: How Our Elections Are Really Rigged - Part One

The original gerrymander

Do any of you know what gerrymandering is? Put in its simplest form, it's a process by which our legislators pick the voters instead of the other way around. It takes place every ten years, after the census. Though it's almost unnoticed, it is probably the biggest danger to our representative democracy. It's a rigged system, designed to provide job security for legislators who toe the line while punishing any who dare rebel. The fox is in the henhouse, as politicians themselves decide on new districts. They can extend their stay as long as they want. It has resulted in a Pennsylvania State legislature that is completely unresponsive to voters. And it's getting worse.  

On Friday night, at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Bethlehem, a large group of nearly 100 people attended a gerrymandering panel discussion that included Pa LWV Board member Carol Kuniholm, State Sen. Lisa Boscola (Dem.), State Rep. David Parker (Rep.) and Common CausePA's Barry Kauffman. Boscola and Parker have teamed up with bi-partisan legislation to fix a broken system, but they will be the first to tell you nothing is going to happen unless voters themselves get involved and start pressuring their own legislators. In addition, leaders like House Democrat Frank Dermody and Republican Speaker Mike Turzai, who have been unwilling to act, need to be targeted.

Today's focus is the problem of gerrymandering itself, as laid out by Kuniholm. Tomorrow, I'll get into the bi-partisan legislative fix proposed by Boscola and Parker. Thursday, I'll tell you what wizened reformer Barry Kauffman thinks about the problem. Friday, I'll finish with what our local legislators are doing, or more accurately, not doing.

Over 100 people crowded into a hot church basement

Every time there's a poll of Pennsylvania voters, the issue that bothers them the most is school district funding. Most people think the state should contribute more, and less money should be coming out of their pockets in the form of increased property taxes. They want a fairer way to fund schools, and one that keeps seniors on fixed incomes in their homes. And of course, there has been a rash of bills over the years to change the way schools are funded.  Lisa Boscola herself has for years been a champion of property tax reform. But it always fails. It will continue to fail, too. That's because legislators no longer serve you. 

Though gerrymandering has existed since the 1800's, there was a big change in the 2012 election cycle. "Something went crazy," says Kuniholm. 

First, a new mapping technology called Maptitude provides locations of candidates and incumbents, census information, economic information and precinct-by-precinct reports of election results in previous elections. It's just the thing to have to draw a district so that a preferred candidate wins.         

Second, technology and computing power has made for a vast increase in data mining capabilities over the past ten years that Kuniholm calls the "difference between a horse and buggy and a rocket ship."

The third big change is money. In the wake of Citizens United, hybrid Super PACs have provided a huge infusion of undisclosed outside money that is then used to win elections. It can't be traced. 

Both parties have these hybrid SuperPACs.

RedMap2010

Pa. League of Women Voters Carol Kuniholm

For Republicans, it is RedMap2010, which dumped $30 million into state races to affect the redistricting, with the ultimate goal being control of the US Congress through reapportionment.  

Republicans admit this. They were able to buy Pennsylvania for just a little under $1 million in 2010, despite having fewer votes than Democrats. Here's what they themselves say:

"[T]he RSLC [Republican State leadership Committee] spent nearly $1 million in Pennsylvania House races in 2010 – an expenditure that helped provide the GOP with majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Combined with former Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett’s victory in the gubernatorial race, Republicans took control of the state legislative and congressional redistricting process. The impact of this investment at the state level in 2010 is evident when examining the results of the 2012 election: Pennsylvanians reelected a Democratic U.S. Senator by nearly nine points and reelected President Obama by more than five points, but at the same time they added to the Republican ranks in the State House and returned a 13-5 Republican majority to the U.S. House." 

Things went so well that Republicans are raising $125 million for the 2020 redistricting, four times what they spent in 2010. 

By winning control of the state legislature, they were able to insure a nearly three to one advantage in Congress, despite having less numbers 

Advantage 2020

Before you get too upset at those evil Republicans, I have to tell you Democrats are now doing the same thing with a hybrid SuperPAC called Advantage 2020. They are focused on Pennsylvania, and have the 6th Pa. Congressional District featured on their homepage. This SuperPAC blasts the gerrymandering done by the GOP, but that's precisely what they want to do, too. 

Kuniholm failed to say how much money Democrats intend to raise, but it has to be substantial. 

The money spent by both parties has nothing to do with you. It is all about flipping districts to win control of the state legislature and, ultimately, Congress. He who controls the state legislature, controls redistricting. He who controls redistricting controls Congress. 

International groups on both sides contribute to these SuperPACS, so far all we know, China are Russia could be buying the Democrat or Republican Party

Focus is Winning and Control, Not Effective Governance 

This enhanced gerrymandering has resulted in a significant change in state government. The focus is winning and control instead of effective governance. Legislators who rebel and want to work for the common good end up being targeted or ignored.  

The political agenda is no longer what is right for the people, but is instead held hostage to outside moneyed influence. "That money that's pouring in is much more than what is being raised locally by the legislators," said Kuniholm. "There's a lot of research that shows that once that outside money comes into an election, the loyalty of those who are elected has shifted. They are no longer loyal to the constituents, who did not put them in office. They are loyal to the outside interests that put them in office."

At the same time, the extremes within the party of a safe district become the norm, leading to disaffection by everyone else. So nationally, 43% of Americans refuse to declare themselves with either party. In Pa, only 13% are independent, but that is only because primaries are closed.

"There's basically no effective choice," noted Kuniholm. To drive that point home, she said that 86% of our state incumbents had no primary challengers this year. For the general, 57% have no opposition.

"How do you vote them out if nobody's running against them?" she asked.

Coming Up: On Wednesday, I will bring you a bi-partisan legislative fix proposed by Senator Boscola and Representative Parker. On Thursday, I’ll tell you what Barry Kauffman thinks you can do. Friday, I'll report where LV legislators stand (or hide). 

Northampton County For Sale?

I hate pay-to-play. Ironically, in Congressional or statewide races, where mounds of money are needed, it's hard for Big Oil or Big Whatever to buy a pol. But on a local level, a little bit can go a long way, and it does.

In my latest Patch column, I tell you what I've learned from a review of the latest campaign finance reports:

♦ Developer Lewis Ronca, who is still shopping for a TIF tax break at Martin Tower, lined the campaign treasuries of Bethlehem City Council Prez Bob Donchez ($500) and Finance Committee Chair J. Willie Reynolds ($470). They're both up for re-election this year.

♦ Northampton County DA John Morganeli, up for re-election this year, raked in $87,874.37 last year. He accepted lots of $250 assessments from defense lawyers who might want to negotiate a plea or ARD. He took a whopping $20,000 from Baltimore asbestos lawyer Peter G. Angelos. Morganelli employs Sandra McClure, whose husband works at the Angelos firm.

♦ Ron Angle took $500 from Eckert Seamans, the law firm negotiating Gracedale's sale. He's up for re-election, too.

♦ Ron Angle also accepted $2,000 from Ramzi Haddad, whose business partner is Abe Atiyeh. Atiyeh is currently negotiating terms for a treatment center in West Easton.

♦ Controller Steve Barron took $500 from Ken Kraft's IUPAT, and then spoke in favor of keeping Gracedale in County hands at an elections commission meeting chaired by Kraft. Barron, like the other I mentioned, is running for re-election.

I had a long conversation about this with Angle last week. He at one time hated pay to play as much as I do, but claims that if you fund a race yourself, you just open yourself up to the charge that you're buying elections. He adds that if you only accept small donations, someone else will come in and kick your ass.

You all know I think very highly of Ron Angle. Donchez, Morganelli and Reynolds all have integrity. But when you accept money from people who deal with you in your official capacity, aren't you asking for trouble?

In Ron's case particularly, he will be accused of having sold out for $500.

How do we change this? Clean elections laws?

Simmons & Orloski: Carpe Per Diems?

It's $163. It's called per diem, the amount of money a state legislator can get every day whenever the House or Senate is in session, even weekends. It's $1,100 per week on top of a $78,314.66 annual salary. In June, a statewide investigating Grand Jury recommended that the practice be eliminated, or at a minimum, reduced to actual expenses incurred.

Republican House candidate Justin Simmons and Democrat Senate candidate Rock Orloski are on the same page here. On his campaign web page, Simmons has vowed to refuse any per diem money. Orloski has made the same pledge. Here's how Orloski explains it.

"Senator Pat Browne has a secret piggy ban funded by the taxpayers: per diems. A per diem is nothing more than a back-door pay raise which State Senators can collect, upon request. A State Senator does not automatically get a per diem. The Senator must ask for it. State Senators are not a shy bunch. Between December 2007 and October 2009, State Senators made 5,560 requests for per diems, costing taxpayers $774,700.00. Senator Browne made 155 request for per diems in 2008-2009, putting $17,300.00 in his pocket on top of his salary.

"Senator Andy Dinniman (Demo - 19th district) and Senator Richard Alloway (Rep - 33rd district) have tried to end the practice. So far, their bipartisan effort has failed. Senator Browne will not support them.

"I have repeatedly asked Senator Browne to release his 2010 per diems. On February 1, 2010, the Senator's wife, Heather Browne, became a registered lobbyist with Pugliese Associates, a rich and powerful Harrisburg lobbying form with strong connections with Republican legislators, particularly former Speaker of the House John Perzel. It is no secret that registered lobbyist with Pugliese are provided expense accounts for wining and dining legislators. There are even unconfirmed reports that Pugliese provides apartments for their out-of-town lobbyists, for use while they are in Harrisburg.

"If there was ever a State Senator who did not need per diems for coming to work in Harrisburg, it is a State Senator who is married to a lobbyist with an expense account and a free apartment. Hence, it occurred to me that it was within the realm of possibility that Senator Browne ceased requesting per diems after his wife joined Pugliese Associates. I asked him anyway, half expecting the answer to be NONE. Senator Browne ignored the question. I went to the Clerk of the Senate. He gave me the answer.

"So far, in calendar year 2010, Senator Browne made 50 separate per diem requests for a total of $6,361.00 with the first "processed date" occurring eight days after Heather Browne became a registered lobbyist. January, 2010 processed requests are not included.

"Incomplete records for 2008 thru October, 2010 show that Senator Browne has received at least $23,661.00 in per diems during that period of time. (November and December 2009 and January 2010 per diems were not available).

"I am reminded by a famous observation by Gilbert Keith Chesterton about similar public officials: 'The horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives and policeman, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (some of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it.'

"Pat Browne has been a State Legislator a long time ... really, too long. The salary. The per diems. The lobbyist salary for the wife. The business expense account for the wife. Pat Browne simply got used to it."

"Declaration of Democratic Principals(?)" Unveiled by Senate Candidates Today

So around 10 AM today, a bunch of Democratic state senate candidates will solemnly gather at Harrisburg's capitol steps and announce what a news release actually calls a "Declaration of Democratic Principals[sic]."

They claim their Declaration will detail "commitments to jobs, education, reform, transportation and the unalienable rights of every Pennsylvanian citizen."

How about a commitment to learn the difference between "principle" and "principal"?

Democrats are in control of the House. It seems that no matter what the party, the chief commitment of these legislators is to themselves. Pennsylvania's 233 legislators have a support staff of nearly 3,000, although some staffers claim it's really lower. 182 of these employees make more than their bosses ($78,314), and they all get to participate in a defined benefit pension plan.

I'm not seeing much movement from either party to do anything about this bloated staff.

Orloski Challenges Browne to Abolish Per Diems

Allentown attorney Rick Orloski, who has his eyes on the seat currently held by State Senator Pat Browne, has challenged the incumbent to join him in seeking to abolish per diem payments made to state legislators. Here's a copy of Orloski's open letter to Browne:

Dear Senator Browne:

On June 16, 2010, Senator Andy Dinniman (D, 19th) and Sen Richard Alloway (R, 33) have introduced legislation to eliminate per diems for State Senators. Per diems have been used as a mechanism for State Senators to increase their annual salary by asking for an unaccounted daily increase currently up to $169.00 for showing up to work.

Between December, 2007 and October, 2009, State Senators paid themselves $774,700.00 in per diems. Later figures are not currently available.. That amount involves 5,560 separate transactions.During that same time, you charged the taxpayers for 155 separate per diem transactions totaling $17,300.00. That is money you charged the Commonwealth on top of your legislator's salary.

The abolition of the per diem system is something that you and I should be able to agree upon so that it will not be an issue in the November election. I hereby request that you disclose to the taxpayers the total amount of per diems that you have received first as a member of the House of Representatives and thereafter as a State Senator. That information ought to be in the public domain. Please facilitate the disclosure.

In addition, I ask on behalf of the taxpayers of the 16th senatorial district that you join with Dinniman & Alloway in mandating the end of the per diem system in the State Senate. I have read reports that there is a handful of State Senators joining with them, but I could not find anything suggesting that you are one of them.

Finally, as a demonstration of your real commitment to saving taxpayers money, I request that you should refuse to participate in the per diem system and not take any further per diems.

If I missed your press release announcing your support for Dinniman-Alloway, my congratulations. As Senator Dinniman said: "I refused to take per diems because I thought they were wrong. I believe one way you can create change is by refusing to participate in what you feel is wrong." Stop the illegal de facto pay raises using per diems. You should not be paid extra for showing up to work.

Fighting for the taxpayers,
Richard J. Orloski
Democratic nominee, 16th senatorial district
Allentown, PA 18104

Is It Time For "Resign-to-Run" Law in Pa?

Tom Corbett might have a problem with that. And Don Onorato. And Jack Wagner. And John Callahan. And so on.

LV State Legislators Skip the Cola

Lehigh Valley Democrats and Republicans are both skipping the cola this year. I'm not talking about that caffeine-enriched health food loved by one and all, but the annual cost of living adjustment paid to state legislators as regularly as night follows day.

State Democratic leaders were the first to forego this 2.8% automatic payraise. They claimed to be "leading by example," just like they did with Bonusgate. Republicans, miffed that they didn't think of this first, at first called this maneuver a "political ploy," which seems accurate to me. Then they figured out a way to make themselves look good, too. Not only would they reject COLAs, but they'd even introduce legislation to suspend them completely. If this continues, legislators will soon be entirely dependent on lobbyists.

How about the folks in the pits? Specifically, how about that Lehigh Valley delegation to the state house and senate? Well, thanks to Capitol Ideas' John "Is today Friday?" Micek, who had his hounds chase down 19 of twenty legislators in an 8-county region, we know they'll all be sippin' on root beer instead of cola.

This includes Karen Beyer, R-Lehigh; Joe Brennan, D-Northampton; Craig Dally, R-Northampton; Bob Freeman, D-Northampton; Rich Grucela, D-Northampton; Julie Harhart, R-Lehigh; Jennifer Mann, D-Lehigh; Douglas Reichley, R-Lehigh; Steve Samuelson, D-Northampton; Lisa Boscola, D-Northampton; Pat Browne, R-Lehigh; and Robert C. Wonderling, R-Northampton & Montgomery.

Some legislators will contribute their COLA increases to financially-strapped human services in Lehigh and Northampton County. Throughout the state, counties have been shortchanged this year. Not a good year for Children & Youth.

Ho. Ho. Ho.

Grucela: Senate? We Don't Need no Steenkin' Senate

“Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” George Washington asked. “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” Washington declared, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

That's how our first (and perhaps greatest) President simply explained, to a genius, the need for a senate. Pa. State Rep. Richard Grucela (D) wants to take that saucer away.

According to a report that first appeared at Blue Coyote, Grucela has proposed eliminating the senate.

Poof!

In a news release, Rich sees "no reason to have two chambers representing the same people doing the same thing." I guess he never met Washington.

His Bill has 24 sponsors, but no fellow legislators from the Lehigh Valley.

Campaign Finance Reform Dying Slow Death in Northampton County

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

That T.S. Eliot verse sums up the fate of campaign finance reform in Northampton County. It's dying, not with a bang but a whimper. Last night, County Council referred the reform package to Lamont McClure's "law and order" committee, where it will never see the light of day.

Charles Dertinger worried that some "little citizen group" might actually get together and challenge campaign finances, keeping a candidate in court instead of letting him campaign. "This is over the top," he concluded.

"Is this really a problem?" asked Lamont McClure, who snarked Philly's campaign finance law as a "scheme."

Wayne Grube wanted to kill it on the spot. "I ran five campaigns. Nobody had to look over my shoulder. ... I don't know anybody lately who's gone to jail. I don't want somebody running my campaign. I'll run it the way I want to."

My hope was to start off small, with online disclosure, and see how that went. But with Chairman Lamont running the show, this proposal is dead. His boss, who has dropped whopping $210,000 on the Guv', would like to see Mrs. Lamont appointed as a county judge. Lamont knows pay to play quite well, and it's little wonder he would characterize the much-0needed reform in Philly as a "scheme."

Norco Council Continues to Ponder Campaign Finance Reform

Pennsylvania is one of only twelve states with no limits on campaign dough for pols. So Politico Mike Fleck can brazenly defend a $1,500 campaign contribution from the city's own financial advisor, Concord Public Finance. "If you disagree with that reform the system because 90% of the pols. in the Valley do that."

In Northampton County, part-time public defenders and other patronage employees were regularly assessed $1,000 per year under former county executive Glenn Reibman. Many major campaign contributors just happened to have county contracts. This culture of corruption, in which one hand washes the other, hurts those financially unable to play the game. Locally, developers and big businesses end up making the real decisions, while local voters are ignored. Ridiculous "riverwalks" or "Renaissance squares" are proposed, and the public often ends up footing part of the bill. Taxes go up and wages are frozen.

County executive John Stoffa is despised by wheelers and dealers who attempted to bankroll his campaign and the hacks looking for a "do nothing job." But that's why he was elected. Hopefully, he will decide to seek re-election because there's still plenty of weeds and some sit on Northampton County Council.

Since February, Northampton County Council has been considering campaign finance reform. Tonight, it will consider an ordinance introduced by Council members John Cusick and Rev. Mike Dowd, based on a similar measure vetoed in Pittsburgh.

I doubt there are five votes for campaign finance reform in Northampton County. That should scare the hell out of voters.

Campaign Finance Reform DOA in Pittsburgh

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.

Samuelson Seeks End to Gerrymandering

HARRISBURG, May 7 – State Rep. Steve Samuelson, D-Northampton/Lehigh, today introduced new redistricting reform legislation that would create a more fair and open process for legislative reapportionment.

House Bill 2420, which was developed with the assistance of the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters and Common Cause of Pennsylvania, is co-sponsored by 90 state representatives, 50 Democrats and 40 Republicans.

Of the Lehigh Valley's ten state house members, sponsors include Karen Beyer, Jenn Mann, Joe Brennan, Steve Samuelson, Bob Freeman, Rich Grucela, Craig Dally, Julie Harhart and Carl Mantz. Only Doug Reichley's name is missing

“Our goal is to take the politics out of the redistricting process,” Samuelson said. “Changing the way districts are drawn in Pennsylvania to an open and nonpartisan process is a long-term reform that has lasting impact on our democracy. Our current process could be described as gerrymandering. We need fundamental change. We need to open up the process and put redistricting in the hands of a non-partisan entity.”

Under this bill, Samuelson said transparency and openness will be the hallmarks of the redistricting process with data available online and opportunities for public input.

“Under our current method of redistricting, townships are traded, districts take on unimaginable shapes and communities are split up,” Samuelson said. “Politics is at the center of the current process and the people need to take it back.”

The bill would require that redistricting of Pennsylvania’s Legislative and Congressional Districts be conducted by the Legislative Reference Bureau. The preliminary plan developed by the LRB would be open for public comment at a series of five public hearings around the state. The hearings would be conducted by a bipartisan redistricting commission, the function of which is advisory only. Based upon the public input that is received, the LRB would develop a revised plan, which would go to the General Assembly for a vote. If the revised plan is rejected by either the House or the Senate, the LRB would develop a final plan and re-submit it to the legislature for a vote. The plans would not be amendable by the legislature.

“The Legislative Reference Bureau has a reputation for fairness and nonpartisanship,” Samuelson said. “The proposed three-step process would provide for meaningful public input, and also guarantees that the ultimate redistricting plan will be the work product of a nonpartisan body rather than party leaders in the House and Senate.”

Samuelson said this reform movement has been gaining strength over the years, and that this new legislation combines the best of the past several proposals put before the House.

“In 2002, a similar bill had 25 co-sponsors,” Samuelson said. “In 2006, another bill had 38 co-sponsors. We have 90 co-sponsors on this bill. It is time this legislation moves forward, and I’m confident it has the momentum to do so.

“The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania has made redistricting reform its top legislative priority, and I am encouraged by grassroots interest in changing the system,” Samuelson said. “A forum last Saturday in Monroe County drew 75 citizens for a discussion of redistricting reform.”

House Bill 2420 has been referred to the House State Government Committee.

Ron Angle's Finance Committee to Consider Norco Campaign Finance Reform

The state supremes, by a 5-2 decision, has upheld Philly's new campaign finance ordinance. That ordinance, adopted to combat the "pay to play" atmosphere increasingly apparent in local politics, has been praised by Philly's Committee of Seventy. "[A] real limit to the buying and selling of influence made a huge impact on the election."

This decision, which you can read here, applies to any home rule municipality.

Let's face it. Our campaign finance laws are a joke. They enable fat cats like Louis DeNaples to drop $1 million on political candidates, including judges and the Attorney General. And nobody bats an eye when he's awarded a casino license.

Wheee!

It's legal bribery. Pennsylvania is one of only twelve states that place no limits on campaign dough for pols. Do you honestly think, for even one second, that incumbents in the land of midnight payraises really intend to do anything to fix that?

In Pittsburgh, campaign finance reform was proposed almost immediately after the supremes' latest hit was released. In Bethlehem, council member J. Michael Schweder is the first LV legislator to propose contribution limits on Bethlehem candidates. He even wants finance reports made available for public inspection at city hall.

Since we will soon be besieged by a casino, and organized crime is never far behind. It's time for LV limits.

Northampton and Lehigh Counties and their three cities - Bethlehem, Allentown and Easton - are all home rule municipalities. The chair of Northampton County's finance committee, Ron Angle, is expected to consider local campaign finance reform today.

After Schweder, Ron is number two.

Everyone knows that.

Bethlehem's Schweder is First to Propose Campaign Finance Reform in Lehigh Valley

Earlier this month, I told you that the state supremes' have upheld Philly's new campaign finance ordinance, designed to combat the "pay to play" atmosphere so prevalent in local politics.

Don't think that happens here? Look no farther than Easton, where politician Mike Fleck brazenly defends a $1,500 campaign contribution from the city's own financial advisor, Concord Public Finance. "If you disagree with that reform the system because 90% of the pols. in the Valley do that."

Fleck also thinks it's perfectly OK that the city's financial advisor treat the entire city council (and their families) to baseball games (although he claims it's only the Reading Phillies), but refuses to name the council members involved. "I am not going to expose people to your anal probe for a family friendly Father's Day outing that they threw for most of their clients."

Fortunately for us, the supremes' edict applies to any municipality governed by a home rule charter. In the Lehigh Valley, that includes both Northampton and Lehigh Counties as well as the three cities - Bethlehem, Allentown and Easton. Instead of waiting for reform from the land of midnight payraises - hell will freeze over before that happens - we can simply adopt our own fleckin' campaign finance laws. Zack Stalberg, president of the Committee of Seventy, a Philly watchdog group, explains why. "It's clearly changed the landscape already, in the sense that the big donors - the corporations or law firms or unions with big political action committees - are already finding themselves with less clout."

I am delighted to read that Bethlehem council member J. Michael Schweder has taken the initiative to propose contribution limits on candidates seeking office in Bethlehem. He even wants finance reports made available for public inspection at city hall. The Express Times summarizes his proposal here.

In September, I suggested that both counties post locally filed campaign finance reports online. How hard is that? If I could post reports filed by county council candidates here, couldn't the two largest governments in the Lehigh Valley make these reports available as well? I believe both counties are looking into this possibility.

Update: Bethlehem PA Politics (Young Republican), calling Schweder a "hypocit," perceives this as an attack against Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan and Bethlehem Controller Meg Holland. "Schweder needs to get a life and start doing GOOD things for the city rather than causing problems!" Isn't campaign finance reform a good thing? Isn't is overdue?
Update #2: A bill similar to Scwhweder's proposal is being considered in Pittsburgh.

State Supremes to Local Government: Adopt Your Own Campaign Finance Laws

Between Christmas and New Year, while most of us were glued to bowl games, the state supremes published their long-awaited 5-2 decision upholding Philly's new campaign finance ordinance. That ordinance was adopted to combat the "pay to play" atmosphere increasingly apparent in local politics. Handed down on December 28, a Friday, the High Court waited until Sunday to let the word slip out, in effect trying to manage both news and our state constitution.

Justice Max Baer, who penned this 26 page decision (you can read it here), simply decided that the state legislature lacks exclusive jurisdiction, when it comes to elections finance, over home rule municipal ties like Philly. Philadelphia's right to govern itself is limited only "by its home rule charter, the Pennsylvania Constitution and General Assembly." At another point in his opinion, Baer writes, "We cannot stress enough that a home rule municipality's exercise of its local authority is not to be lightly intruded upon, with ambiguities regarding such authority resolved in favor of the municipality."

In a very brief dissent, outgoing Chief Justice Ralph Cappy (joined by Fitzgerald, J.) complains this decision will lead to a "'balkanization of the Election Code,' since any municipality will be free to adopt its own campaign financing regulations." Not quite. The only municipalities entitled to adopt their own campaign finance laws are those governed by a home rule charter.

The Morning Call argues it's time for the state legislature to step in and adopt its own campaign finance measures. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. You'd have to be as crazy as bedbugs if you think the land of midnight payraises is suddenly going to get religion.

Northampton and Lehigh Counties each have their very own home rule charters. So do Bethlehem, Allentown and Easton. Instead of waiting for hell to freeze over, these municipalities can simply adopt their own campaign finance laws. Zack Stalberg, president of the Committee of Seventy, a Philly watchdog group, explains why. "It's clearly changed the landscape already, in the sense that the big donors - the corporations or law firms or unions with big political action committees - are already finding themselves with less clout."

Thanks to Philly, Lehigh Valley's home rule municipalities even have a working model - the Philly ordinance. That legislation imposes not just limits on individual contributions, but imposes a cap on spending in each race. For example, no more than $2 million may be spent in a mayoral contest.

Will any of these local Lehigh Valley governments be interested? We are more likely to have success here than in Harrisburg, but I still won't hold my breath.

Local Campaign Finance Reports Should be Available Online

Candidates running for federal office are required to file quarterly financial reports, and these are available online for inspection. Similarly, pols seeking state office or a judgeship must file campaign finance reports in Harrisburg, and those are eventually accessible over the Internet, too.

But what about candidates seeking local office? Sure, they're required to list their campaign donors and expenses with the local elections office, but who bothers to scrutinize them? Aside from a few reporters and opposing candidates, nobody.

As a result, very few of us know the very deep connection between local pols and money. In a recent Easton city council race, for example, candidate Jeff Warren spent $14.90 for each vote cast in his direction. As State Senator Lisa Boscola's chief legislative assistant, Jeff raised $12,385 between the beginning of the year and the end of April. That's a lot more than mayoral candidates Fleck($8,424) or Panto($7,365). He picked up $3,300 from representatives of Ashley Development, and another $2,000 from other developers. He reports $4,450 in donations between $50 and $250, but only $300 of this sum actually comes from Easton residents. Outsiders and developers just don't give this kind of money unless they're looking for something.

Follow the money, they say.

But that's hard to do when you don't get much of an opportunity to look at finance reports. Most of us are at work when those reports are available.

That's why I'm suggesting that both Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningham and Northampton County Executive John Stoffa order their staffs to make these reports available online. Earlier this week, Northampton County began posting bench warrants for deadbeat parents online. Both counties are using the Internet to bring government closer to the people.

Posting finance reports online serves the same goal, and also creates more interest in the local electoral process, enabling the voter to make a more informed decision.

I'm sending a copy of this blog to each exec and I'll let you know what they say.

LV's Top Elected Leaders: Poll Results For All Nominees

Yesterday, I gave you the breakdown on the top ten elected officials in the Lehigh Valley, but failed to list vote totals for some nominees who missed making the cut. In fairnesss to these folks, I think I should list all the vote totals. One nomination was made after I started my poll. Marc Grammes, Lehigh County Commissioner, suggested Lehigh County row officers, whom we all tend to take for granted. And frankly, I should have nominated Marc. He has commented here from time to time, and has been a very dedicated Lehigh County Commissioner.

Here's the breakdown for all 28 nominees:

The Top Ten

#10 - State rep. Rich Grucela(16 Votes)

#9 - LC Commissioner Kurt Derr (17 Votes)

#8 - State rep. Steve Samuelson (18 Votes)

#6 - A tie between U.S. Congressman Charlie Dent and Norco Exec John Stoffa, with 21 votes each.

#5 - State rep. Craig Dally (23 Votes)

#4 - Norco Councilperson Ron Angle (24 Votes)

#3 - State rep. Joe Brennan (27 Votes)

#2 - LC Exec Don Cunningham (29 Votes)

#1 - State rep. Bob Freeman (36 Votes)

Remaining Nominees

#11 - State rep. Jenn Mann (15 Votes)

#12 - A tie between Northampton County DA John Morganelli and Nazareth Borough Councilperson Jack Herbst, with 13 votes each.

#14 - Norco Council Prez Wayne Grube (11 Votes)

#15 - Norco Councilperson Charles Dertinger (10 Votes)

#16 - Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski (9 Votes)

#17 - Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan (8 Votes)

#18 - Emmaus Councilperson Joyce Marin (6 Votes)

#19 - Norco Councilperson Mike Dowd (5 Votes)

#20 - Emmaus Councilperson Wes Barrett and South Whitehall Commissioner Brad Osborne tied with 4 votes each.

#22 - Southern Lehigh School Director Bill Miracle and Allentown City Councilman Julio Guridy tied with 2 Votes apiece.

#24 - Bethlehem School Director Judy Dexter, Norco Councilperson Diane Neiper, and Southern Lehigh School Director Bill Eddinger had one vote apiece.

#27 - Bethlehem City Council member Jean Belinski and Kutztown Mayor Sandy Green, though nominated, captured no votes.

LV's Top Ten Elected Officials: "The People Have Spoken"

"The people have spoken. ... F--- them."

Those were my dad's words, live, to a radio broadcaster upon learning he had lost his bid for re-election as Northampton County DA. The year was 1969.

And you think I'm irreverent?

Well, the people of the blogosphere have spoken, too. They've selected the top ten elected officials in the Lehigh Valley with 337 ballots spread out among twenty-eight nominees. Voters were asked to select leaders who make government both transparent and accountable.

Here's the breakdown.

#10 - State rep. Rich Grucela(16 Votes)

#9 - LC Commissioner Kurt Derr (17 Votes)

#8 - State rep. Steve Samuelson (18 Votes)

#6 - A tie between U.S. Congressman Charlie Dent and Norco Exec John Stoffa, with 21 votes each.

#5 - State rep. Craig Dally (23 Votes)

#4 - Norco Councilperson Ron Angle (24 Votes)

#3 - State rep. Joe Brennan (27 Votes)

#2 - LC Exec Don Cunningham (29 Votes)

#1 - State rep. Bob Freeman (36 Votes)

The biggest surprise to me, is to see the left-leaning blogosphere include both Charlie Dent and Ron Angle in its top ten. Charlie Dent, one of the last people nominated, was buried at the bottom of my poll, yet still came out in the top ten. Ron probably paid a few servants to buy computers and vote for him.

But reform-oriented Bob Freeman is no surprise to anyone.