Thanks to Wendy for bringing up the state's latest affront to good government, transparency and home rule.
If anyone's interested, here's a link to the text of the bill which includes the names of all of the co-sponsors. I may as well make them known here:
INTRODUCED BY YOUNGBLOOD, COHEN, CRUZ, THOMAS, SABATINA, McGEEHAN, MANDERINO, PARKER, BLACKWELL, W. KELLER, JAMES, ROEBUCK, BISHOP, WATERS, DONATUCCI, KENNEY, MYERS, M. O'BRIEN, OLIVER, PAYTON, J. TAYLOR AND WILLIAMS.
How ridiculous is it that on this issue, of all things, the city's state reps come together (including Republicans) and get the support of every state representative (except for my new hero, Steve Samuelson of Lehigh/Northampton Counties).
Now, to Rep. Vitali's point that he was duped. You'll note the link above is the final version of the bill as it was when it the votes were cast on July 3. There appear to have been three versions of the bill. By looking at the changes made between that the original version and the final version, we may get a sense of what the Philly state reps. are trying to accomplish:
Here's version one:
Campaign Report Format.--No city of the first class shall require any committee for a candidate for office of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or a committee of a party organization representing a ward in the City of Philadelphia, to file campaign reports in an electronic format instead of a paper format. (emphasis mine)
Oops. As read, this would seem to cover only those seeking election as state representatives, state senators, governor, etc or ward committees that raise money and contribute to candidates. It almost makes sense given that I have no faith in any of the city's state house delegation to have people who can figure out how to use a computer. Since most of these folks are also ward leaders, it makes sense that they'd want to relieve their friends, relatives and well-wishers who volunteer as ward treasurers of the whole typing burden. But I don't think that's what they were looking for, nor does it cover other folks who may have found electronic filing to be especially... burdensome. So we get version two:
Section 18.1. Campaign Report Format.--No city of the first
class shall require A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION TO PUBLIC OFFICE, TREASURER OF A POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR OTHER PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XVI OF THE ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, NO.320), KNOWN AS THE PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE, TO FILE COPIES OF SUCH REPORTS WITH THE CITY in an electronic format instead of a paper format.
Ah, ok. So now that we've rephrased it to "candidate for public office" and thrown in that reference to the Pennsylvania Election Code (which I won't bother to look up), I'm guessing we now cover municipal and county offices as well - mayor, city council, city controller, district attorney, and all the row offices. Hmmm... do we remember any candidates for mayor or council who seemed to have problems with the electronic filing requirement? That may be a place to go to look for the answer to the point brought up by Ethics Board Chairman Richard Glazer in the Inquirer story:
"It's such a step backward... Maybe there is some reason beyond the obvious conclusion that someone negatively impacted by this wants to do away with it."
If there was, he said, he didn't know about it.
But in this version, it's still pretty obvious that the object of scorn was the electronic filing requirement so the latest version of the bill was changed to this:
Section 18.1. Campaign REPORTS.--No city of the first class shall require a candidate for election to public office, treasurer of a political committee or other person, who is required to file reports with the Secretary of the Commonwealth OR THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS pursuant to Article XVI of the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), known as the Pennsylvania Election Code, to file copies of such reports with ANY OTHER OFFICE OF A COUNTY OR CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS.
Hence, St. Rep. Vitali's difficulty. Now, there's no mention of the electronic filing (of course, the link to the third version shows with strikethroughs that it was in there before). If state reps only see that final version or, even better, if they don't even read it but depend on what they're told about it, then it's possible to construe this change as meaning that Philadelphia's (the only city of the first class in the state) elected officials wouldn't have to file their reports with two different agencies. The catch is, the state does not require campaign finance reports to be filed in a searchable, electronic format. So by making it so that all candidates for public office, only have to file with the state, they made it so that those candidates wouldn't have to file electronically - unless, of course, the state starts to require that, but what's the likelihood of that?
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for the conversations that led to the final version of this bill. With only these three versions to go on, as well as basic reading skills, it seems like an intentional attempt to put one by everyone. Did they learn nothing from the pay raise thing? I guess since none of the Philly state reps were affected by the pay raise, the answer is no.
Whaddya think? Will this be allowed to stand? Can people in Philly be mobilized to tell their state reps/ward leaders to suck it up and learn how to use a computer?
Comments (5)
Probably will stand. During the pay raise storm, the Philly voters pretty much yawned, so getting them mobilized against the machine will be next to impossible. They will continue to vote the way their union, church or ward leader tells them to and then bitch about how their government doesn't do enough. This city will remain in the sorry state it is until this kind of action is front page news every day and the INQY goes after the story the way it used to in the Pulitzer days. Many of us had hoped that Tierney and Co. would turn the reporters loose to get back to that kind of reporting, doesn't seem that way. Keep after it Dan, but you are running uphill.
Posted by jimmymack | July 6, 2007 5:25 PM
jimmymack, did you actually say: "...the INQY goes after the story the way it used to in the Pulitzer days. Many of us had hoped that Tierney and Co. would turn the reporters loose to get back to that kind of reporting"? That is, as a Philadelphian, are you really that unfamiliar with who Tierney is? For if you were even somewhat remotely familiar with who he is, what he's done in the past to certain reporters, you would never have had that kind of expectation of him. And Tierney is only where he is today because it's a written-off newspaper at this late stage in a written-off city. And unless the Pulitzer Foundation is up for bribes, you can forget any more Pulitzer Prize winning journalism coming out of the Inquirer. Unless by chance a competing Philadelphia newspaper emerges, Philadelphia's glory days of accurate journalism are behind it. And Tierney's pretty much the Grim Reeper in that respect. As a Philadelphian I'm astonished you didn't know that.
Posted by Steve W. | July 7, 2007 3:20 AM
I am hoping that Philly voters do get insensed about this. After all they directly approved the current local campaign finance reforms this bill seeks to undermine less than a year ago. Beyond that the author of those campaign finance laws. Michael Nutter, won the primary handily and heavilyt favored to be the next mayor of Philadlelphia.
I think that when Philly's own state legislators go out of thier way to directly attack a law the voters just approved themselves and whose author they are likely to vote in as Mayor - well I am hoping there will be a little bit of consequence to those state legislators.
BTW there is some lively bashing of one of this bills supporters Rep. Mark Cohen going on here and here.
Please feel free to join in.
Posted by seand | July 7, 2007 6:46 PM
Tierney bought the Titanic just as it reached the point where it can't steer out of the way of the iceberg. Newspaper publishers have gone out of their way to piss off at least half of their potential readership by pushing their political agendas for years. Now, they are shocked that those same people don't choose to read them. Classic liberal marketing plan...
Posted by Anonymous | July 7, 2007 11:13 PM
You put that so excellently! While let it be said that Tierney's actions against the Inquirer before it reached that pointly is precisely what brought it to that point. For those who don't know, Brian Tierney, serving as the P/R frontman for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, did not want a certain Inquirer reporter reporting on the acquisition of Cardinal Anthony Bevilaqua's posh retirement home out on the Main Line, which coincided when many Catholic churches were being forced to fold due to lack of funding, that is, funding taken in by these very churches from their congregants. The reporter, feeling that Philadelphians had a right to know about this, refused to go silent. So Tierney brought a whopping lawsuit against the Inquirer to have him fired. And God knows how, given the First Amendment protection that's supposed to be in place and enforced in cases such as this, but Tierney succeeded. And that reporter, who was neither liberal nor conservative, was simply doing his job of what reporters are supposed to do. And now he's history, and Tierney's the new head of the Inquirer. That is, can we draw a line from Point A through Point B to extrapolate what Point C will be? For yes, I would say the word "iceberg" sums it up very well, and a major reason why the Philly population is at an all time low right now.
Posted by Steve W. | July 9, 2007 1:01 AM