News
January 08, 2008
City may limit campaign donations
State Supreme Court ruling clears the way
Monday, January 07, 2008
By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
One-quarter of Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's campaign money came in checks of $10,000 or more.
His sometime rival, Councilman William Peduto, got a campaign check for $50,000.
Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato faced little opposition for re-election, and built a $1.9 million war chest that could be ammo in a run for governor.
Some say those are signs of a campaign finance system run amok.
Reformers recently learned that they might be able to do something about it. The state Supreme Court on Dec. 28 ruled that a Philadelphia campaign finance ordinance that limits contributions doesn't violate state law, in effect allowing other municipalities to do the same.
Now Mr. Peduto has drafted legislation like Philadelphia's, putting a cap on contributions, as he tried to do in 2004. Mr. Ravenstahl said he's also looking at other reforms, like posting contribution information online.
The Supreme Court's 4-2 decision paves the way for city and county campaign cash limits, said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause/Pennsylvania. He thinks contribution limits are essential "to eliminate, or at least reduce, the possibility of corrupt relationships between donors and public officials."
Pennsylvania is one of just 12 states that put no limits on campaign contributions by individuals, partnerships and political action committees. Corporations and unions can't contribute directly, but can set up PACs to do so.
Philadelphia is both a city and a county. In late 2006, its council passed and its mayor signed an ordinance limiting contributions to candidates for mayor, council and six row offices to $2,500 by individuals and $10,000 for business partnerships or PACs.
Just-elected Mayor Michael Nutter sought to have the limits enforced during his race last year. Rival candidates sued, claiming state law preempts municipalities from governing elections. The court disagreed.
Mr. Peduto said he had been waiting for the court to rule before revisiting the issue, and will propose legislation this month. His draft ordinance would limit individual contributions in city races to $2,500, and donations from PACs to $5,000.
Anyone who contributed the maximum would be barred from receiving no-bid contracts from the city.
"It would eliminate the pay-to-play system," he said.
Mr. Kauffman said the numbers proposed by Mr. Peduto seem a bit high.
"Once you start getting over $1,000, we're beginning to have doubts" about whether a contribution could influence policy, he said.
The proposed limits would have modest effect on council races, where most candidates get just one or two five-figure contributions from family or friends.
Mr. Ravenstahl worried that caps on contributions would make it harder to raise money, potentially allowing someone with personal wealth to swoop in and buy an office.
Limits could allow "an elite person, a wealthy person, the opportunity to spend countless dollars," because court decisions have said that government can't cap the use of a candidate's personal funds. Limits "would therefore put somebody that's not as wealthy, like myself or the other council members, at a disadvantage."
The Philadelphia ordinance deals with that. If any candidate pours $250,000 or more of personal wealth into a race, the other candidates can then collect contributions of double the normal limits. Mr. Peduto's legislation mirrors that, though he noted he's open to amendments.
Mr. Ravenstahl said his administration is "looking at a variety of different options ... A lot of it boils down, as far as I'm concerned, to transparency, and people just having the ability to know who's giving to whom. So we're looking at posting that information on a Web site.
"I'm not taking anything off the table," he added, including contribution limits.
Mr. Ravenstahl raised $1.15 million in 2006 and 2007. At least $299,000 of that came from 25 supporters -- including individuals and labor union PACs -- that wrote checks of $10,000 or more.
They include William Kratsa Jr., whose family firm was recently picked to build a hotel on a city-controlled South Oakland site; Jack Piatt, whose Millcraft Industries is the central player in city-backed Downtown development; and Merrill Stabile, whose Alco Parking manages some city garages and benefits from parking tax cuts.
In other cases, multiple executives from development firms with matters before the city teamed up to donate significant amounts. Owners of Walnut Capital, for instance, gave $16,000 in multiple checks while getting city help for their Bakery Square project. Executives from Boston-based Beacon/Corcoran Jennison gave $23,000 months after the mayor brokered a deal allowing expansion of its Oak Hill development in the Hill District.
"Once you get to that range of contribution, you're getting into relationships which can be tainted," said Mr. Kauffman. "That could get [donors] at least immediate access, and perhaps even preferred consideration for contracts and permits."
Mr. Peduto got the year's biggest contribution to the mayor's race -- $50,000 from William Benter, owner of Acusis Medical Transcription. After he dropped his bid, he gave $8,000 back as part of a partial refund to his big donors.
He said he didn't feel bad about taking that check.
"The person that I took the contribution from, and the businesses he owns, have no, zero, involvement with city government," Mr. Peduto said.
He also got a $10,000 contribution from Sara West, an apartment developer who has opposed some new city landlord regulations. He gave her back $1,600.
Mark DeSantis raised $430,000 in a failed Republican bid to topple Mr. Ravenstahl. Though he benefited from eight checks for $10,000, he said lower contribution limits would help challengers.
"Vendors, potential vendors, people doing business with government can give $20,000, $30,000, or even $50,000," said Mr. DeSantis, adding that the money typically goes to incumbents. "You have to put some kind of ceiling on the individual amounts. The feds did that years ago."
Federal law allows individuals to give candidates for president, the Senate and the House no more than $2,300, and PACs can donate $5,000.
Forty-five states have passed laws that, on average, limit individual contributions to gubernatorial candidates to $3,500 and to legislators at $1,500, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.
"Between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh having campaign finance reform as an agenda item, we may finally be able to get Pennsylvania to realize that we're [nearly] the only state without contribution limits, meaning the pay-to-play system is alive and well," said Mr. Peduto.
Mr. Onorato, through a spokesman, said he believes campaign finance should be regulated at the state, not county, level.
Several veteran County Council members, who considered campaign check limits a few years ago, agreed with Mr. Onorato. They worried that contribution limits would keep county officials from raising money that they could later use in races against state officials who face no limits.
"Let's say Onorato as county executive is running for governor against [state Auditor General] Jack Wagner in the [Democratic] primary," said Republican county Councilman Vince Gastgeb. "Why does Jack get to raise as much as he wants while Dan is limited? ... Reform's good. The struggle we had was the uniformity issue."
County Council President Rich Fitzgerald, a Democrat, agreed, adding that he'd ultimately like to see public financing of campaigns to eliminate the fund-raising game entirely.
Portland, Ore., Albuquerque, N.M., and New York City have instituted public financing of campaigns, said Deborah Goldberg, Democracy Program director at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
Five-figure donations to local campaigns "can't be good for the political process," she said. "It can't be good for accountability to the people. As honest as our representatives usually are, they can't help but worry about what's going to happen to the sources of the money they need for elections if they don't keep in mind the interests of the donors."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction/Clarification: (Published Jan. 8, 2008) Twelve states, including Pennsylvania, put no limits on campaign contributions by individuals, partnerships and political action committees, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The number of such states was wrong in this story as originally published Jan. 7, 2007.
Rich Lord can be reached at rlord@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542.
First published on January 7, 2008 at 12:00 am
Posted on January 8, 2008 09:50 AM | TrackBack (0)
January 05, 2008
US general damns Iraq 'nightmare'
from the BBC
Saturday, 13 October 2007, 03:33 GMT 04:33 UK
A former US military chief in Iraq has condemned the current strategy in the conflict, which he warned was "a nightmare with no end in sight".
Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labeled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".
He said they would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.
The best the US could manage under the current approach in Iraq was to "stave off defeat", Gen Sanchez warned.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said, addressing journalists at Arlington, near Washington.
'Desperate'
A catalogue of political misjudgments had paved the way for the insurgency after the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to Gen Sanchez.
He blamed the US disbanding of the Iraqi military as well as the failure to set up civilian government quickly and cement ties with tribal leaders.
The White House this year injected an extra 30,000 US troops into Iraq in the hope of stemming sectarian violence and sowing some political stability.
But Gen Sanchez branded this so-called "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of shortcomings.
"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned.
The White House responded by pointing to the report by current commander Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who said the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements.
White House spokesman Trey Bohn said: "We appreciate his (Gen Sanchez's) service to the country... As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq."
Gen Sanchez was commander of coalition forces in Iraq for a year from mid-2003.
He retired last year in the aftermath of the scandal over detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A timeline of major U.S. military and diplomatic disapproval of Bush's War
On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that “many senior U.S. military officers” including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.
A few days later, General Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary. Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.
In a 2002 book, Scott Ritter, a Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-98, argued against an invasion and expressed doubts about the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability.
Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East. The next month, General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the war on terrorism.
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, echoed many of Scowcroft's concerns in on October 2002 speech at the Middle East Institute. In a follow-up interview with Salon, Zinni said he was "not convinced we need to do this now," arguing that deposing Saddam Hussein was only the sixth or seventh top priority in the Middle East, behind the Middle East peace process, reforming Iran, our commitments in Afghanistan, and several others.
By January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.”
On February 13, 2003 Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former charge d' affaires in Baghdad, resigned from the Foreign Service and publicly questioned the need for another War in Iraq. After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled What I Didn't Find in Africa that discredited a Bush Administration claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.
John Brady Kiesling, another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27. He was followed on March 10 by John H. Brown, a career diplomat with 22 years of service, and on March 19 by Mary Ann Wright, a diplomat with 15 years of service in the State Department following a military career of 29 years. The war started the next day.
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.) was political/military desk officer at the Defense Department’s office for Near East South Asia (NESA) in the months before the war. In December 2003 she began to write an anonymous column that described the disrupting influence of the Office of Special Plans on the analysis that led to the decision to go to war.
On June 16, 2004 twenty seven former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued a statement against the war.The group included:
William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan
Joseph Hoar, former Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East
H. Allen Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
Donald McHenry, former Ambassador to the United Nations
Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff
Jack F. Matlock, Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and former Ambassador to the Soviet Union
John Reinhardt, former Director of the United States Information Agency
Ronald I. Spiers, Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs and a former Ambassador
Stansfield Turner, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Richard Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council for both the latter part of the Clinton Administration and early part of the George W. Bush Administration, criticized the Iraq war along similar lines in his 2004 book Against All Enemies and during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. In addition to diverting funds from the fight against al-Qaeda, Clarke argued that the invasion of Iraq would actually bolster the efforts of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals, who had long predicted that the U.S. planned to invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country.
In April 2006, six prominent retired generals publicly criticized Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the war, and called for his resignation. The group included two generals who commanded troops in Iraq: Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., (Ret.) and Major General John Batiste (Ret.). One of the generals, Lieut. General Greg Newbold (Ret.), who served as the Pentagon's top operations officer during the months leading up to the invasion, also published an article that month in Time Magazine entitled "Why Iraq Was a Mistake."
On September 12, 2007, two retired U.S. Army generals, Lt. General Robert Gard and Brig. General John Johns, joined Sen. Gary Hart in publishing a statement calling for withdrawal from Iraq.
In October of 2007, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, called the 2007 "surge" a "flawed strategy", and suggested that the political leadership in the US would have been court martialed for their actions, had they been military personnel.
Posted on January 5, 2008 10:20 AM | TrackBack (0)
November 05, 2007
My Two Cents on Tomorrow's Supreme Court Race
My Two Cents on Tomorrow's Supreme Court Race
Posted November 5th, 2007 by blackrobe
Next year, there will be several new faces on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Tomorrow, voters will decide who two of the new justices will be. When Chief Justice Ralph Cappy leaves the court in January, Governor Rendell (with Senate approval), will name his replacement.
For what it’s worth, here is my two cents regarding the candidates on tomorrow’s ballot:
Seamus McCaffrey – A lot of people assume that McCaffrey is a intellectual lightweight because of his working-class background, his stint as “Eagles Court” judge and his lack of law-firm experience. I must say, when he ran for Superior Court, I felt the same way.
McCaffrey, however, has done a good job as a Superior Court judge. His opinions are well-organized and well-written.
McCaffrey’s background reminds me a lot of that of former Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro. Like McCaffrey, Nigro faced questions of whether he had the intellectual chops to serve on the state’s highest court. As a justice, Nigro brought a needed real-world perspective to the court.
Any reservations I have regarding McCaffrey stem from the fact that he has refused to give full answers to questionnaires prepared by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and The Legal Intelligencer. He has also refused to participate in various candidates forums. A federal court judge has determined that state regulations governing the judicial conduct do not prohibit judicial candidates from speaking about issues or the judicial philosophies. McCaffrey therefore cannot hide behind the regulations to explain his lack of participation.
Mike Krancer – Because Krancer has not served as a judge on any trial or intermediate appellate courts in the state, I have no written record on which to base my opinion of him. Generally speaking, I don’t think serving as top judge of the Environmental Hearing Board qualifies you for a spot on the Supreme Court.
The fact that he hasn’t taken any money from trial lawyers doesn’t score any points with me. If you are related to the Annenbergs, raising money really isn’t an issue.
I am troubled by his statements that he is a strict constructionist like Antonin Scalia. Under that approach, judges refuse to look at the policy or legislative history behind a statute.
Maureen Lally-Green – I have no bones to pick with the job Lally-Green has done as a Superior Court judge. She has shown herself to be a capable, hard-working (though conservative) judge.
What really concerns me is Lally-Green’s reaction to the advertisement for her sponsored by some mystery non-profit from Virginia. Her claims of ignorance ring false. Also, why is a group from Virginia so invested in having Lally-Green get a seat on the Supreme Court? Is it her pro-business views, her endorsements from pro-life groups?
Debra Todd – Todd has done a good job as a Superior Court judge. She also strikes me as the least political – and most judicial – of the four candidates. She has clearly put a lot of thought and effort into her responses to various judicial questionnaires.
Todd was unfairly attacked for her decision holding a warrantless search of a truck unconstitutional. Judges should not be afraid to render unpopular decisions
Comments
On November 5th, 2007 Anonymous said:
McCafferty is pretty much a “law and order” judge given his military and police background, but what impressed me was one decision he rendered in the case of Philadelphia grandfather who accidently left his pre-school age granddaughter in his car where she died of heat exposure. I’m not sure these are the exact details, but they are close. After he picked her up, he went into work completely forgetting about her. By the time he realized what he’d done and went to car to get her, sadly, she was dead. The grandfather was beside himself and clearly it was an accidental death, yet the DA’s office prosecuted him anyway. The case ended up before Judge McCafferty. Now, given McCafferty’s background one might have expected him to throw the book at the defendent. Yet, Judge McCafferty ruled that the grandfather would live the rest of his life with the knowledge his actions had caused his granddaughter’s death and that was punishment enough. That showed me a real awareness of when putting someone in jail is the right thing to do and when it’s not.
reply
The Supreme Court and Legislative Reapportionment
On November 5th, 2007 Anonymous said:
For most of us, figuring out for whom to vote in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court races is about as much fun as filling out federal income tax forms. But the choices are important—because they have real world consequences.
In 2010, since Ed Rendell is constitutionally limited to two terms, Pennsylvania will elect a new governor. The decennial census will also take place in 2010. After the census, not only will the state be faced with constitutionally-mandated reapportionment, but also it will have two fewer Congressional seats. A bill for reapportionment is supposed to pass the state legislature and to be signed by the Governor. However, if the two houses of the Legislature are controlled by different parties—or if one party controls the legislature and another controls the governorship—no bill will pass, and reapportionment will be controlled by the state Supreme Court. This state has historically had a majority of Democratic voters. If anything, the Democratic registration majority is getting larger. However, a partisan Supreme Court could ignore that fact when creating new state legislative and Congressional districts. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that legislative districts must be as equal as possible in population. But there is, at present, no constitutional bar to gerrymandering. A Supreme Court controlled by Republicans could draw district boundaries which concentrate Democrats into the fewest possible districts, and could magnify GOP power. Only a federal court would be able to overrule it—and such action would be highly unlikely under existing law. Superior Court Judges Seamus McCaffery and Debra Todd have been endorsed by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Even other Republicans have denounced the scurrilous attacks on Judge Todd put out by the state GOP. GOP candidate Michael Krancer holds up U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia as his role model. Justice Scalia’s views are not the views of a majority of Pennsylvanians. An out-of-state entity which funds litigation in opposition to the ACLU and is immune from state campaign finance reporting requirements is contributing an estimated $750,000.00 to GOP Judge Lally-Green’s Supreme Court race. Why? GOP Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor is up for retention. Among his other contributions to the Commonwealth have been: his vote to uphold the state pay raise bill in 2005, taking and keeping his judicial pay raise, and voting to deny Philadelphians the chance to vote in a referendum against abuses in the casino-license granting process. A well-stated argument against Justice Saylor’s retention can be found at: www.CasinoFreePhila.org . On Tuesday, please vote for Superior Court Judges Seamus McCaffery and Debra Todd for Supreme Court, and vote NOT to retain Justice Saylor.
Posted on November 5, 2007 07:43 PM | TrackBack (0)
October 30, 2007
Council and controller: Kraus and Lamb have the skills to serve Pittsburgh
Council and controller: Kraus and Lamb have the skills to serve Pittsburgh
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Typically, there is no link between a City Council race and a campaign for city controller. One is a by-district legislative position; the other is an executive fiscal watchdog elected citywide.
Next week, however, Pittsburgh voters in council District 3 will see a connection: Libertarian Mark Rauterkus, 48, of South Side is running for both offices. He also had planned to run for other positions on the Nov. 6 ballot -- mayor, county chief executive, county councilman at-large and county councilman for District 13 -- but changed his mind.
That's about all that voters need to know about Mr. Rauterkus, a swim coach who has unsuccessfully sought other offices in previous years. Fortunately, more credible candidates have zeroed in on the City Council and city controller jobs.
In council District 3, the other contender is Bruce Kraus, 53, of South Side Flats. He wrested the Democratic nomination from incumbent Jeffrey Koch in the spring primary.
Mr. Kraus, the operator of an interior design firm, is a well-versed advocate for the district: Allentown, Arlington, Arlington Heights, Beltzhoover, Carrick, Knoxville, Mount Washington, South Oakland, South Side Flats, South Side Slopes and St. Clair Village.
He's experienced Pittsburgh both as a resident and a business owner and has been active in various neighborhood groups: the Pittsburgh Anti-Graffiti Task Force, South Side Community, South Side Chamber of Commerce and United Way Neighborhood Leadership Program.
Bruce Kraus is head and shoulders above the competition and deserves to be District 3's next councilman.
There's a similar mismatch in the controller's race, where Michael Lamb, 45, of Mount Washington is the Democratic nominee. An attorney who has served as Allegheny County prothonotary since 2000, Mr. Lamb was an early advocate of row-office reform and a force behind the county's adoption of a home rule charter.
In his own office, he's an experienced budget cutter, while at the same time raising its level of efficiency and professionalism. We can only hope he will take the same approach to examining city spending and programs as Pittsburgh's controller. Michael Lamb has earned the Post-Gazette's endorsement.
Posted on October 30, 2007 01:37 AM | TrackBack (0)
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal effort gains five new supporters in House
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal effort gains five new supporters in House
by PageOneQ
Five additional members of the US House, all Democrats, have signed on as co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007 (HR 1246) which would repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that prohibits openly gay or lesbian Americans from serving in the armed forces.
The addition of Reps. Al Green (TX), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Ron Klein (FL), Patrick J. Murphy (PA) and Mike Thompson (CA) means there are now 136 co-sponsors of the bill.
"We are enormously proud to welcome these five lawmakers to the growing coalition of Congressional Members working to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," said Aubrey Sarvis, the newly hired executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement obtained by PageOneQ.
The bill, originally sponsored by former Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) is now being shepherded through Congress by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-CA).
"With every new lawmaker who signs on we are one step closer to repealing this discriminatory policy that has been preventing otherwise qualified men and women from serving our country and contributing to the finest fighting force in the world. I thank all these new cosponsors for standing up for what’s right, and I look forward to working with them to enlist more and more of our colleagues, Tauscher said in a statement.
Singling out Iraq war veteran Congressman Patrick J, Murphy, SLDN's Sarvis said that Murphy is a respected voice on military issues and that he "will be an irreplaceable ally in our work to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. His support sends a strong message that those who know our armed forces best also understand that ending this law is the right thing to do for our military and our country."
Murphy is the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress. He is a former West Point professor and is a recipient of the Bronze Star for service.
According to SLDN, the policy "has cost American taxpayers more than $364 million. An average of two service members are dismissed under the law every day. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), nearly 800 people with skills deemed ‘mission-critical’ by the Pentagon have been dismissed under the law, including more than 322 language experts, at least 58 of whom specialized in Arabic."
On the web: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Posted on October 30, 2007 12:35 AM | TrackBack (0)
March 07, 2007
Democrats Salvage Majority Control of Pennsylvania House By Electing Social Services Leader Speaker
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 09:56:22 PM PST
(From dailykos.com)
In a dramatic come from behind victory, the Pennsylvania House Democrats salvaged majority control of the legislative calendar, committee make-up, and legislation by electing House Judiciary Chairman Dennis O'Brien-- a Republican long a leader in efforts to increase funding for autism victims, the mentally retarded, and the physically disabled--as Speaker of the House.
O'Brien defeated incumbent two-term Speaker John Perzel, whose 18 years as a Republican House leader have been full of intrigue, Machiavellian maneuvers, patronage power grabs, guerilla warfare both against Democrats and against House traditions of responsible party government, the naked display of ruthless political power, and a series of dumb statements.
State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA's diary :: ::
It is not that Perzel's methods never produced anything good. As Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell noted, Perzel was ultimately a key player in increased educational funding, improved environmental protections, expanded property tax relief for senior citizens, and increasing the Pennsylvania minimum wage. But the tortuous maneuvering that was often required to gain Perzel's support, coupled with all his negatives, led Rendell to help recruit O'Brien to be the Democratic nominee for Speaker.
The process of recruiting O'Brien began New Year's Eve, after Democrat Tom Caltagirone had infamously publicly pledged to support Republican John Perzel. With the Democratic lead of 102 to 101, the Caltagirone defection would have been decisive were it not for Republican disillusionment with Perzel.
We had hoped, from public and private statements, that angry Republicans would have supported Democratic leader Bill DeWeese for Speaker. Failing that, we hoped we and they could have agreed on another Democrat. But those talks did not pan out,and supporting O'Brien became our only option to regain the power of the majority that Tom Caltagirone had taken away from us.
The main bait for O'Brien was that he would suddenly be in a powerful position to achieve goals in improving social services safety nets for the disabled, the retarded, and those with autism, as well as continuing his lifelong work to improve law enforcement.
He did not agree to switch his registration to the Democratic Party, but he did not refuse to do so either. He expressed concern about his longstanding relationships with Republicans, and he obviously wants time to consider what to do next. "I'll take it one step at a time," he told what was probably the best attended press conference he ever had.
O'Brien represents parts of the northern part (the Bucks County border area) of the same part of the city of Philadelphia that I represent--Northeast Philadelphia. His area, although it has a Democratic registration majority, is more Republican than mine. But many of the Republicans in the district are Republicans largely because they like the constituent service and personality of Dennis O'Brien.
As one who has occasionally been on the receiving end or his persistent persuasive efforts, I can testify to his relentlessness. Once, he asked me to support one of his efforts because "I always support you." I gave him a large number of cases where that was not true. "Alright, I don't always support you," he said with exasperation and fear that my list of differences would go on for a long time,"but you ought to to support my bill because it's the right thing to do for the public."
As best as I can remember, I supported, and spoke in favor, of his bill.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, long a passionate believer in encouraging Northeast Philadelphia Republicans to join the Democratic Party, was helpful in encouraging O'Brien to accept our Speaker nomination. He publicly praised O'Brien for having "a passion for change....a passion for trying to help people....(and) fundamental fairness."
In placing O'Brien into nomination, Majority Leader DeWeese, himself the choice of House Democrats for Speaker, called O'Brien "a fine-hearted idealistic Republican." He said his election would lead to "a rennaisance for this chamber."
The O'Brien nomination took House Republicans totally by surprise. I am told on good authority that a House Republican caucus that ended less than an hour before the Speaker's election began did not even consider the possibility of an O'Brien candidacy. Those who watched Perzel's facial expressions saw him in a state of utter shock when O'Brien was placed in nomination by DeWeese.
In the first speakership election I participated in, in 1975, the Democrats had 114 seats out of 203, and the Republicans nominated an anti-abortion Democrat against the pro-choice Democrat who was the choice of the Democratic caucus. The choice of the Democratic caucus got enough Republicans on his side to prevail.
It is a sign of where Pennsylvania politics has been that 32 years later our choice was between two Republicans. But hopefully it is a sign of the future that the winning Republican was the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Posted on March 7, 2007 11:11 PM | TrackBack (0)
January 04, 2007
Political wheels churn as House Democrats back Republican for speaker
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- The state House entered strange political waters yesterday, as Democratic Rep. H. William DeWeese concluded that neither he nor any other Democrat could win a majority of votes to become the new House speaker and so reached across the aisle for a bipartisan compromise candidate.
With support from most of the 102 House Democrats, Rep. Dennis M. O'Brien, a Philadelphia Republican and former Judiciary Committee chairman, was a surprise victor for the top job. He edged out former House Speaker John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, a longtime political foe of both himself and Mr. DeWeese.
The vote was 105-97, with Mr. O'Brien shown as not voting, although he said he had intended to vote for himself and thought his vote had been cast. Six Republicans joined Democrats in approving Mr. O'Brien; three Democrats voted for Mr. Perzel. Among Western Pennsylvania representatives, all Republicans voted for Mr. Perzel and all Democrats voted for Mr. O'Brien.
Clancy Myer, the House parliamentarian for more than two decades, says such a split in power -- a Republican speaker with a Democratic majority leader -- hasn't happened since at least 1900.
Last month, Democrats, who hold a slim majority in the 203-member House, had nominated Mr. DeWeese to be the new speaker, succeeding Mr. Perzel, whose term ended Nov. 30. Rep. Keith McCall, D-Carbon, was chosen by his party colleagues to be majority leader, the No. 2 job.
But Mr. DeWeese's chances to become speaker hit the skids last weekend, when Democrat Rep. Tom Caltagirone of Berks County, shocked Democrats by saying he would back Republican Perzel. Mr. Caltagirone and a few other Democrats had become upset by some of Mr. DeWeese's tactics over the years, such as cutting office staff and rent for Democrats who voted with Republicans and removing committee chairmanships from Democrats who didn't support the July 2005 pay raise.
The surprise switch by Mr. Caltagirone appeared to make Mr. Perzel a winner, since there are 101 Republicans.
"We knew we just couldn't sit there when Tom did what he did," said Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, a DeWeese ally. "We knew we had to do something."
"Bill DeWeese is quite pragmatic," said his former aide, Tim Potts, who now heads a citizens group called Democracy Rising Pa. "When he realized he couldn't get the speaker's chair, then the second platform kicked in -- Anybody But Perzel."
So a few House Democrats, including Mr. DeWeese, Mr. McCall, Mr. Evans and Josh Shapiro of Montgomery, huddled Monday to develop a new strategy.
No other Democrat could round up the required 102 votes, so Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Evans thought of a new direction -- Mr. O'Brien.
He had some advantages, from a Democratic viewpoint. He's been in the Legislature for almost 30 years, and was just Judiciary Committee chairman, so he has extensive experience. As a moderate from the state's largest city, he was more acceptable to most Democrats than other Republicans, who are social conservatives from small towns or rural areas.
Mr. O'Brien, from northeast Philadelphia, was a known quantity to Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, the former Philadelphia mayor.
Mr. O'Brien said he'd never sought the speakership but got initial feelers from Democrats on New Year's Eve.
A few House Democrats talked to Mr. Rendell by phone Monday night about Mr. O'Brien, and then met with him yesterday morning at the governor's residence here.
Late yesterday, Mr. Rendell said, "Partisanship is too much the rule in Pennsylvania. Too often issues important for the state and important for the future are considered not on their merits but on what's good for a particular caucus. ... People don't want that anymore."
Mr. DeWeese sprung the carefully worked out plan on House Republicans -- and on many of his Democratic colleagues as well -- shortly after the House convened its first session of 2007-08 yesterday, when he nominated Mr. O'Brien as speaker.
"Republicans were totally blown away," said Rep. Katie True, R-Lancaster. "We had no inkling."
Many Democrats also were surprised. "I didn't know about it until we took the floor in the afternoon," said Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Hill District.
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. DeWeese insisted they are committed to changing House rules and procedures this session, even though their first action together was the secret maneuvering for speaker. Mr. DeWeese said the fact the House has 50 new members, most elected on a "reform" platform, means the new Legislature won't take votes after midnight and change bills without warning.
But whether they act on that remains to be seen. House members didn't adopt rules yesterday.
Mr. DeWeese wants to set up a bipartisan committee to propose new rules.
Harrisburg citizen activist Gene Stilp, a pay raise opponent, said he was glad that neither Mr. Perzel nor Mr. DeWeese will be speaker, because they both had pushed for the pay raise. As for Mr. O'Brien's commitment to making things more open and accountable, "We'll have to see," Mr. Stilp said. "There is no silver bullet for change, but this is one step that breaks up the old power structure."
Even though Mr. O'Brien also voted for the pay raise, Mr. Potts still thinks that "opportunities [for change] will exist that wouldn't have existed if either Bill DeWeese or John Perzel had won."
He referred to the 50 new members of the House, who replace members who either lost re-election last year or retired because of public anger over the pay raise. Ousting so many incumbents "gives citizens proof that they can affect state government," Mr. Potts said.
Mr. Caltagirone declined to comment yesterday, but Mr. DeWeese expects him to remain in the Democratic House caucus. If he would leave, Republicans would have a 102-vote majority, unless a Republican also switched sides.
Mr. DeWeese said he would welcome Mr. O'Brien into the Democratic caucus, but Mr. O'Brien said, "I am a Republican." Pressed about whether he might change parties, all he would say is, "I am a Republican."
Mr. O'Brien said he plans to pursue law and justice issues, such as penalties for crime, increasing victims' rights and lowering the population of county prisons, as well as help for people suffering from autism. He has a relative who is autistic and would like the state to do more to help such people
Posted on January 4, 2007 01:32 PM
