Once again, the AP, acronym for Asinine Press, distorted Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor, fabricating a "possible 2012 Presidential run" in an article carried in the Erie Times-News today.
Palin has neither said nor in any way indicated she plans to run for president in 2012. She has given many reasons why she decided to resign, which the AP ignored, while publishing one she did not give, nor for which there is any objective evidence, once again substituting opinion for fact.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Read Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's reasons for resigning, not the news media's fictional creations
Don't expect the mainstream news media, including the AP story in today's Erie Times-News, to give Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's unfiltered version of the reasons why she decided to resign as governor effective July 26.
They have all concocted fictional and speculative scenarios which place her decision in a bad light based on comments from her natural enemies both inside and outside Alaska, such as Democrats who fear her national popularity and crooked Republicans whom she has bested in ethical jousts.
For Palin's own words, go to http://www.adn.com., the website for the Anchorage Daily News, which is owned by the left-wing McClatchy chain based in Calfornia, the second largest-newspaper chain in the country, a strident critic of Palin.
They have all concocted fictional and speculative scenarios which place her decision in a bad light based on comments from her natural enemies both inside and outside Alaska, such as Democrats who fear her national popularity and crooked Republicans whom she has bested in ethical jousts.
For Palin's own words, go to http://www.adn.com., the website for the Anchorage Daily News, which is owned by the left-wing McClatchy chain based in Calfornia, the second largest-newspaper chain in the country, a strident critic of Palin.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Biden, Obama & Broadband
Dan Galena astutely observes that the Erie Times-News and the Pittsburgh Tribune differ on the number of folks who attended VP Joe Biden's chat at Seneca High School in Wattsburg. The Times-Snooze said 500 attended. Here's the Trib's report:
Biden fails to draw crowd in Erie
Wattsburg, Pa. — "Vice President Joe Biden visited a small town on the outskirts of Erie today to talk to rural folks about federal stimulus money that can be used to expand broadband access to the Internet for rural areas that typically have poor connections.
"Apparently stimulus money and broadband are not all that interesting to the local folk here: Only around 100 or so people have showed up so far to hear Biden talk at noon at Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg.
"The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house.
"The effect didn't exactly work.
"Pittsburgh native and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper are also on hand to talk about access to high speed internet as an essential tool for success in business and in school in our struggling economy."
It's ironic that Biden should address school kids, and be lavishly praised in the local media by his old school chum Jim Lanahan of Mercyhurst North East in light of the fact that Biden was publicly disgraced for cheating at law school.
Does anyone really believe the Obama administration's push for universal broadband in the boondocks is altruisticly motivated when one considers that the president raised most of his election campaign funds via the internet in mostly urban centers, but did poorly in rural areas. This may be the first signal for his reelection aspirations.
Biden fails to draw crowd in Erie
Wattsburg, Pa. — "Vice President Joe Biden visited a small town on the outskirts of Erie today to talk to rural folks about federal stimulus money that can be used to expand broadband access to the Internet for rural areas that typically have poor connections.
"Apparently stimulus money and broadband are not all that interesting to the local folk here: Only around 100 or so people have showed up so far to hear Biden talk at noon at Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg.
"The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house.
"The effect didn't exactly work.
"Pittsburgh native and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper are also on hand to talk about access to high speed internet as an essential tool for success in business and in school in our struggling economy."
It's ironic that Biden should address school kids, and be lavishly praised in the local media by his old school chum Jim Lanahan of Mercyhurst North East in light of the fact that Biden was publicly disgraced for cheating at law school.
Does anyone really believe the Obama administration's push for universal broadband in the boondocks is altruisticly motivated when one considers that the president raised most of his election campaign funds via the internet in mostly urban centers, but did poorly in rural areas. This may be the first signal for his reelection aspirations.
The Erie Times-News and Open Records filings
In an editorial published today, the Erie Times-News celebrated the new transparency in the commonwealth's operations fostered by the recently-enacted open records law which went into effect last January.
According to the editorial, some 500 requests for public records have been filed with the state's Open Records office during the six months since it's been in business. Guess how many requests have been filed by the Times-News's inquiring "investigative journalists."
Zip. Zero. Nada. None.
According to the editorial, some 500 requests for public records have been filed with the state's Open Records office during the six months since it's been in business. Guess how many requests have been filed by the Times-News's inquiring "investigative journalists."
Zip. Zero. Nada. None.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Harrisburg corruption you won't find in the Erie Times-News
The following is from Tim Potts, founder and head of Democracy Rising PA, whose goal is to reform government in Pennsylvania, unarguably the most corrupt state in the nation.
WAMs - The Highest Cost of Corruption
Last week's back-and-forth between Gov. Ed Rendell and legislative leaders somehow walked around Walking Around Money, or WAMs. This was especially curious because Associated Press Capitol reporter Marc Levy's three-part series put the matter front and center. Yet high-profile interviews never touched on spending that, according to Capitol insiders, amounts to $750 million in the current year's budget.
A few reporters questioned the $201 million surplus in legislative accounts, but none pressed the case to find out why lawmakers think it's fair to keep a 67% percent surplus while telling school districts that they should use their capped 8% reserve to balance the budget. Or why the executive and judicial branches must shut down or endure payless paydays while lawmakers and their staff roll merrily along.
Add the surplus and WAMs, and you get close to $1 billion in dubious spending and possible savings that could help to resolve this year's budget dilemma.
What to expect. Don't expect either the governor or lawmakers to give up their pork while their constituents eat beans. Until there's a deal, leaders will meet privately with each other, the governor and the gambling interests, who have the access ensured by $4.4 million in campaign contributions.
This reduces many rank-and-file lawmakers to expensive eye candy. When not being wined and dined by lobbyists and cajoled by leaders, lawmakers clog golf courses, restaurants and phone banks where they busily dial for dollars. Legislators also debate a few important issues to kill time in between relatively inconsequential lawmaking and feel-good resolutions. Looking to make sandals PA's official summer footwear? Your time has come.
Meanwhile, with budget and tax votes looming, lawmakers hold out for election insurance, i.e. WAMs. Because leaders need 102 House votes and 26 Senate votes to pass a budget, WAMs are a carrot leaders use to extort votes, just as lawmakers use their votes to extort WAMs.
What's corrupt about WAMs? Secret programs invite abuse and illegality. Just ask the jurors who convicted former Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Phila.
Some say that WAMs let lawmakers get their fair share of state taxes. However, Levy's report illustrates that WAMs are a way for legislative leaders to give money to themselves at the expense of everyone else. For example, former Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, directed $82 per constituent to Greene County at the expense of citizens in Bedford County, who received only 20 cents per constituent during the last half of 2008.
Some point to worthwhile projects that WAMs support, such as libraries, senior centers and fire companies. But while funding for WAMs grows, lawmakers do not fund adequately the established programs that serve citizens statewide. Instead of allowing professionals with a statewide perspective to allocate funds on the basis of need, lawmakers siphon off money for WAMs that take from the weak and give to the well-connected.
WAMs are unconstitutional. This is why lawmakers and governors are so determined to keep secret how WAMs are allocated, where they are in the budget, how organizations apply for them and which organizations apply for WAMs but don't get them.
WAMs violate the separation of powers. The money for WAMs is appropriated to executive agencies. Once that happens, it is unconstitutional for members of the legislative branch to decide how the money is spent. This distinguishes WAMs from federal "earmarks," where the law appropriating the money states the project being funded and the lawmaker who got the earmark. Once the law is enacted, federal lawmakers have no further decision-making authority, a practice that maintains the separation of powers.
Second, some WAMs circumvent constitutional requirements for giving tax dollars to private parties. For example the Constitution says that appropriations to private schools must be in a separate bill from general appropriations. These are called "non-preferred" appropriations. There are dozens of them each year, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to private colleges and universities. Yet DeWeese got a $1 million WAM for private Waynesburg University to renovate a science hall without a bill and a vote, as the Constitution requires.
The reason for the constitutional requirement is simple when you realize that the state's own public universities have science halls, dormitories and other facilities in serious need of repair.
Question:
How high will the cost of corruption have to go before we decide to stop it?
WAMs - The Highest Cost of Corruption
Last week's back-and-forth between Gov. Ed Rendell and legislative leaders somehow walked around Walking Around Money, or WAMs. This was especially curious because Associated Press Capitol reporter Marc Levy's three-part series put the matter front and center. Yet high-profile interviews never touched on spending that, according to Capitol insiders, amounts to $750 million in the current year's budget.
A few reporters questioned the $201 million surplus in legislative accounts, but none pressed the case to find out why lawmakers think it's fair to keep a 67% percent surplus while telling school districts that they should use their capped 8% reserve to balance the budget. Or why the executive and judicial branches must shut down or endure payless paydays while lawmakers and their staff roll merrily along.
Add the surplus and WAMs, and you get close to $1 billion in dubious spending and possible savings that could help to resolve this year's budget dilemma.
What to expect. Don't expect either the governor or lawmakers to give up their pork while their constituents eat beans. Until there's a deal, leaders will meet privately with each other, the governor and the gambling interests, who have the access ensured by $4.4 million in campaign contributions.
This reduces many rank-and-file lawmakers to expensive eye candy. When not being wined and dined by lobbyists and cajoled by leaders, lawmakers clog golf courses, restaurants and phone banks where they busily dial for dollars. Legislators also debate a few important issues to kill time in between relatively inconsequential lawmaking and feel-good resolutions. Looking to make sandals PA's official summer footwear? Your time has come.
Meanwhile, with budget and tax votes looming, lawmakers hold out for election insurance, i.e. WAMs. Because leaders need 102 House votes and 26 Senate votes to pass a budget, WAMs are a carrot leaders use to extort votes, just as lawmakers use their votes to extort WAMs.
What's corrupt about WAMs? Secret programs invite abuse and illegality. Just ask the jurors who convicted former Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Phila.
Some say that WAMs let lawmakers get their fair share of state taxes. However, Levy's report illustrates that WAMs are a way for legislative leaders to give money to themselves at the expense of everyone else. For example, former Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, directed $82 per constituent to Greene County at the expense of citizens in Bedford County, who received only 20 cents per constituent during the last half of 2008.
Some point to worthwhile projects that WAMs support, such as libraries, senior centers and fire companies. But while funding for WAMs grows, lawmakers do not fund adequately the established programs that serve citizens statewide. Instead of allowing professionals with a statewide perspective to allocate funds on the basis of need, lawmakers siphon off money for WAMs that take from the weak and give to the well-connected.
WAMs are unconstitutional. This is why lawmakers and governors are so determined to keep secret how WAMs are allocated, where they are in the budget, how organizations apply for them and which organizations apply for WAMs but don't get them.
WAMs violate the separation of powers. The money for WAMs is appropriated to executive agencies. Once that happens, it is unconstitutional for members of the legislative branch to decide how the money is spent. This distinguishes WAMs from federal "earmarks," where the law appropriating the money states the project being funded and the lawmaker who got the earmark. Once the law is enacted, federal lawmakers have no further decision-making authority, a practice that maintains the separation of powers.
Second, some WAMs circumvent constitutional requirements for giving tax dollars to private parties. For example the Constitution says that appropriations to private schools must be in a separate bill from general appropriations. These are called "non-preferred" appropriations. There are dozens of them each year, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to private colleges and universities. Yet DeWeese got a $1 million WAM for private Waynesburg University to renovate a science hall without a bill and a vote, as the Constitution requires.
The reason for the constitutional requirement is simple when you realize that the state's own public universities have science halls, dormitories and other facilities in serious need of repair.
Question:
How high will the cost of corruption have to go before we decide to stop it?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Tax hikes? How about paring the Legislature? Guest Column
By Brian O'Neill, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Gov. Ed Rendell's campaign to raise the state income tax should be no more popular or successful than Walter Mondale's pledge to raise federal taxes in 1984.
Mr. Mondale got creamed in his bid to unseat President Ronald Reagan (who continued to blithely run up the national credit card). Mr. Rendell is going to lose this argument, too, as he should.
Because there is no way America's Largest Full-Time State Legislature can justify even a small increase in taxes until it pares its own budget.
Senate Republicans will prevail in blocking this tax increase (which would run about $5 a week for a person earning $50,000 a year). But before they impose the only alternative, massive cuts in education and elsewhere, legislators need to share more of the pain they're about to dish out.
The Republican-dominated state Senate passed a bill last month that would cut legislative appropriations by more than 10 percent from current levels (from $332.2 million to $293 million), but that isn't nearly enough. With 253 legislators, that still works out to $1.16 million per legislator. That's an unfathomable expense just to keep the chambers running.
Senate Republican spokesman Erik Arneson pointed to the proposed 10 percent cut and also to a 9 percent cut in number of staffers in the Republican caucus since January 2006 -- about 40 positions. But when 40 jobs represent just 9 percent of the total, that only reminds us that our Legislature has the most staffers of any statehouse in the republic. There were roughly 3,000 helpers at last count.
Legislative expenses should be cut by at least 20 percent, as some area lawmakers from both parties have suggested.
"I understand your point," Mr. Arneson wrote at the end of our e-mail exchange. "Given the way revenues have continued to plummet, it is absolutely fair to expect us to look at cutting the legislature further if we reach agreement to adopt a no-tax-increase budget that makes the other cuts included in Senate Bill 850 [which proposes the 10 percent cut]."
That would be wisdom were it not for the "if." There should be no ''if." Slashing the legislative budget should be dependent on nothing else. It's imperative.
Every few years, the Pennsylvania citizenry wakes up to what is happening in Harrisburg. The unconstitutional mid-term pay grab in the summer of 2005 was one such moment, and this idea of raising taxes during a recession is another.
It's true that the Legislature cannot balance the budget simply by lopping itself. The savings would be in the tens of millions of dollars, and the budget deficit is estimated at $3.2 billion. That doesn't matter. This is about sharing the pain.
There would be any number of places to begin. Lawmaking is not a physically demanding job like, say, firefighting or mining. Its demands are mental. Trying to justify yet another day in Harrisburg to snarf up the $158 per diem can tax the brain. So here's one quick savings idea: Let's call one $158 meeting to discuss eliminating the right of retired lawmakers to begin receiving a full pension at age 50.
That's at least 10 years too young, and we'd have more healthy turnover in the statehouse if there were no legislative pension. Put the lawmakers on a 401(k). One day soon they will have to deal with ticking pension time bomb for state workers, and they'll need to make their own sacrifices first.
Then there is, of course, the size of the Legislature itself. We have 253 lawmakers. Comparable states, Ohio and Illinois, get by with 132 and 177.
The Pennsylvania Constitution allows no voters' initiative to get a referendum on the ballot, and reducing the Legislature's size requires a constitutional change. But all downsizing proposals have sputtered in Harrisburg largely because the lawmakers have no reason to believe they'll be voted out if they don't reform now.
This "temporary" tax increase, which Gov. Rendell says would last three years, provides the opening for the tedious process of changing the constitution. Call your state senator and representative and offer this simple advice: "Tax me? Cut you."
That probably won't work, but it would be good for one's soul.
Gov. Ed Rendell's campaign to raise the state income tax should be no more popular or successful than Walter Mondale's pledge to raise federal taxes in 1984.
Mr. Mondale got creamed in his bid to unseat President Ronald Reagan (who continued to blithely run up the national credit card). Mr. Rendell is going to lose this argument, too, as he should.
Because there is no way America's Largest Full-Time State Legislature can justify even a small increase in taxes until it pares its own budget.
Senate Republicans will prevail in blocking this tax increase (which would run about $5 a week for a person earning $50,000 a year). But before they impose the only alternative, massive cuts in education and elsewhere, legislators need to share more of the pain they're about to dish out.
The Republican-dominated state Senate passed a bill last month that would cut legislative appropriations by more than 10 percent from current levels (from $332.2 million to $293 million), but that isn't nearly enough. With 253 legislators, that still works out to $1.16 million per legislator. That's an unfathomable expense just to keep the chambers running.
Senate Republican spokesman Erik Arneson pointed to the proposed 10 percent cut and also to a 9 percent cut in number of staffers in the Republican caucus since January 2006 -- about 40 positions. But when 40 jobs represent just 9 percent of the total, that only reminds us that our Legislature has the most staffers of any statehouse in the republic. There were roughly 3,000 helpers at last count.
Legislative expenses should be cut by at least 20 percent, as some area lawmakers from both parties have suggested.
"I understand your point," Mr. Arneson wrote at the end of our e-mail exchange. "Given the way revenues have continued to plummet, it is absolutely fair to expect us to look at cutting the legislature further if we reach agreement to adopt a no-tax-increase budget that makes the other cuts included in Senate Bill 850 [which proposes the 10 percent cut]."
That would be wisdom were it not for the "if." There should be no ''if." Slashing the legislative budget should be dependent on nothing else. It's imperative.
Every few years, the Pennsylvania citizenry wakes up to what is happening in Harrisburg. The unconstitutional mid-term pay grab in the summer of 2005 was one such moment, and this idea of raising taxes during a recession is another.
It's true that the Legislature cannot balance the budget simply by lopping itself. The savings would be in the tens of millions of dollars, and the budget deficit is estimated at $3.2 billion. That doesn't matter. This is about sharing the pain.
There would be any number of places to begin. Lawmaking is not a physically demanding job like, say, firefighting or mining. Its demands are mental. Trying to justify yet another day in Harrisburg to snarf up the $158 per diem can tax the brain. So here's one quick savings idea: Let's call one $158 meeting to discuss eliminating the right of retired lawmakers to begin receiving a full pension at age 50.
That's at least 10 years too young, and we'd have more healthy turnover in the statehouse if there were no legislative pension. Put the lawmakers on a 401(k). One day soon they will have to deal with ticking pension time bomb for state workers, and they'll need to make their own sacrifices first.
Then there is, of course, the size of the Legislature itself. We have 253 lawmakers. Comparable states, Ohio and Illinois, get by with 132 and 177.
The Pennsylvania Constitution allows no voters' initiative to get a referendum on the ballot, and reducing the Legislature's size requires a constitutional change. But all downsizing proposals have sputtered in Harrisburg largely because the lawmakers have no reason to believe they'll be voted out if they don't reform now.
This "temporary" tax increase, which Gov. Rendell says would last three years, provides the opening for the tedious process of changing the constitution. Call your state senator and representative and offer this simple advice: "Tax me? Cut you."
That probably won't work, but it would be good for one's soul.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Erie Times-News drops the ball again
The Erie Times-News carried an AP story today (State grants grow as criticism persists, Practice said to be unfair election tool) which exposes the longstanding practice of state legislative leaders to corral tens of millions of taxpayer dollars illegally every year and dole them out as special community grants to favored legislators outside the constitutionally prescribed budgetary process, using it primarily as a reelection campaign tool for select incumbents.
It's standard newspaper practice in such matters to localize a story like this by contacting local legislators and grilling them on what role,if any, they have played or are playing in such unsavory practices, and expose their malfeasance to local citizens, if any.
This story gives the Times-Snooze a perfect opportunity to play a role in ongoing and so far unsuccessful efforts by some legislators and citizen activists and groups to reform the legislature and curb rampant abuses like this one by bringing to the attention of local voters how legislators they have elected have and are performing on this issue so they can decide whether to retain them at the next elections.
For example, local State Senator Jane Earll, a Republican, as chair of the Senate Community, Recreational Development and member of the Gaming committees is one of those hallowed "legislative leaders." Does she condone and persist in this practice, or is she one of the reformers? How about the other half dozen area state legislators? Have they participated in this annual boondoggle?
Holding local legislators accountable for their actions in office is standard newspaper practice except at the Times-Snooze, which consistently prattles on in its editorials on how important freedom of the press protections under the First Amendment enable the press to function, but ignores the concommitant responsibility to exercise that freedom to expose legislative wrongdoers on behalf of the broad public interest.
It's standard newspaper practice in such matters to localize a story like this by contacting local legislators and grilling them on what role,if any, they have played or are playing in such unsavory practices, and expose their malfeasance to local citizens, if any.
This story gives the Times-Snooze a perfect opportunity to play a role in ongoing and so far unsuccessful efforts by some legislators and citizen activists and groups to reform the legislature and curb rampant abuses like this one by bringing to the attention of local voters how legislators they have elected have and are performing on this issue so they can decide whether to retain them at the next elections.
For example, local State Senator Jane Earll, a Republican, as chair of the Senate Community, Recreational Development and member of the Gaming committees is one of those hallowed "legislative leaders." Does she condone and persist in this practice, or is she one of the reformers? How about the other half dozen area state legislators? Have they participated in this annual boondoggle?
Holding local legislators accountable for their actions in office is standard newspaper practice except at the Times-Snooze, which consistently prattles on in its editorials on how important freedom of the press protections under the First Amendment enable the press to function, but ignores the concommitant responsibility to exercise that freedom to expose legislative wrongdoers on behalf of the broad public interest.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More Rendell Pay-to-Play from Democracy Rising PA
This is from Tim Potts's blog. He's the founder and head of the citizen advocacy group, Democracy Rising Pennslvania, which advocates government reform in the Commonwealth. It's the kind of gutty investigative reporting you'll never find in the Erie news media.
Last week the Harrisburg Patriot reported that Gov. Ed Rendell's administration has signed a seven-year, $201.1 million contract with a Minnesota testing company. Data Recognition Corp. (DRC), which provides tests for the state's current standardized testing program, got the contract to create a new, statewide graduation exam even though the General Assembly has not authorized the testing program.
Where might pay-to-play come in? According to state records, DRC executives made these contributions to Rendell's gubernatorial campaign:
February 24, 2006 - $5,000 from Russell Hagen (chair of DRC's board)
September 21, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen
September 23, 2006 - $1,000 from Susan Engeleiter (DRC's CEO & President)
January 18, 2007 - $10,000 from Hagen
Two weeks later on February 1, 2007, Rendell expressed support for "a single standard for high school graduation" based on recommendations from the Commission on College and Career Success, which Rendell convened in August 2005.
Questions:
Why would a Minnesota corporation pay so much attention to an election that was a foregone conclusion in PA? (Rendell won 60%-40%.)
If the object of a campaign contribution is to influence the outcome of an election, why did Hagen's largest contribution occur after the election when Rendell still had $1.7 million in campaign funds and no debt to retire?
Why is Rendell accepting contributions for a gubernatorial campaign when he can't run for governor again?
Implications for the budget. This is not a new trick for Rendell. In 2007 he held up the budget, demanding increased funding for motion picture production. Unknown to lawmakers was that Rendell had secretly signed a letter committing $3.5 million to Lionsgate, a film production company in California. Lionsgate was represented by former Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver, who had lost re-election in 2006 following his vote not to repeal the Pay raise of 2005 and who is now awaiting trial for his alleged role in the Bonus Scandal.
Question: Will Rendell delay this year's budget until he has retroactive authority for the DRC contract?
That other notorious coincidence. The DRC contract is reminiscent of another coincidence between contributions to Rendell's political fortunes and a contract for the contributor. See theApril 9 edition of DR News presenting the Wall Street Journal's report on Rendell and a Houston, TX law firm.
Rendell's not alone. Although he got the lion's share of campaign contributions from DRC executives, Rendell was not the only PA political figure to benefit. Here are other contributions:
October 5, 2007 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs (Stairs, R-Westmoreland, was then chair of the House Education Committee)
May 14, 2007 - $1,000 from Hagen to Dominic Pileggi for Senate Committee (Pileggi, R-Delaware, was and is majority leader)
May 9, 2007 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of Jim Rhoades Committee (Rhoades was then chair of the Senate Education Committee)
November 17, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of Jim Rhoades Committee
November 13, 2006 - $600 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs
November 6, 2006 - $500 from Hagen to Raphael Musto for Senate Committee (Musto was then minority chair of the Senate Education Committee)
November 3, 2006 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of James Roebuck Committee (Roebuck was then minority chair of the House Education Committee)
November 2, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of John Perzel (Perzel, R-Phila., was then Speaker of the House)
September 20, 2006 - $400 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs
May 11, 2006 - $1,500 from Sandra Wiese (DRC's VP of Governmental Affairs) to Friends of Senator Jubelirer Committee (Jubelirer was then president pro tempore of the Senate)
May 9, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of Sen. Dave Brightbill Committee (Brightbill was then majority leader)
January 18, 2006 - $1,000 from Wiese to the Committee to Elect Mike Veon (Veon was then minority whip)
Question:
Why have there been no contributions since October 2007?
Last week the Harrisburg Patriot reported that Gov. Ed Rendell's administration has signed a seven-year, $201.1 million contract with a Minnesota testing company. Data Recognition Corp. (DRC), which provides tests for the state's current standardized testing program, got the contract to create a new, statewide graduation exam even though the General Assembly has not authorized the testing program.
Where might pay-to-play come in? According to state records, DRC executives made these contributions to Rendell's gubernatorial campaign:
February 24, 2006 - $5,000 from Russell Hagen (chair of DRC's board)
September 21, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen
September 23, 2006 - $1,000 from Susan Engeleiter (DRC's CEO & President)
January 18, 2007 - $10,000 from Hagen
Two weeks later on February 1, 2007, Rendell expressed support for "a single standard for high school graduation" based on recommendations from the Commission on College and Career Success, which Rendell convened in August 2005.
Questions:
Why would a Minnesota corporation pay so much attention to an election that was a foregone conclusion in PA? (Rendell won 60%-40%.)
If the object of a campaign contribution is to influence the outcome of an election, why did Hagen's largest contribution occur after the election when Rendell still had $1.7 million in campaign funds and no debt to retire?
Why is Rendell accepting contributions for a gubernatorial campaign when he can't run for governor again?
Implications for the budget. This is not a new trick for Rendell. In 2007 he held up the budget, demanding increased funding for motion picture production. Unknown to lawmakers was that Rendell had secretly signed a letter committing $3.5 million to Lionsgate, a film production company in California. Lionsgate was represented by former Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver, who had lost re-election in 2006 following his vote not to repeal the Pay raise of 2005 and who is now awaiting trial for his alleged role in the Bonus Scandal.
Question: Will Rendell delay this year's budget until he has retroactive authority for the DRC contract?
That other notorious coincidence. The DRC contract is reminiscent of another coincidence between contributions to Rendell's political fortunes and a contract for the contributor. See theApril 9 edition of DR News presenting the Wall Street Journal's report on Rendell and a Houston, TX law firm.
Rendell's not alone. Although he got the lion's share of campaign contributions from DRC executives, Rendell was not the only PA political figure to benefit. Here are other contributions:
October 5, 2007 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs (Stairs, R-Westmoreland, was then chair of the House Education Committee)
May 14, 2007 - $1,000 from Hagen to Dominic Pileggi for Senate Committee (Pileggi, R-Delaware, was and is majority leader)
May 9, 2007 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of Jim Rhoades Committee (Rhoades was then chair of the Senate Education Committee)
November 17, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of Jim Rhoades Committee
November 13, 2006 - $600 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs
November 6, 2006 - $500 from Hagen to Raphael Musto for Senate Committee (Musto was then minority chair of the Senate Education Committee)
November 3, 2006 - $500 from Hagen to Friends of James Roebuck Committee (Roebuck was then minority chair of the House Education Committee)
November 2, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of John Perzel (Perzel, R-Phila., was then Speaker of the House)
September 20, 2006 - $400 from Hagen to Friends of Jess Stairs
May 11, 2006 - $1,500 from Sandra Wiese (DRC's VP of Governmental Affairs) to Friends of Senator Jubelirer Committee (Jubelirer was then president pro tempore of the Senate)
May 9, 2006 - $1,000 from Hagen to Friends of Sen. Dave Brightbill Committee (Brightbill was then majority leader)
January 18, 2006 - $1,000 from Wiese to the Committee to Elect Mike Veon (Veon was then minority whip)
Question:
Why have there been no contributions since October 2007?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
