Op-ed: New, Tough Campaign Finance Law Needed to Thwart Outside Money Influence

By Senate Democratic Leader Jay Costa

On the ballot this year are three critical seats on the state Supreme Court, one seat each on the Superior and Commonwealth courts as well as county row offices and municipal posts which influence how citizens are judged or represented.  These races are of statewide interest and local importance.

Despite the parochial nature of most municipal elections, there is a great likelihood that the election of state Supreme Court justices, Superior and Commonwealth Court judges and the contests for down-ballot offices this year will attract millions of dollars from outside interest groups and well-heeled out-of-state contributors.  These “investors” believe that they can influence state policy with their checkbooks. Much of that funding will be either unreported or under-reported.

Pennsylvanians deserve better.  Seats on the high court and other state courts, county offices and municipal offices should not be thought of as investment products. Voters should be wary of being swayed by outside influences and so-called “dark money.”  Sadly, there is too much outside influencing of elections and voters are blinded by the money cloak that shades their knowledge of candidates.  There is a better way.

I recently introduced legislation (Senate Bill 11) a measure that provides for campaign finance limitations, along with several other important reforms. The corrupting influence of money in politics is known objectively and anecdotally to most Pennsylvanians.  Our citizens are not alone in thinking that too much money in politics corrupts.  Nationally, according to a Gallup poll, 79 percent of Americans support limits on campaign fundraising.

This election season has reminded all of us of the need to clean up the campaign finance system and our campaign finance laws.  We can do better than to hope that things get better.  We must act and build fairness and equality in our electoral system by providing reforms for how candidates raise money and disclose shadowy donors.

The measure I introduced will put these stringent restrictions in place:

  • Limit the expenditures and donations by and to a candidate, political action committee (PAC), political party or other person, for the purpose of influencing election;
  • Require disclosure of super PAC donors;
  • Require stockholder approval of expenditures on political activity.

Pennsylvania’s uncapped campaign finance rules, confounding Supreme Court decisions, and outside influence by national super PAC’s underscore what is wrong in our political system. Campaign expenses are increasing exponentially and driving elected officials and candidates to spend more and more time raising money instead of focusing on important issues or solving challenging problems.  Fact is, in Pennsylvania’s most recent gubernatorial election, candidates spent a combined $82 million dollars. Races for the state Senate are frequently rising above the $2 million benchmark.

We must act soon to restore confidence in our electoral process and shield our citizens from a bombardment by outside dollars and outside contributors who have no interest in quality, responsive government.  This can be accomplished by adopting tough, but fair, campaign finance reforms such as those prescribed in my legislation.

-30-

Statement from Sen. Jay Costa on Supreme Court Voter ID Decision

Harrisburg – September 18, 2012 — Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Jay Costa (D-Allegheny) today issued the following statement on the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to vacate the Commonwealth Court’s ruling on the state’s controversial voter ID law.

The court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court to ascertain if the law is being implemented correctly and whether voters reasonably have access to voter ID cards:

“In vacating the decision, the court left it to the Commonwealth Court to determine if the photo ID law is being implemented properly and whether there is liberal access to voter ID cards in compliance with the legislative intent of the law.

“The facts of the case haven’t changed.  There was ample and overwhelming evidence presented during the Commonwealth Court’s hearing of this case to conclude that there are multiple obstacles that voters must navigate in order to gain a valid voter ID that permits them to cast a vote that will be counted on Election Day.

“This case is about voter suppression and the partisan attempt to influence the General Election.  The right to vote and a citizen’s access to the ballot box must be guaranteed.  Unquestionably, there continues to be problems with the current, expedited implementation of the law.

“Given the short time line for Commonwealth Court to consider the case and determine the status of the law, it appears that the only decision is on issuing the injunction.”

-30-

Sen. Jay Costa Issues Statement on Voter ID and Reapportionment Cases before the Court

Harrisburg – September 13, 2012 — State Sen. Jay Costa (D-Allegheny), the Senate Democratic leader, issued a statement concerning two issues that were before the state Supreme Court today.

The Court heard arguments today on the voter ID law that will require all voters to show a valid photo ID when they cast their vote in the General Election in November, as well as the challenges to the 2012 legislative reapportionment plan.

“Two exceptionally important cases were before the state Supreme Court today.  Both cases involve the ability of citizens to cast votes and be guaranteed fair elections so they have a voice in their government.

“The voter ID case involves the ability of all citizens to cast their vote on Election Day.   There is no evidence of voter fraud and obstacles to voting should not be permitted.  The requirement that voters have photo ID before their vote is counted will cause immediate harm for seniors, the poor, students and others.

“As a plaintiff in the legislative reapportionment case, I asked the court to throw out the partisan political plan that was approved by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission so that a new, fair, and constitutional map can be drafted.  This is the second time that a flawed plan has been before the court.  The plan has too many county splits and is too skewed politically to pass constitutional muster.

“I am confident that the court will carefully consider each of these cases and make appropriate rulings that protect the ability of citizens to vote and be represented fairly.”

 

 

-30-