Campaign Finance Reform
Look south of the Mason-Dixon Line for the answer
One of the key issues in this year’s election for state offices will be reform of the legislative process. In the wake of the pay raise fiasco it has become clear that the current system has been perverted by those who have mastered the art of gaming it for their own advantage. The sheer number of incumbents retiring and challengers lining up for seats in the General Assembly bode well for those seeking reform.
While most of the proposals making the rounds center on reforming the rules for enacting legislation, it is clear some changes must also be made in the way campaigns are funded. Many lobbyists mix influence peddling with fundraising, creating a system that while completely legal, is unseemly.
A look south of the Mason-Dixon Line finds a practice in Maryland’s election law that, if enacted in Pennsylvania, would restore some integrity to campaign finance. It is a simple, one sentence law that eliminates even the appearance of impropriety. The law prohibits any state official, from the Governor to members of the General Assembly, from accepting campaign contributions during a legislative session.
Unlike Pennsylvania, where the legislature is in almost perpetual session, legislative sessions in Maryland last only 90 days each year. That too is a good idea. Keystone state lawmakers have developed a penchant for lengthy sessions that produce results (good or bad) only at the last minute. That is how the ill-fated pay hike came to be passed in the middle of the night in early July.
One of the key flaws in Pennsylvania’s legislative process is that difficult, controversial, and/or significant legislation comes up for final debate (if there is any debate) and passage either during the seine die lame duck session at the end of the legislative term in November; or in mid-summer when vacation, not legislation, is on the minds of most Pennsylvanians. It has become plainly obvious constant sessions are neither productive, nor necessary.
It may not be realistic to shorten Pennsylvania’s legislative season to 90 days, but neither does it need to go on all year. A shorter session year, coupled with a prohibition against state elected officials accepting campaign contributions during the session, would go a long way to cleaning up a system that comes dangerously close to being legalized bribery.
The national scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff has put a spotlight on the corrupting confluence of lobbying and fundraising. But Washington has nothing over on Pennsylvania. It is common practice here for lobbyists or their associates to throw high dollar fundraisers on the very same days the legislature is in session. While there may not be a quid pro quo of dollars for votes, the appearance of impropriety is real and palpable.
The Maryland law is simple and to the point: “Contributions may not be solicited, accepted, or deposited by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, a member of the General Assembly, or a person acting on behalf of any of these individuals, during the Legislative Session, which begins on the second Wednesday in January of each year and continues for 90 days.”
That language is so clear even the block robes on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could not misinterpret it. Since the prohibition on accepting campaign contributions applies only while the legislature is in session, the rights of Pennsylvanians to speak freely via contributing to campaigns are not infringed in that there are plenty of days when such transactions can occur.
Were Pennsylvania to adopt a similar law, proscribing and limiting legislative sessions and banning the flow of campaign contributions during that period, it would go a long way toward restoring some badly needed integrity to both the legislative and the political process.
