To: Pittsburgh City Council
From: William Peduto, Author/Sponsor of Campaign Finance Reform Act
Date: May 13, 2011
Re: Dishonest Statements Regarding Campaign Finance Reform Act
During the past few weeks, the public has been barraged with unethical and illegitimate statements regarding the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2009. I spent five years working to pass legislation that would limit the undue influence of those who believe that our local government should operate under a "pay to play" system. During those years at least four versions of campaign limits were debated. Finally, on May 5, 2009, Pittsburgh joined the ranks of most other cities and established rules on campaign contributions. Now with the 2011 primary just days away, a Mayor-backed faction supported by Pittsburgh’s version of the classic political machine has launched a campaign to twist the language and intent of this bill in order to damage their opponents. It is critical that the attempt by Councilman Ricky Burgess to rescind the Campaign Finance Reform Act under these reprehensible tactics be dismissed immediately and that the public be given a full understanding of the legislation and the process.
As you all know, in 2009 we debated two proposals regarding campaign finance limits. After vetoing the original bill, Mayor Ravenstahl and County Executive Onorato offered a modest proposal to set limits--these limits would have been some of the highest in the country and did not address the important issues included in earlier versions. The Mayor's bill would have set limits for contributions to Council candidates at $4,600 per individual per election cycle and $10,000 per Political Action Committee per election cycle. Under the bill finally approved and passed by City Council and signed by the Mayor, these monetary limits and campaign periods were changed.
The Campaign Finance Reform Act set limits at $1,000 per individual per covered election and $2,000 per PAC per covered election. As was discussed during the debate and contained within the legislation, a covered election is any primary, general, or special election. Therefore a contribution of $1,000 could be made by an individual, or $2,000 could be made by a PAC to a candidate in both the primary and the general election.
“COVERED ELECTION - Every primary, general or special election for City Elected Office.” - 2009-1039, §198.01 Definitions
On April 29, 2009 at a Post Agenda Hearing on the Campaign Finance Reform Act, I asked the question directly to Mr. Gabe Mazefsky, who was representing the Mayor at the meeting.
“Page two of the amendments changes the limits to be based per election instead of by election cycle so it gives you the ability as a district candidate to get $1,000 per primary and $1,000 per general from an individual. For citywide elections those figures are doubled, so $2,000 per primary from an individual, $2,000 per general from an individual. This is based on federal election law covering elections of senators and congressmen. The administration has met with my office about these amendments on several occasions. Mr. Mazefsky, do you have any comments?” - Councilman William Peduto, April 29, 2009 Council Standing Committee Meeting
“We generally support the amendment. We’ve had a number of conversations with Dan Gilman in your office and we generally support it.” - Gabe Mazefsky, April 29, 2009 Council Standing Committee Meeting
Additionally, there have been claims against the enforceability of the law. Again, this is a dishonest attempt to cloud the issue. During the debate on the legislation in 2009, Peter Havern, representing County Executive Dan Onorato, stated that the County would implement its own bill in support of the City's actions.
“I’d like to know what the County’s intention is with Campaign Finance Reform and where you are in the process.” - Councilman Jim Motznik, March 24, 2009 Council Post Agenda
“I’m here on behalf of Dan Onorato to voice his support. We agree with County Councilman Fitzgerald that we should have a Campaign Finance bill mirroring the City’s bill.” - Peter Havern, March 24, 2009 Council Post Agenda
The legislation was drafted to allow for the County Board of Elections to oversee the enforcement of the rules. This never happened because the County never introduced or passed its own Campaign Finance Reform Act. However, the legislation does contain enforcement policy under the Court of Common Pleas for anyone who violates the rules and allows any citizen of Pittsburgh the right to file for injunctive relief under Rule 1531 of the PA Code. This would allow a hearing to be held, affidavits to be submitted, and a judge to decide whether or not there has been a violation of the law.
“(1) Any person residing in the City of Pittsburgh, including the City Solicitor may bring an action for injunctive relief in any Court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violations of, or to compel compliance with, the provisions of this Chapter. The Court may award to a prevailing plaintiff in any such action his or her costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” - 2009-1039, §198.06 Penalties, Injunctive Relief & Wrongful Acts
The timing of these dubious attacks on the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2009 is no coincidence. It is clear that Mayor Ravenstahl, Councilman Burgess, and their minions are engaged in a desperate attempt to influence the primary election at the eleventh hour. They are making false claims about their political opponents and casting doubt on a law that passed with unanimous support of City Council and was developed while working closely with the Mayor’s staff. Councilman Burgess has told the media, “If we pass a law, we should follow a law,” but it sounds like what he means to say is, “If we pass a law that becomes inconvenient to my friends and supporters, we should repeal it.” I am asking for your immediate negative vote on this attempt to rescind the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2009.