Campaign funds are not for attorneys

Citizens and organizations give to political campaigns to elect officials to office, presumably believing those officials will carry out their duties in a manner consistent with the law.

A report cites examples of former state lawmakers who spent campaign funds in defense of corruption charges.

The Pennsylvania election code is virtually silent on how such funds may be spent. The only limitation appears to be that campaign funds be spent to influence an election. That should change. Some officials seem to have interpreted “influence an election” to mean, “If I’m indicted, my re-election could be influenced.”

A recent Pittsburgh TribuneReview report cites three examples of former state lawmakers who spent campaign funds in defense of corruption charges: Former state Sen. Jane Orie, an Allegheny County Republican, spent more than $110,000 from her campaign account. Former state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, a Philadelphia Democrat, spent $1.1 million. And former state Sen. Robert J. Mellow, a Lackawanna County Democrat, hit his political donors for $738,000.

The latest Pennsylvania officeholders to spend campaign funds on legal fees are state Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane and Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski.

Pawlowski, according to a recent report by the Allentown Morning Call, has paid more than $80,000 from his campaign account to lawyers representing him in an FBI probe into possible connections between government contracts and campaign contributions.

Although Pawlowski’s transfer of campaign contributions to attorneys is troubling, Kane’s could serve as Exhibit A in the case for outlawing the practice in Pennsylvania.

According to recent reports by the Tribune-Review and the Philadelphia Inquirer: Kane, who was charged in August with perjury and other offenses related to a 2009 grand jury investigation, sent $150,000 from her campaign account to defense lawyers. And it paid $130,000 more to Lanny Davis for public relations advice. Davis briefly served as Kane’s spokesman on issues related to the probe that led to her indictment.

Kane’s campaign has raised $594,000 in 2013 and $75,000 in 2014 toward her presumed re-election bid this year.

She failed to raise any money as her legal troubles mounted in 2015.

And her campaign account’s debt of more than $1 million.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Kane’s donors did not anticipate her indictment and the resulting suspension of her law license when they gave to her campaign fund in 2013 and 2014.

It also seems reasonable to demand that the Pennsylvania election code be changed to prohibit spending on legal fees that are not directly related to campaigning for office.

If a public official believes his or her public service should translate into help with legal bills, that official should set up a legal defense fund for willing donors. Those who contributed to their campaigns should not be considered to have signed up for underwriting an official’s criminal defense attorneys.

Pennsylvania elections are tainted anytime a public official goes to jail on corruption charges. They are further tainted when campaign money is spent on defense lawyers.

Voters and party vetting processes can be on guard against electing those prone to corruption, but only the General Assembly can set limits on campaign spending. It should do so by outlawing the diversion of campaign money to criminal defense funds.

“Voters and party vetting processes can be on guard against electing those prone to corruption, but only the General Assembly can set limits on campaign spending.”