City campaign rules curb contributions, but face court challenge and complaints
Pittsburgh’s decade-long effort to limit the influence of money in city politics now faces both a court challenge and complaints from some candidates that it threatens to stifle democracy.
The city first put limits on contributions to campaigns for mayor, controller and council in
2009, and revised the rules in 2015.
Now outgoing Councilwoman Darlene Harris is challenging the constitutionality of the limits in a lawsuit in which initial briefs are due Feb. 28. And as the city’s Ethics Hearing Board pursues enforcement actions, candidates facing fines are speaking out.
“Man, you would’ve thought I robbed a bank,” said repeat council candidate Mark Brentley Sr., of Allegheny Center, who faces an enforcement action for ignoring the city’s campaign finance rules.
He raised $3,110 for his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nod for Ms. Harris’ council seat. The city’s ethics board summoned him for a Nov. 20 hearing, at which he was told that for failing to file paperwork, he could be fined $18,000.
“For a quick minute, I did explode a little bit,” he said. The board hasn’t yet published online its ruling on its case against Mr. Brentley, nor taken court action to collect.
One political watchdog, though, defends Pittsburgh’s and Philadelphia’s local campaign finance regulations — the only ones in a state that otherwise does not cap political donations from people, partnerships and political action committees.
“Pittsburgh and other cities, and counties, need to be more forward and be more aggressive at setting up their own campaign finance laws,” said Micah Sims, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a nonpartisan government accountability group. Only with contribution limits, he said, will it be “the people and the ideas and the candidates that are controlling elections,” rather than the donors.
If Pittsburgh’s ordinance is nixed, he said, “people would be filing immediately in Philadelphia” to torpedo contribution limits there, too.
Mayor Bill Peduto was a councilman in 2008, when campaign finance limits that he championed were vetoed by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. The following year, council passed and Mr. Ravenstahl signed a bill that set limits, ranging from $1,000 to $4,000, on contributions by individuals and political action committees to city candidates.
The system broke down in the 2013 mayor’s race, and Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James voided the rules for that contest, which Mr. Peduto won.
In October 2015, Mr. Peduto signed the current ordinance, which passed council 8-0, with Ms. Harris abstaining. The bill limits contributions to city campaigns to amounts allowed in federal campaigns. That means individuals can give candidates $2,800 per election, while PACs can give $5,000.
If candidates accept contributions above the limits, the board can fine them $1,000 or more per violation.
In election years, the ordinance requires that candidates report their campaign finances monthly to the city ethics board, for posting online. That’s in addition to less frequent campaign finance disclosures campaigns must file with the county, under state law.
Compliance difficult for some
Compliance “was tremendously burdensome for a first-time candidate like myself,” said Chris Rosselot, of Spring Garden, who is not the subject of an enforcement action. A former aide to U.S. Sen. Bob Casey who this year ran unsuccessfully for the seat Ms. Harris is vacating, he said separate state and city requirements for candidates epitomize “the reason that people hate government: because it’s so duplicative.”
The ethics board can assess $50-per-day fees for late filings.
Ms. Harris refused to submit the monthly
“Pittsburgh and other cities, and counties, need to be more forward and be more aggressive at setting up their own campaign finance laws,” Micah Sims
Executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania
filings in her losing Democratic primary bid. In November, the board petitioned the Court of Common Pleas seeking a judge’s imprimatur on a resulting $4,150 fine, for reports that were 83 days late. In December, the councilwoman in turn sued Mr. Peduto, the city, the ethics board and the board’s executive director, Leanne Davis, alleging that the city’s campaign rules violated the state Constitution.
At a Dec. 18 hearing on both cases, Judge James gave Ms. Harris and her attorney James Burn, and the city’s legal team, until the end of February to brief their positions on three issues:
Whether the city’s rules on campaigns are preempted by state election law
Whether the city’s rules include a sufficient mechanism for fined candidates to appeal
Whether state law limits city fines to $300
In the meantime, the city can’t collect from Ms. Harris.
On Dec. 19, Judge James signed an order that another council candidate, Leon Ford, who dropped out of the Democratic primary in March, must pay $137.50 for failing to file with the ethics board during his brief campaign.
Mr. Peduto said the limits, filing requirements and enforcement are necessary because without them, “it was becoming possible that a handful of people could control the elections.”
He pointed to his own failed 2007 mayoral bid. The incumbent, Mr. Ravenstahl, was able to raise many times the take of then-Councilman Peduto, despite a $50,000 contribution to the challenger by businessman William Benter.
Mr. Peduto had little sympathy for arguments that it’s overly burdensome to file monthly campaign finance reports with the ethics board.
“If you’re running a campaign for city council, you should have this information on a computer,” he said. “The work that you’ll be doing as a council member requires keeping accurate records, and being able to manage the accountability of files and systems within your office.”
Randall Taylor, of East Liberty, who ran unsuccessfully for council last year, said it wasn’t too difficult to comply with the city rules, but the monthly disclosures were “a little bit intrusive.”
He said he thinks the city should bar its vendors or contractors — who overwhelmingly give to incumbents — from contributing to campaigns.
Mr. Peduto said a ban on vendor contributions isn’t necessary because online disclosure of both campaign contributions and city contracts makes it possible for anyone to ferret out “pay-to-play” politics. He added that the limits on donations curb vendor influence.
His administration, through the city Law Department, is defending the ordinance in court. But if it falls?
“Without limits, I can assure you I can raise several million dollars,” he said, “making it difficult for anyone to challenge that.”