PSoTD

Possibly, for some Pennsylvania Democrats, at least.

Republican Governor Primary in Pennsylvania just got a little race-oriented:

PoliticsPA: "DeCoursey/ CapitolWire: Scranton Fires Manager Pete DeCoursey of CapitolWire is reporting that Former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton fired his campaign manager, friend and ally Jim Seif, Wednesday night after Seif said on statewide television that "the rich white guy in this campaign is Lynn Swann."

That statewide television would be PCN.

The number of Pennsylvania State Legislators not running for re-election this year...

Received a notice that PCN Blog was mentioned on Pennsylvania Cable Network last night. I missed it, out playing hoops. Traffic blipped up slightly. Progress!

Ugh.

Sen. Rick Santorum's leading Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, announced Tuesday that he endorses Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Casey's endorsement came shortly after Gov. Ed Rendell said Tuesday during a news conference in Washington that he reluctantly supports Alito's confirmation. Smar said the timing was a coincidence.

Nice try to provide cover, Ed.

This ought to be some good wood for burning for the Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate campaign... I see he's already on it.

Pennsylvania has lots of structural government issues that would best be discussed in a macro effort - a Constitutional Convention. Such things as number of legislators, how lobbyists should be regulated, tax structure, etc., could be looked at in a much clearer picture.

However... as long as we have clowns trying to do things like define marriage as part of the State Constitution, there's really no way to consider having a Constitutional Convention. And... we have such clowns.

From the Reading Eagle:

The Issue: Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann refuses to debate with any other candidates prior to Feb. 11, when the state GOP is set to endorse a candidate.

Our Opinion: Swann needs to demonstrate how well he can perform if he expects to earn that endorsement.

...

Furthermore, he has written a letter to his primary foe for the Republican nomination, former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, refusing to participate in any debates until after the state GOP endorses a candidate on Feb. 11.

Instead Swann proposed a series of three debates between March 7, the deadline for candidates to turn in nomination petitions, and the May 16 primary.

There would be nothing wrong with those debates, which the Swann campaign proposed for Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Philadelphia, but Swann also should be willing to appear in a debate later this week in Harrisburg before his party endorses a candidate.

"We want to commit to a healthy schedule of such events so that the people of Pennsylvania have the opportunity to compare our candidates side by side," wrote Swann's campaign manager, Ray Zaborney.

That's all well and good, but shouldn't party bosses have the same opportunity before they make their decision on whom to back?

How can the party be expected to endorse a candidate when one of the two leading contenders is unwilling to face his opponent?

It will be very interesting to see if the Pennsylvania Republican Party chooses to endorse an untested candidate. Does the Party have to make an endorsement? It seems like it would be in their best interest to let this play out...

Recently I asked some questions of William Sargent, who is a Democrat running for the Pennsylvania House 42nd District this year. His campaign site is here.

Dave from Fester's Place had suggested that Sargent had some interesting views on the lobbying laws in Pennsylvania, which is sort of a general political interest for this blog. I asked Mr. Sargent if he'd answer some questions, and below are the questions and his responses. I'm hoping to follow up in the next week with a few other questions. This seems to me to be a worthwhile project this year - to ask Pennsylvania General Assembly candidates - not incumbents - on their views concerning lobbying law in the Commonwealth during the campaign, and see if there are some details - and perhaps some consensus - reported. If you have any suggested questions for me to ask Mr. Sargent for next week, feel free to drop them in comments or in email.

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

William Sargent: The goals of meaningfully lobbying reform and the purpose of reforming the laws in Pennsylvania are to minimize corruption at all levels of government, ensure equal access for every citizen, corporation and interest group by setting uniform standards of reporting monies or gifts given to public officials and providing for oversight and accountability.

Pennsylvania is the only state without a lobbyist disclosure law to control influence peddling by special interests. The article in the PG today was only made possible by a Senate Rule not a Pennsylvania Law.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

William Sargent: Previously the courts have struck down a lobbyist disclosure law because the courts felt that it was within the purview of the judicial branch to provide the sole ability to oversee officers of the court (attorneys) and because lobbyists are sometime attorneys then the PA House and Senate cannot regulate them.

I disagree. According to that logic, then only the courts can have oversight into the House and Senate because the vast majority of its members are attorneys.

The PA House and Senate should provide its own oversight in a bi partisan fashion over its members.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

William Sargent: In light of the activities of certain members of the congress and lobbyists working within the beltway there way been several bills proposed by both senators and congressmen about lobbying reform.

John McCain has introduced a good bill and Russ Feingold has introduced a piece of legislation that is even more restrictive. (Interesting on how these two gentlemen could come to terms on campaign finance but have different bills for this topic but yet I digress.)

To answer your questions I am inclined to say that the more restrictive, the better off you are.

(1) If you leave government service, there must be a period of time to elapse before you may return as a private citizen lobbying your former employer/ colleagues.

(2) No gifts/trips/rides.

(3) You must disclose how your money is spent if you spend more than $2,500 a quarter.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette discusses Tom Caltagirone's hopes this year on his annual effort to pass legislation to cut the General Assembly in about half.

Duncan, you should run for Congress. Seriously. We've had plenty of candidates as bloggers. It is time we have some bloggers as candidates. Be yourself. Prove the beltway perception of proper candidacy wrong.

Pennsylvania's Unofficial Voter Registration by Party, the past five time periods:

November 2003

Democratic - 3,677,488
Republican - 3,204,440
Total of all parties - 7,710,601

April 2004

Democratic - 3,706,122
Republican - 3,230,496
Total of All Parties - 7,780,582

November 2004

Democratic - 3,985,496
Republican - 3,405,278
Total of all parties - 8,366,663

May 2005

Democratic - 3,836,701
Republican - 3,294,568
Total of all Parties - 8,065,536

November 2005

Democratic - 3,841,429
Republican - 3,292,656
Total of All Parties - 8,073,337

It looks like slow and incremental but steady growth for the Democrats. From November 2003 to November 2005, it has gone from a 473K Democratic registration advantage to a 548K Democratic registration advantage.

From The Clarion News:

The Keystone School Board is expected Jan. 16 to consider a contract offer from Pepsi which would give the cola giant exclusive marketing rights on school property.

Under the proposed agreement, the district would receive funding of up to $5,000 each for a scoreboard for its baseball field and for its softball field.

Also under the proposed seven-year agreement, the district would receive $500 per month and a 30 percent sales commission.

District Superintendent Henry Sinopoli said students have access to soda vending machines only after school hours and during events. A vending machine in the cafeteria is accessible at any time but only contains fruit drinks.

Sinopoli said a “wellness plan” under development by the district could include a ban on soda sales to students. Sinopoli said such a ban probably would not affect the proposed contract with Pepsi as the company also offers a variety of juices and fruit drinks for its vending machines.

Why would Pepsi bid this agreement if there was a real chance that soda sales would be banned? Isn't it more likely that the ban will include a grandfather exemption for existing contracts?

Secondly, people need to start looking at these so-called "fruit drinks". Just because a drink has a small percentage of some kind of fruit juice within it does not automatically make it much healthier than a soft drink. It's the other items added to the mix that need to be considered.

Seven years seems like a long time for such a contract, but perhaps it is a standard contract period. Or, perhaps, it is a hint of how Pepsi sees the "selling drinks on school grounds" marketplace functioning, both marketwise and in the realm of politics.

In light of the Abramoff scandal, One-Man Think Tank looks at how lax the Pennsylvania House of Representatives lobbying requirements are - lobbyists who work the PA House (and Rendell Administration) don't have to file anything - and whether the Speaker of the House, John Perzel, will allow that to continue.

A Constitutional Convention in Pennsylvania in 2007? Dare we hope?

on a side note, I can't get the song by Hot Chocolate out of my head now...

One of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau's 2005 Priority Issues was about agriculture education in public school. I found it interesting.

Pennsylvania's schools are not sufficiently educating our children about today's agriculture. Our children know little about the practices farmers use to produce food, why farmers use those practices, or what farmers are doing to ensure the safety and quality of our food and environment. Vocational education programs for children interested in pursuing agriculture careers have also suffered severe reductions in funding.

Schools should be directed to teach agriculture as a meaningful part of students' general education. Agriculture education should reflect the modern practices being implemented on today's farms. Additional effort and funding should be provided for promotion of "Ag In The Classroom" programs and related participation of teachers. Greater effort should be made to strengthen vocational agricultural education programs, increase the knowledge and expertise of persons teaching vo-ag courses, and provide more opportunity for agriculture students to receive advanced education and training in effective production practices and techniques. Quality agricultural science courses should be developed which will not only provide high school education credits but also be highly regarded in consideration of students for college admission.

It's been decades since I've been in school, and our kids are not to the high school level yet, so I'm not certain of what is currently taught in the higher grades of public school. Still, I think there's a valid point in here, but it is buried by the pursuit of the promotion or public relations of farmers. Schools should have some curriculum for teaching kids how to grow food, how to prepare food, and safety issues. Schools also should have some curriculum about how society has built the food industry and distribution system at this point, including farming. Appreciation for farmers and farming would be a benefit of such education, as kids would learn how so many of us benefit from the work of so few, but it could also teach kids about the possible weak spots in the system, and how they may want to cultivate skills they can benefit from in the future if those weak spots become more problematic in the future. I'm not suggesting that every child should learn how to do home canning, but if there would be a terrorist act on the food system of this country, the value of such education would become more tangible.

Democracy Rising PA is a coalition of political activist groups that are leading a campaign for better state government. They held a press conference today, details may be found here later.

I can't see how Pennsylvanians wouldn't want what this group wants.