Tom Waseleski
In Democrat-saturated Pittsburgh, government functions much as it did in the old Soviet Union. Just about everybody is members of one big happy party. That may explain why there's been little public outcry, even on City Council, about large political contributions that go to the mayor or other candidates from donors who have or get lucrative city contracts.
PG reporter Rich Lord laid out the compromising political landscape in two stories on Sunday and Monday. Then the editorial board had an opinion today, written by my colleague Susan Mannella, that faulted Mayor Ravenstahl for his half-hearted response to this -- first, by opposing limits on campaign contributions and, second, by being slow to post on the city's Web site the rationale for awarding individual contracts.
The mayor has no challenger so far in his re-election next year, yet he felt compelled to hold a fund-raiser with Bill Clinton two weeks ago that reaped a few hundred thousand dollars for his political warchest. According to Rich Lord, most of the 400 attendees paid $500 and a dozen paid $10,000. Party officials and committee men and women got in free. That's a lot of big-ticket support for the incumbent.
If you think easy access to political cash is not a corrupting influence, there's an Illinois governor who was arrested yesterday whom you should become acquainted with. Today's lead editorial mentioned the sensible limits that other cities have put on campaign contributions -- somethiing that Luke Ravenstahl has no right to oppose for Pittsburgh. The fact that he, the biggest beneficiary of campaign largesse in the city, vetoed council's bill to set limits last spring and apparently feels the same way now -- just has to make you wonder.
As a Pittsburgher, what do you think? You can let us know if you register or log in.
Posted
Dec 10 2008, 11:32 AM
by
Tom Waseleski