Backs of checks and balances
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
e-mail this
share thisWhen the money comes rolling in, what's a guy to do?
Well, in Pennsylvania, prolific political fundraisers like Sen. Bob Mellow are supposed to ensure that their campaign committees record and disclose the receipt and disbursement of every penny.
Pennsylvania places no limits on campaign contributions so, indeed, the money comes rolling in. Theoretically, legally mandated complete disclosure is supposed to guard against undue influence of contributors over politicians, and against large sums of campaign money being used for anything other than legitimate political purposes.
Mr. Mellow has refused to talk to Borys Krawczeniuk of The Times-Tribune regarding his campaign committee's issuance of more than $188,000 in checks made out to "cash."
When The Associated Press picked up a Sunday Times story on the spending, for statewide distribution, the Senate minority leader did respond to a question from the AP. He asserted that the money had been spent appropriately.
That declaration falls well short of the state campaign finance law's requirement that campaign finance reports "shall include the following information ... each and every expenditure, the date made, the full name and address of the person to whom made and the purpose for which such expenditure was made."
Mr. Mellow's campaign committee released photocopies of the fronts of some of the checks in question, but has failed to provide access to the backs of the checks, which include the signatures of the people who cashed them.
It turns out (surprise!) that the state Bureau of Elections, which is supposed to regulate and monitor campaign reports and spending, is a lap dog for politicians. Its boss, state Secretary of State Pedro A. Cortes, says not only that the bureau doesn't look into undocumented campaign spending without an outside complaint, but that's just how it should be. The bureau says a 2006 audit covering a few months of the campaign committee's activities didn't question checks made out to "cash," so they must be OK. The auditor referred questions to the bureau, thus completing the tight circle of symmetrical obfuscation that is the opposite of the disclosure sought by the law.
So, it is left to Mr. Mellow himself to disclose how his committee spent more than $188,000. He should begin by providing copies of the backs of the cashed checks and related receipts.
1 posted comments