I don't actually think Nutter of Rendell should be removed nor could be removed or challenged.

But my point is that by this standard, unless Nutter, for example, reported as income the thousands in travel expenses that he reported, he could have been kicked off the ballot. In other words, the Judge is making up a standard that not only makes no sense, but has not been followed by anyone.

Common Pleas doesn't keep filings online. However, you can see the gist of the court's rulings in the docket (see below).

From my reading, the issue was whether Carol Campbell had received a benefit from the PAC in the form of it paying for services for her (telephone, car). If you spend money on something for yourself and the PAC pays that amount, you are receiving a benefit in the form of an expense. That is, she is getting a car and doesn't have to personally pay for it, which is worth something.

It seems that the question being fought over in the Campbell case was whether the benefit of the services that she was reimbursed for went to her personally (which would have had to be disclosed as a form of income, and seems questionably legal) or to the PAC (in which case they would have actually been valid reimbursements).

From what I can tell, what we are talking about with the McCaffery suit is basically someone putting the cost of office supplies for a campaign office on their personal credit card, and then having the campaign reimburse them. As far as I know the suit does not allege that the amounts that were repaid by Seth's campaign were anything but valid campaign expenses (though this seems to be what they want to sneakily suggest in order to make this 'gotcha' lawsuit seem like something bigger).

9-07034199 The above named candidate filed timely Nomination Petitions for the Office of City Council of the City of Philadelphia. At the time of filing Nomination Petitions, the Candidate filed a Statement of Financial Interest, as required by law. Three Petitions to strike the Nomination Petition of the Candidate were filed. Said Petitions claim that the Statement of Financial Interest contains material defects and/or omissions, requiring that the Candidate's name be stricken from the ballot. A hearing before Judges Jacqueline Allen, Pamela Dembe and Eugene Maier was held on March 16th, 2007. Following the hearing, the Judges unanimously ruled that the Candidate's name should not be stricken from the ballot of the May 2007 Democratic Primary, and the Above Candidate's name shall appear on the May 2007 Ballot. The issues and rulings presented are as follows: At the outset of the hearing, the Court granted a Protective Order to the Candidate against a demand for extensive document discovery. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to Election Court matters, and the Election Code does not provide for discovery. The Court determined that this also applies to Ethics Act matters, and that the Objector was not entitled to the requested discovery. In addition, the discovery sought was burdensome and unreasonable. SERVICE A Petition filed by Alfred Sanford was stricken without a hearing because The Petition contained no verification, and no proof of service. The two remaining Petitions were subject to a single hearing, with each Objector limited to those claims specified in their individual Petitions, as proof was overlapping. LINE 9: CREDITORS The Objector withdrew this Objections upon a showing by the Candidate that an item listed a Ford Motor Credit was a vehicle lease and not a loan. LINE 10: INCOME Objector McGill claimed that an entity listed in Line 13, 'Visionary Group, LLC' should also have been listed in line 10. As the entity was indeed listed on the Financial Statement, its omission from a second listing would have been amendable. In any case, the Candidate testified that the entity lost money in 2006. This assertion was not contradicted. The objector claimed that 'Visionary' should nonetheless have been listed as a source of gross income, if not net income. The court rejected this interpretation and denied this objection. As the entity is a a Limited Liability Corporation, whose members are taxed as partners, gross and net income are not applicable. The candidate also failed to list a lease for a Lincoln automobile held by the Genesis IV PAC for her use, although the lease ran from 2003 to October of 2006. She explained that due to physical infirmity, she has been unable to use the car since late 2005. The Candidate was also questioned regarding phone lines to her residence. She testified that one of the phone lines was reserved strictly for Genesis IV business and not for personal use. She was also questioned regarding four pieces of real estate, all of which she admitted owning. She testified that one was an abandoned gas station, one was under construction, a third was an uninhabited, and the last is her personal residence, and that none of these properties generates income. LINE 13,14: BUSINESS INTERESTS The Candidate did not list herself as Chair of Genesis IV, a PAC. She testified, without contradiction, that she resigned in writing as Chair in January 2006, and was told by her attorney that an Amended political Registration Statement had been filed. She also testified without contradiction that 'Alexandra Consultants, incorporated in 1994, has been defunct since shortly after its formation. The court found that there were no fatal defects in the Financial Statement, and that the name of the Candidate shall appear on the May 2007 ballot. ...BY THE COURT: MAIER, J., DEMBE, J., ALLEN, J. 3-22-07

Could you show me where? (I mean that honestly.) This is what I found when looking for stuff on technical ballot challenges, (and on a search of her, and on a search of McClure).

Stier: http://youngphillypolitics.com/second_time_farce

All these challenges on the basis of the statement of financial interests are not really in keeping with our progressive ideals, are they? We are supposed to favor democracy, which means, as Jesse Brown put it at our press conference a week ago, “Let the people decide.”

The law does say that a failure to fill out the statements of financial interest properly is a reason to boot someone from the ballot. But that law is simply asinine, especially when there is so much uncertainty about what should and should not be included on the form. There is undoubtedly some good purpose in the voters knowing how we candidates make our money. That purpose can be attained by a law that requires financial disclosure and gives the Ethics Board, and other candidates, the right to temporarily suspend someone from the ballot until their statement of financial interests is filled out completely and properly. There is no reason to hang someone for an error in understanding a set of requirements that are far from clear. It is much easier to interpret a page of Hegel or Heidegger than to understand the instructions for the statement of financial interests.

Me: http://youngphillypolitics.com/holy_crap_we_need_some_concessions_bob_br...

I don't think, however, that Brady should be kicked off the ballot. That is not democracy. I do think, however, that it is time for Brady, in his role in the City party, to enact some serious reforms with how the City party uses ballot challenges as sport to keep out change.

And, I am pretty sure I was for Irvonio's post here:

http://youngphillypolitics.co/will_congressman_brady_now_help_us_end_got...

We asked all candidates to pledge not to engage in any technical ballot challenges this year in a group commitment to the democratic process and the citizens of Philadelphia. We agreed that fraud and intentional nondisclosure should be confronted, but, short of that, we asked that all those running, and the Party machinery, abandon all the usual “gotcha” nonsense.....

Can we now count on the Party chair to have his allies in Harrisburg introduce legislation to amend the state disclosure law to make clear that candidates have a right to amend their disclosures to correct unintentional errors?

Now, one of the most embarrassing things I have ever posted, was about her, and it was during election time petition time, based on emails and phone calls I got saying that she didn't even file for office by the deadline, and that she got special treatment so that she could file after the fact. But, it had nothing to do with her SFI, and with a ridiculous interpretation from a judge that creates a totally new standard for what is considered income.

It is idiotic that you can't amend these things, and it is bizarre that the judge has newly invented a definition of income.

Judging from what Jennifer posted, in both cases, there is a question of what constitutes income for the purposes of the form.

But in the Campbell case, the critical issues were whether (1) gross income from a partnership with no net income was reportable and (2) whether a phone line and car paid for by the PAC was a legitimate expenditure of the PAC, that is, goods used in carrying out the operations of the PAC or was, rather, something Ms. Campbell used for her own personal benefit.

(1) is a technical legal issue about which there might be some reasonable dispute and (2) is a factual question about how the car and phone line were used.

In the Williams case, the issue is not whether the reimbursed expenses were legitimate or not. The judge does not dispute that they were. What he claims, rather, is that even legitimate reimbursement expenses are income.

This is a legal issue about which the judge's conclusion is simply a howler. It is wrong by a mile. It is not within the realm of plausiblity. And all because, as Tim shows, it is based on (1) a ridiculous set of grammatical arguments about the meaning of a law that is about as clear as a law can be and (2) a misundestanding about the difference beween whether "expenses" received as compensation for providing a service and "expenses" as compensation for advancing funds in the performance of that service.

Campbell did not disclose expenses the PAC paid for according the judge. Seth was paid back for expenditures he made out of personal accounts but disclosed it fully as part of his campaign finance filings. Tereshko's ruling had nothing to do with filing PAC paperwork, which Seth did corectly according the judge. Tereshko is claiming that Seth did not list getting paid back for expenses he temporarily ran up for his campaign on a personal credit card on the form where the candidate is supposed to list their income from jobs they hold or investments they own. Paying back a credit card for early legitimate campaign expenses is not a form of employment. It simply isn't. Thats why Tereshko's ruling is laughable and why if it held up would also disqualify virtually every candidate who ran for office ever, including McCaffery himself.
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.