Dear John and Larry,

Well, it’s over. Months of campaigning, a lot of money spent, and you, Larry Farnese, beat you, John Dougherty, in the 1st senate race. So now what?

Well, John, you sent out an email last week that left me wondering. You said:

We will continue to be a force to be reckoned with and will demand accountability and transparency from those elected officials who represent us, here and in Harrisburg. In other words, we'll be watching. And waiting.

Does that mean you are going to run again in 2012?

The count in last week’s election was close, but it wasn’t that close: Larry won the race decisively. It’s your right to run for office, but if you already know you plan to run again, it means you are going to spend a lot of time in the next four years trying to run Larry down.

And that is business as usual right? Dougherty vs. Fumo (with Larry as a proxy)?

That may be the way things have always been, but this fight is getting really, really tired, mostly because you both have more much important stuff to be doing:

Larry. Nobody was harder on you in 2006--at least online--than I was (except maybe Dan). I did not want to see you unseat Babette. And since then, I have gotten to know you better, and I like you--I’ll never forget how you went above and beyond for Philly Against Santorum from tabling in the square to getting me into highrises to speak (your help was especially notable to me as I had written some pretty harsh stuff about you in your 06 election).

So, among the folks who will crawl out from under rocks to tell you, soon-to-be Senator Farnese, how great you are, you can trust me to tell you the truth.

Here it is: there are voters who worry about your ties to Vince Fumo. He is in fact being indicted. Although I think there is a real argument to be made that, despite skimming some off the top for himself, Fumo ultimately brought more money and services to his district than any other Senator in the state, the fact is there is a significant cohort of voters who are tired of Fumo's fiefdom. Fair or not, you are going to need to prove that you are not beholden to Vince Fumo and his political supporters.

Beyond that, you need to vote for, sponsor and shepherd good legislation through the Senate (something Sen. Fumo was often a leader on), and you need to help elect other progressives. There are after all big fights coming up in the State Senate this year like the Philly gun laws, a same-sex marriage ban, healthcare, property taxes, and hey, maybe you can do something about that stupid uniformity clause.

Most important, you have a district that contains some of the wealthiest zip codes in the city, and some of the poorest, and a lot of people in the middle. They all want more services and amenities. But there are some competing interests that have produced racial and class tensions that need to be addressed and, as much as possible, healed.

Your attention being diverted to the Fumo-Doc feud can’t help that healing, or enact any of the other goals above.

As for you, Doc...you have a lot of hiring to do!

According to Tom Ferrick, if we leave out the Laborers, only 1/3 of all building trades members live in the city, and 80% are white, and nearly 99% are men. Meanwhile, 1/3 of all Philadelphians, a larger proportion black than white, live in poverty.

What is wrong with this picture?

I can’t get over the fact that a guy as powerful as you, who built up a union whose membership had been falling, hasn’t done more to hire women and people of color. I know you’ll tell me you’re doing better than some, but the fact is you lead one of the most powerful local unions, (in a sector of employment that’s not portable) and you owe it to the residents of this city, many of whom subsidize local development through their tax dollars, to hire many, many more women and people of color.

Since you won’t be going to the Senate, maybe you can focus all the extra time you had set aside for that on this problem? In this arena, you are more powerful than a State Senator and have the privilege to make real change.

Here are some other things you can do now to demonstrate your leadership:

1) Get all the trades in the state to stop opposing RxforPA. Elected officials listen to you. Lots of people don’t have healthcare. Something needs to be done.

2) Stop propping up Republicans like Mario Civera and Rick Santorum. Your support of Santorum, for dredging or not, was unforgivable in my eyes.

3) Withdraw your current challenge to campaign finance laws, and don’t challenge any more.

Doc, before you pick up the phone to call me, I am not writing this to communicate between you and me, so much as to air the thoughts and ideas I have been hearing from a lot of people in the past few days. I had plenty of chances to say what I thought to your face during the campaign, but speaking on behalf of a larger set of interests, I do challenge you to make significant progress on these issues before you raise the specter of running against Larry in 2012,

The bottom line is that, if you Larry, and you John, both do your jobs well, the people who live in the 1st will benefit. And those citizens need help from both you much more than they need a constant skirmish lasting until the next election (whether for Larry’s seat in 2012, or in a proxy like the 1st councilmanic seat in 2011, DA next year, or maybe a fight against Brady in 2010).

After all, no matter what Anne Dicker did or didn’t do well or right in her own campaign, the 18% of voters who supported her mostly did so because they were sick of voting for either Jets or Sharks, and they want and need real change in their neighborhoods.

The district you live in, and the city you both want to serve, needs more action, and less feuding. As wounds are still healing from the campaign, I hope you’ll both consider that.

Respectfully yours,
Ray

Next week, I am voting for Larry Farnese for State Senator. Till then, I am mentally checking out of the First District race.

I have said plenty about Doc. While I think he has some legit good qualities: ie, a true Philadelphia populist streak- they are far outweighed by all the negative stuff. Plus, I think he will be indicted, which will just be super for our district.

Until recently, I have stayed somewhat silent on Anne v. Larry. I always thought Larry, with his Fumo money, had a better chance to win, and to me, beating Doc is paramount. But, considering that I have volunteered for Anne in 2006, know her reasonably well and think she generally has progressive instincts, I told her on email I was not going to openly criticize her on the blog as I made up my mind.

But, Anne really screwed up with all the stuff that has gone down. There is too much smoke surrounding her meeting with the Doc team to not believe what is being rumored: that after a meeting with them, she has decided to go right after the base of Larry. Now, has sent emails around (or emails from her address) which also basically chide any progressive for thinking about not voting for her, and preemptively blame them for any loss.

Forget whether her new strategy is magically going to make her win (which it won't). To me, it simply shows a lack of judgment to take advice from the Doc campaign, and it was not something we ever would have heard about except it was in the paper. And, it follows a pattern (like with backing Tom Knox) that I am uncomfortable with, in someone who self-identifies as a leader of the progressive movement in Philly, and who's bff calls "one of the most important people of the last 20 years." I don't think she has the staff or money to win, and I don't think she is particularly trying anymore, and is instead going for second place.

As for Larry, I have no illusions that he is a progressive dynamo, or that he is not deeply connected to the Fumo machine. And, I doubt you would find a website that was more critical of him in 2006 than this one. But, since 2006, what I have seen from him is that while he may not always be as progressive as we like initially, he will work very hard, and that he legitimately believes in representing the interests of his district. If he wins, I think the progressive community can help him become a pretty good Senator.

So, I am done. I will even lay off of Doc for a couple days. Instead, I would like to focus on other issues, and other candidates (like Byron Davis, Tony Payton and Vanessa Brown), where I think we can make a real difference.

When thinking about Larry Farnese these days, I keep thinking about the old Moody Blues song 'Every Good Boy Deserves Favour.' In this case, however, it's 'Every Good Boy Does NOT Deserve Favour.'

Farnese may be a decent guy with decent progressive views, but there are a lot of arenas where he could bring those positives into use. I don't think elected politics is one of those arenas. Not every progressive has what it takes to be an elected official.

The seeds of my doubts about him were planted last Fall, and ever since, his actions have only served to reinforce my doubts.

Bumped back up. -Dan

As someone who was somewhat agnostic about what to do about the Doc-Dicker-Farnese First District race, I am stunned by this:

THE TOP TWO aides to state Senate candidate Anne Dicker left her campaign over the weekend, following several days of intrigue over the possibility that she or attorney Larry Farnese would get out of the race.

Dicker said yesterday that she'd fired her campaign manager, Karim Olaechea, after a series of disagreements on the direction of her campaign - and a conversation with political consultant Larry Ceisler, an adviser to the third candidate in the Senate race, union leader John Dougherty.

Dicker's finance director, Matt Goldfine, decided on his own to follow Olaechea out the door.

First, it is widely understood that a 3 person race benefits John Dougherty. The idea that Anne is getting campaign advice from Larry Ceisler- who has long worked for Doc- is totally bizarre. We can all agree that that is not particularly normal campaign behavior, right? Good.

And what was that advice that Anne got from the Dougherty campaign that she bought into? Apparently, it was... to go hard after the votes of Larry Farnese. Huh?

Now, we can all understand why Doc would want Anne to go after Farnese, and therefore seal a Doc win. But, for someone like me, who generally understood that with no Fumo, the least desirable outcome was a Doc win, this raises serious questions about the judgment of Anne Dicker.

Let's remember, she got a lot of crap from the progressive community when she supported Tom Knox in the Mayoral election. Now, with a whole host of progressive groups endorsing her, she is trying to help John effin' Dougherty? I doubt she told PfC et. al. that was going to be her fallback strategy. (I would say this calls into judgment the whole Dicker campaign, but her campaign staff appears to have quit in protest that her new goal has shifted to cutting down Farnese. Now, because they have principles, they are in the newspaper as being 'fired.' Hey guys, keep your head up.)

This campaign has gone from a mess, to a total joke.

Last week, the Ethics Board and the City answered John Dougherty’s attempt to destroy Pennsylvania campaign finance law. As I said way back when, I have little doubt that Dougherty will (again) lose in Federal Court, because Federal District Court judges aren’t prone to overturning the Supreme Court. So, it was pretty cool to read a brief for the Ethics Board, clobbering George Bochetto, et. al. Even cooler was that one of the authors of it was someone many us know… (See the IBEW complaint here, and the Ethics Board response here.)

Doc will lose in Federal Court. In fact, his case will probably be dismissed without ever getting to trial. However, things in Court go slowly, and that was likely their motivation to begin with, right? Just delay showing how ol’ Johnny Doc spends his money till he is done winning in the State Senate. Great.

Of course, once you get to an ever more conservative Supreme Court, who knows exactly what would happen. And, if Doc gets Pennsylvania campaign finance destroyed? So be it. Campaign finance might be important, but getting John Dougherty into the State Senate is paramount, baby!

The funniest thing about the IBEW complaint is in just how bad it is. Generally, for example, when you are writing a brief in Federal Court, you would mention all the really important cases. But, the IBEW complaint actually just skips over cases as if they don’t exist. Its kind of hilarious. The other thing you generally do in briefs is to note a rule that the Supreme Court has given (in this case for PACs), and then relate that rule to your case. But, they don’t do that either, and instead don’t seem to understand the difference between PACs, individuals, corporations, political parties and candidates.

Shockingly, the Ethics Board noticed the ‘deficiencies’ in Doc’s argument, and took them on, and will win big.

But, the best part of the Ethics Board response is that taking away all the legal standards and precedent that is ignored, they perfectly summarize what this case is really about: John Dougherty thinks the only person who should be able to tell him what to do is… John Dougherty:

For its part, COPE does not dispute that these are substantial government interests – nor could it, given that the Supreme Court endorsed them in Buckley and has reaffirmed that ever since. Instead, COPE maintains that it should get to decide for itself whether a particular expenditure is for express advocacy or issue advocacy, with the latter wholly exempt from state and local and (since the statutes are in relevant part identical) federal reporting and disclosure rules. The argument advanced by COPE, however, would put the fox in charge of the henhouse, resting the decision to report and disclose solely in the discretion of those with reasons to evade disclosure.

......

I am listening to the WHYY debate now between Doc, Larry Farnese and Anne Dicker, and Doc was asked about a number of things: the FBI searching his house, the conflicts of interest, etc. Doc's response is what Doc's response almost always is when he gets asked questions that he doesn't like: That he does a lot of good things. He does, of course, do plenty of good stuff- charities, etc. He was a little more forthcoming than he generally is, but... to me, it just is not nearly enough, and doesn't answer what we need to know.

Some random things to note:

1)The WIP Primary. If Angelo and the morning crew are any indication, Obama is going to do pretty well in the white guy from Philly demographic. For those who don't know, following the Rev. Wright controversey, Obama went on 610 WIP (Sports talk) morning show, and became buddies with the morning crew. This morning, he was back on again. Smart move for Obama.

There is probably very little that could brand you as acceptable to a middle-class to working-class white guy in Philly than to have Angelo constantly singing your praises.

2) My favorite guy, and likely next State Senator, John Dougherty is emailing around a poll showing him ahead of Anne Dicker and Larry Farnese. I will have more on Doc later today, because the ethics board responded to his stupid campaign finance challenge with a brief that basically destroys him.

But, anyway, for now Doc says it goes like this (last month in parenthesis):

Dougherty: 31 (14)
Dicker: 18 (13)
Farnese: 14 (4)
Undecided: 37

The earlier numbers are with Fumo in the race, so, Larry seems to have benefited the most from the exit of Fumo. If people want to beat Doc, given his lead, the only way it seems possible is to somehow pick between Larry and Anne. I have some, uh, personal experience with that type of scenario, and I can tell you how unlikely that is. And, progressive groups are already split (like Philly for Change vs. Liberty City).

Meanwhile, for Doc, rumors about grand juries swirl, and Farnese is about to hit him directly with corruption stuff.

3) We're number 1, we're number 1! Oh, crap, number one for this:

Philadelphia has the highest rate of incarceration in jails in the country, according to a new study from the Justice Policy Institute.

In Philadelphia county, 602 people were in jail for every 100,000 in 2006, according to "Jailing Communities: The Impact of Jail Expansion and Effective Public Safety," a study by the institute, a Washington, D.C., criminal-justice think tank. That's up from 369 per 100,000 in 1996, the study says.

Two Tennessee counties followed Philadelphia: Davidson (includes Nashville), with 596 per 100,000, and Shelby (includes Memphis), with 594.

Obviously, that is a shockingly high number. However, we might not really be number one, because the article ignores that it is misleading to compare Philly to other counties in the US. The article- certainly the headline at least- really wants it to look like Philly is special. But frankly, we do not know that to be the case.

If I am not mistaken, we are either the only, or one of the only Counties, to have its borders exactly match the City borders. So, Pittsburgh might be just as bad, but the suburbs of Allegheny County will help their numbers. Same goes for Detroit, et. al.

If we really want to see how Philly stacks up, we would need to see a City, not County, comparison. The article itself- talking about the overall rise- is important. But, c'mon Daily News, if that is your headline, you should at least acknowledge the obvious: as a City (who thinks of us as a County, anyway), we might not actually be number one.

Through campaign manager Brian Hickey, John Dougherty has responded to my post talking about his political donations through COPE, the IBEW PAC. (The same PAC for which he wants to overturn our campaign finance laws.)

I thought I might as well just respond point by point.

First:

The first rule of commentary is picking a side of an issue, building a case and presenting it in a clear, decisive manner. The first rule of reality is looking at all sides of the issue, making a reasoned decision and presenting it in an honest manner.

These rules came to mind Friday morning after reading a post on the Young Philly Politics Web site entitled, “John Dougherty’s Priorities.” In it, a blogger notes that John “donates to almost every politician in the City.” Then, it questions the IBEW 98 PAC’s financial support several of those candidates, in a transparently shameless attempt to tie John to their policies. It’s a flimsy argument that closes with the line, “it is time for everyone to start asking him some tough questions.”

So, I am unreasoned, dishonest, shameless and have flimsy arguments? Geez, Brian, tell us how you really feel! It is funny, when we were doing that YPP/City Paper project, I never heard those complaints...

But whatever, Brian is a nice enough guy who I guess is doing a job, so let's focus on ol' Johnny Doc himself.

Yes, it is time to start asking some tough questions. But they should be posed to all of the candidates.
As in, why does YPP-darling Anne Dicker take a good chunk of the money she’s been able to raise from Bob Guzzardi, of 12th Street Gym HIV-discrimination-suit infamy, while placing herself atop an LGBT-friendly pedestal?

Or “reformer” Larry Farnese’s blatant ties to the insolvent Vince Fumo Inc.? (Read all about it in the Sunday Inquirer.) Should we not ask why Farnese was a card-carrying member of the GOP for much of his adult life? Should we inquire as to which Republicans he supported with his votes and money? (The answer: Yes.) Or should we ask him about those signatures that his campaign manager admitted were um ... so questionable that she never planned to submit them?

I agree questions should be asked of all candidates. In fact, if you do a quick search on this site, we have, for example, asked Larry some of those exact questions before. And, Anne will have to explain the Guzzardi stuff.

But, of course, this wasn’t a post about Anne or Larry, it was about the guy running all the TV commercials, already sending me mail, etc. When you respond to questions with questions for other people…

It is sort of reminiscent of when Doc allegedly told Dave Davies he had the phone records of Jim Kenney, and Doc responded with a letter that didn't deny he said that, but instead said that Doc was a public servant and did a lot of good stuff.

But let’s digress, because John actually invites such queries, considering he’s not the type of person who runs from anything or presents himself as something he isn’t. You have something to ask him? Go right ahead. And here’s part of the answer:

Besides the Young Philly Politics post of Friday, one of John’s opponents recently claimed he’s not a real reformer because his union made donations to Republican candidates. We can’t imagine anything more naïve.

Shorter Hickey: We welcome questions. You morons.

If we are to move forward as a district, commonwealth and country, we must sweep aside the antiquated notion that people of different political stripes can’t work together for the betterment of us all. If John hadn’t reached across the aisle, the City would have lost the potential for thousands of jobs to come to the area because of the much-needed Delaware River dredging project. Cooperation is the key to accomplishing anything in Harrisburg. Whether we agree with somebody’s political leanings or not, a state senator has to not only have to work with Republicans, but also with conservative Democrats from other parts of the state, or else they won’t get anything done.

Let John make this clear: He is a staunch Democrat who is the lone candidate in the race with the experience to forge relationships that will make the First District a better place for us all.

Ha. Ha. Ha. See, you can peddle a line that you need to support Republicans as the head of a Union. I might think that even as the head of a union it is dramatically short-sighted, but there is at least an argument for it. But, as a Democratic Senator? Are you kidding me? Can you imagine if Chaka Fattah or Bob Brady or Bob Casey started shoveling money to GOP Congressmen, to help them keep GOP control of the House or Senate? They would likely be expelled from their party’s caucus.

In fact, in the world of John Dougherty, it appears that the Democrat-Republican breakdown in the House and Senate, nationally and locally, is frozen in time. You want an enduring Progressive majority? Sorry, but Doc disagrees. He thinks to get things done, he must give thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars to incumbents of both parties, including repulsive ones like Santorum.

And, the reason why this is important is that Doc has said he will keep his position at IBEW, which means he will still be controlling their cash, and means he will still be showering 'progressives' like Rick Santorum, John Perzel, Mario Civera and others with lots of cash and labor.

So, again, if he is a staunch Democrat, will he no longer give a dime to help the GOP keep their big majority in the Senate, and try to take back the House from us?

Since people are naming names, how about we also look at the other people who John has given money to? You know, those who were conveniently left out of the online hatchet job.

A basic public-records search indicates that John has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to people YPP has embraced repeatedly and who have led the way in advancing the march of progressive Democratic causes.

Do you like the initiatives Councilman Wilson Goode, Jr. has championed on behalf of the working poor?

Do you support Tony Payton Jr.’s plan to provide college educations to every young person who wants one?

Do you applaud the reform of the city’s DROP program being advocated by Councilman Bill Green?

Do you think Congressman Patrick Murphy’s unique voice is an important one in the Congress?

Are you pleased with Representative Mike O’Brien’s efforts to fight the proposed sites for Philadelphia casinos?

What about Joe Biden’s plan to end our occupation of Iraq?

Ed Rendell or Hillary Clinton’s plan to ensure every Pennsylvanian with health insurance?

John Kerry’s platform of penalizing companies that ship American jobs overseas?

Allyson Schwartz's efforts on behalf of women and children?

Well, John Dougherty has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to these elected officials, too, yet they were conveniently ignored for the purpose of the blog post (Remember the first rule of commentary, right?)

Aw, ‘online hatchet job.’ Cute. But, I sure do appreciate the naming of all these Philadelphia politicians, because it was a wake-up call that I need to be more honest in my posts. It makes me wish I wrote something like this:

The first thing you notice when looking at the reports is that Doc spends a ton of cash. No surprise there, right? He donates to almost every politician in the City.

To their credit, that was a line that could easily be missed. It was buried all the way in the 6th sentence of the post.

I never said Doc didn’t give to Democrats. I said that in his desire to accumulate power, he showers certain people with money who are decidedly anti-progressive. That matters to me now, and it will certainly matter to me if he is an elected Democrat.

Of the three candidates running for the State Senate, and taking into account both lists of contributors, the question stands: Who is best prepared to go to Harrisburg, reach across party lines and deliver the votes we need to take back our power on gun legislation, fully fund our school system and provide much-needed resources to the city of Philadelphia?

Who knows the answer here- maybe Doc, maybe not. (But, just because he is good at accumulating power in Philly doesn't mean he will become a uber-powerful Senator). Anyway, when he props up pro-NRA politicians, does he actually think gun laws are easier to pass? When he donates money to keep the GOP entrenched in Harrisburg, does he really think that it makes it more likely that we will get fully funded Philly schools?

Doc, where have you been the past twenty years? You have been making these donations to Perzel, Civera, Pillegi, Keller, et. al. Why do you need to wait until you get to Harrisburg to take care of all of this? Tell them now, eh?

You bankrolled Bill Keller, with $345,000 in cash the past few cycles, yet you couldn’t get him to stand against the NRA? Geez, maybe if you gave him a mil?

If you’re keeping it real, and not perpetuating tired myths, the answer is simple: John Dougherty.

Note to Brian Hickey and John Dougherty: Use of the the phrase “keeping it real” is restricted to people about two generations below you. Thanks for your cooperation.

Which brings me back to the tough question I have for Philadelphia: When will anybody take the time to look beyond the tired stereotypes and understand who John really is: A man who will be a dedicated public service fighting in Harrisburg every day for the betterment of his constituents.

All BS aside, now we get to the real question, right in that last sentence.

Who are John Dougherty’s constituents, and what will their order of priority be if he wins? Doc has made clear already that he puts the needs of IBEW over the need of the larger union movement, by funding explicitly anti-working class, anti-labor people like Santorum.

Now that he is running for Senate, we need to ask him again: Who comes first? The people of the first district, or the IBEW? If it is us, and he is a 'staunch Democrat,' will he stop shoveling money to anti-worker, anti-LGBT, pro-gun politicians?

There are more questions for him, too. But, let's just start with those. I welcome the response, because I prefer to be called a moron at least twice a week.

As most know, John Dougherty is suing the Ethics Board in Federal Court, trying to shield them from seeing how he spends the cash of COPE, the IBEW’s PAC. So, with data pulled from OpenSecrets.org, I decided to take a look at how Doc spends his cash. The way I figure, maybe this will let us learn more about a guy without a huge record of public service.

The first thing you notice when looking at the reports is that Doc spends a ton of cash. No surprise there, right? He donates to almost every politician in the City. But, then I decided to compile his spending from the last three election cycles, and see if Doc’s campaign rhetoric matches the actions he has taken over the last three years campaign cycles.

For example, last week, the Inquirer noted that Doc was wooing the LGBT vote. While the LGBT community certainly has complex set of political desires, I bet the ability to marry each other, to not be targets of bigotry, and to be able adopt children with their spouses has to be sort of high on their general list, right?

Meet Philadelphia’s Mike Stack, Doc's future colleague in the Senate, and a supporter of enshrining bigotry into the Constitution. In the last three cycles, Dougherty has given him over $54,000. Just a few days ago, in fact, Stack again said yes! he! can! to Bigotry.

Meet Mario Civera, a GOP State Representative from Upper Darby. In 2006, Mario Civera answered a campaign questionnaire and took the following positions:

• If Roe v Wade were overturned, he would vote to ban abortions.
• He opposes embryonic stem cell research
• He opposes the State funding contraceptive services.
• He opposes the State mandating that insurers provide contraceptive services.
• He opposes a moratorium on the death penalty.
• He supports putting bigotry into the Constitution, with an amendment to ban same sex marriage.
• He supports banning gay couples from adopting children.
• He supports school vouchers.
• He opposes state funded, public school pre-schooling.
• He supports letting healthcare providers refuse to administer services to patients if they are morally opposed- like writing a prescription for birth control, for example.

In short, Mario Civera is a bad dude. But he is also likely beatable. The face of Upper Darby is dramatically changing, and neanderthal leadership such as his will not be successful too much longer. In fact, in 2004, on a shoestring campaign, Philly for Change’s Josh Richard almost beat him- taking 46% of the vote.

Beating Civera would be a great thing for those concerned with LGBT rights, with the separation of Church and State, and with many other progressive issues. And given the changing face of Upper Darby, this is the type of seat that Democrats must have if they want to build any sort of lasting majority.

But, John Dougherty, that erstwhile champion of LGBT rights, seems to love Civera’s innovative style of bigotry. He loves it so much, that over the last three election cycles, Doc has funneled at least $26,000 to Civera, and another $66,400 to the Upper Darby Republican Party. In other words, Doc has spent a grand total of at least $92,400 to try and keep the House in the GOP’s hands, and this guy in office.

Luckily, Dougherty is not just a champion of LGBT rights. He also has told us that he will stare down the NRA and get us gun laws. Apparently, the only reason we haven’t gotten better gun laws in the State is because our legislators are big old wimps.

But besides the general threat of the NRA, there have been some concrete obstacles over recent years to getting good gun laws. In fact, there probably are some real wimps in the gun department, even among people who should be on our side. You know them, right? Those Philly Democrats who don’t generally stand up to the NRA. Like, for example, Bill Keller. Keller has a pretty solid record from the NRA (and until recently, seemed pretty anti-LGBT).

Want to take a guess at the minimum Doc has funneled to Keller in the same last three cycles? If you said $345,000, you win a wimpy stuffed gun.

Oh, and progressive stalwart, and worst person ever, John Perzel? Doc gave him $165,000. Or how about the GOP Senate Majority Leader, Dominic Pillegi? He should be pissed, he got only a pitiful 17 grand.

John Dougherty can talk about his long record of public service. But if running a union and accumulating power are the main points of reference we have for him, and he has supported politicians with explicit anti-Gay and anti-gun control agendas, why should be believe what he says now? And considering that Doc has said he will not give up control of his union and its piggybank, it is time for everyone to start asking him some tough questions.

OK, YPP soon won't have Vince Fumo to kick around any more. I can see why he dropped out of the race: combine his heart issues with the massive indictments against him, and he probably figured it wasn't worth the trouble to keep fighting.

The big question is: who does this help? You've gotta think that the favorite now is John Dougherty, given his already high profile. Then again, either Anne Dicker or Larry Farnese could easily focus on Dougherty's faults as a candidate, and take him down a few notches. But could Dicker + Farnese, in effect, split the 'reform' vote, giving Johnny Doc an easy win?

Looks like lots of fun + games in the 1st PA Senate district,
-Z

Love them or hate them, the two state races sucking all the air out of the room (besides of course the Presidential race) will both be the subject of one of the only neighborhood head-to-head candidate forums of the season.

Come See the 1st Dist. State Senate Debate on March 12th
A THRILLA IN SOUTH PHILA!

Candidates Night

Wed. March 12th
Palumbo Recreation Center
10th and Fitzwater Street

7:00PM

State House Candidates at 7PM sharp!
Peggy Banaszek, Bob Gormley & Babette Josephs

State Senate Candidates at 7:30 PM sharp!
Anne Dicker, John Dougherty
Larry Farnese, Office of Vincent Fumo
& Jack Morley

Come with your questions,
concerns and comments.

Brought to you by
Bella Vista United Civic Association
www.bvuca.org
267- 872- 4686

Today, my favorite local politico, John Dougherty, filed suit against the City, the Board of Ethics, the Attorney General and others, attempting to overturn a piece of Pennsylvania's very limited campaign finance laws. (See the complaint he filed here.)

John Dougherty, suing to overturn campaign finance laws? Hey, at least this time he is not just suing Philly! This time, he is going after the State, too. Specifically, he is suing in Federal Court, asserting that it is unconstitutional to force his IBEW Committee, COPE, to disclose how it spends its cash to influence elections.

Basically, Doc only wants to have to disclose when COPE specifically advocates for him a candidate who is running for office. Why? Because, when he has a pile of cash in his committee, he would like to keep it nice and secret, so long as he does not specifically mention his a candidate's name.

Gosh, it sure is amazing how John Dougherty becomes such a stanch defender of the first amendment every time he is running for office.

We will have much more on the specifics of this case, soon. But, here are a quick couple of thoughts:

1)I suppose Doc wanted to make sure that in his battle with the indicted Vince Fumo, progressives don't cast any votes for him. Mission accomplished.

2)Dougherty, the 'progressive' who backed Rick Santorum, joins other stalwarts such as Wisconsin Right-to-Life, and ultra-right wing Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell in trying to get Federal Courts to remove limits on how money is spent in our elections. I don't know if the suit will be successful- I doubt it- but there is no question that under the new Supreme Court, campaign finance laws are in danger from a concerted right-wing effort, as was shown in in the recent Wisconsin case. Congrats, Doc, on joining the movement. Next you can tell us why we need a flat tax, to privatize social security, and to invade Iran.

3)What, exactly, does Doc have to hide? I mean, it would seem that a guy running for Senate who also controls a political committee with tons of cash would probably want to allay fears that he is doing anything underhanded. But, hey, when you want things secret, you want them secret.

More soon.

Update:

The story is now in the Inquirer, and it is actually worse than I thought:

"It's a very, very important and fundamental First Amendment issue in this country," Bochetto said of the right to advocate for a cause in an election.

J. Shane Creamer, chairman of the Ethics Board, said he had not seen the lawsuit late yesterday afternoon but took issue with the type of spending Bochetto was contending should be exempt from reporting.

"We're talking about T-shirts and hats that they purchased that said 'Candidate X for City Council,' 'Candidate X for Mayor,' " Creamer said.

Bochetto said that even expenditures on items that are that specific are not subject to public scrutiny if they were not done with input from a particular campaign.

In other words, John 'the progressive' Dougherty is actually suing in Federal Court to effectively overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 (FEC v. McConnell), which upheld the McCain/Feingold ban on soft money, regulated PAC's, etc.

Normally, that wouldn't be a concern and it means that it is overwhelmingly likely that he will lose initially- Federal District Judges aren't prone to ignoring Supreme Court decisions. However, and this is the catch: The newly far-right court has indicated that despite their very recent ruling in McConnell, they might be willing to hear it again, given their new progressive justices, Sam Alito and John Roberts.

So, with any luck (and this is largely irrelevant for this race, because Supreme Court appeals would take a couple years), when the far right talks of heroes in the fight to get unlimited money back into politics, our very own John Dougherty just might join Mitch McConnell and others as a true, blue hero.

Marcia Gelbart reminds us that today in the PA Supreme Court, arguments are being held to determine whether or not Philadelphia has the power to make its own campaign finance laws.

I have said a lot about this, for a long time.

But, let's just review real quick:

1) If you care about the City, and believe in its power to govern, it is probably not a good idea to argue that the City should not have power to do things like this. These kinds of arguments spill into the State taking away our power to regulate a lot of different areas (like, billboards/zoning, guns, smoking, education, casino placement, etc). These things don't happen in individual vacuums. They all contribute to the idea that anytime it feels like it, the State should take away our power to self-govern. To have two people who wanted/want to be Mayor at some point still arguing this is bizarre.

2) Lessening the influence of big money from Philly politics is a good thing. That is what this bill does, despite some imperfections that should be fixed.

Sigh.