The problem was she did not keep her word she did not run her campaign with courage and grace. That is why her top people bailed on her a week before the election! The reason, because she got in bed with Doc you want proof she calls Doc's campaign manager up for advice after the Inquirer endorsed Farnese! Why was Dicker consulting with Dougherty's media consultants anyway? Isn't corruption something she is sworn to oppose? No one is more corrupt than John Dougherty! Why did Dougherty's media consultants tell Ann Dicker to stay in the race?

I spent many of my formative years babysat at the knees of my grandparents and aunts and uncles in South Jersey, and I never once thought I'd volunteer to move there. I love my family don't get me wrong, but I hated how they would always call our city "Philly," and complain about the taste of our water, and were generally down on the urban environment.

But, as much as I love Philadelphia, after 28 years it's finally occurred to me that maybe they were right. Except it's not Philadelphia I find fault with, but Pennsylvania.

New Jersey is a solidly blue state, and they are consistently on the cutting edge when it comes to progressive public policy. From civil unions for LGBT people to liberalized absentee voting laws to a very progressive income tax to abolishing the death penalty, you've got your pick of concrete progressive legislative accomplishments to chose from in NJ.

And yesterday's really topped the cake: New Jersey became one of only three states in the nation to offer paid family leave to its workers.

From the Inky:

New Jersey's version would offer workers up to six weeks' leave to care for sick family members and newborn or adopted children. During the last legislative session, another version of the bill, which would have offered up to 10 weeks of paid leave, failed to clear the legislature.

The current bill would offer workers leave at two-thirds of their salary, up to $504 per week, for six weeks. Workers would pay for the program through payroll deductions, which would cost an estimated $33 per year. Workers would be limited to one leave per 12-month period.

Federal law mandates most employers give workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave, although companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt.

Paid family leave is an essential plank in a 21st century New Deal for workers. Why?

Because when the first New Deal got started in 1933, many more households contained a full-time stay-at-home member. So when someone else got sick or ill, there was someone available to help.

This is not the case today as any of us who has cared for a sick family member can tell you. In an era where hospital stays are shorter, prescriptions are handed out like candy, and the procession of home care workers into the home of a sick family member can make your head spin, it's necessary to have someone else around full-time.

But without paid leave, when one of the worst aspects of our conversion into a service economy is that vast numbers of workers no longer have sick or vacation days, a lot of people care for their family members in lieu of earning wages, and in some cases, give up their job to do so. Paid family leave addresses this problem.

There are also obviously a lot more women in the workplace today than in 1933, which makes paid family leave an essential worker benefit for any female employee who wants to give birth. Not to mention the fact that starting a family via birth or adoption interferes with work in almost every scenario you can imagine (one parent or two, gay or straight) since we all work a lot more more hours than did our forebearers.

Paid family leave allows families to stay fiscally secure during rough times which, in the long run, benefits our shared economy. It's a shame that states are having to slowly fix this the lack of paid leave in the "landmark" FMLA bill Clinton got passed back in the 90's, but it's heartening that it is happening, and happening right across the river.

In short, I heart NJ's paid family leave.

We need this here too. Dollar for dollar, New Jersey is really setting itself up as a competitor with our region for jobs and residents in a very significant way. Decent home prices, good schools, paid family leave (and for me civil union laws) are all just a PATCO ride away in New Jersey.

And the chances of us getting all (if any) of the progressive reforms they've put in place soon are slim. So unless we decide to secede soon, it might be time to call a real estate agent...

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.

Same-sex couples are currently denied the right to marry, or form civil unions in Pennsylvania.

And LGBT family law makes adoption and surrogacy difficult and costly.

Beyond that, LGBT Pennsylvanians aren't protected from discrimination in hiring or firing processes, or in the pursuit of home ownership, property rental or even getting hotel rooms.

As a whole, gay men earn less than straight men, lesbians less than straight women, and to be queer, and a person of color is to occupy the lowest wrung on the economic ladder.

It's not just about money: safe schools for LGBT kids, assisted living for older queers, domestic violence protection, decent and sensitive healthcare and insurance, police fairness, unfair ID requirements...

...the list of injustices against LGBT people goes on and on.

And now a new one: we're being attacked by a Philadelphia Democrat in the state senate.

A NE Philadelphia Democrat, Senator Mike Stack, voted the "Marriage Protection Amendment" out of Senate Judiciary committee 2 weeks ago. This bill would amend the state's Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, and would prohibit civil unions, and potentially more (like Philadelphia's domestic partnership law). A vote of the whole State Senate is expected in the next 2-3 weeks.

Please add your name to the Liberty City petition to Stack here: http://www.libertycity.org/forms/stack

You may remember a few months ago, a similar petition to another Philly Dem, Rep. Bill Keller, helped achieve a reversal of his position on a non-discrimination bill, and we're hoping to strike again.

We're already doing really well on signatures (thanks to Neighborhood Networks for sending it out). And I got cc-ed on this really cool email:

From: Immy & Phil Ferrara
APRIL 02, 2008
STATE SENATOR-58TH WARD LEADER
MICHAEL J. STACK, III
SENATE DISTRICT #5 OFFICE
12361 ACADEMY ROAD
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19154-1927

Dear Senator Stack:

We are truly & deeply saddened and disappointed to learn of your “sole” Democratic Senator “affirmative” vote on the Marriage/Civil Union Senate Bill #1250, effectively restricting & denying the rights of our beloved surrogate gay & lesbian sons & daughters to marriage &/or civil union.

Our GLBT sons & daughters & friends & families (remember that multitudes of families in our area have GLBT members, including Philip Jr., our own son) suffer the last acceptable & legal discrimination each day of their lives, losing employment, housing, credit/finance, religious, police/legal rights, and now maybe even their personal relationship rights.

We would truly & dearly appreciate your granting us, as soon as possible, a meaningful period of time at your local office, as our State Senator & family friend, to discuss our concerns, and attempt to educate & inform you concerning this issue.

Thanking you in advance for your anticipated attention to our request, we remain

Respectfully yours, with Peace & Love,

Immy & Phil Ferrara, Sr.
58TH WARD--29TH DIVISION COMMITTEE WOMAN--IMMY FERRARA
58TH WARD--29TH DIVISION ALTERNATE--PHIL FERRARA, SR.
(“PROUD” parents of Philip, Jr.)
(“PROUD” 58th Ward Executive Committee Members)

Wow.

With all of the issues that Democrats in the Pennsylvania Senate--like say improved gun laws, more school funding, or an amendment to change the tax uniformity clause--it is disturbing that Stack is willing to spend time and resources to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to deny rights.

The proposed amendment could take away existing legal protections for committed long-term couples and their children, as well as limit other types of relationship recognition. It would also prohibit civil unions.

Not to mention that it is an unstrategic bill for a D to support since constitutional amendments go before the voting public, and this one will likely hit in 2010, just in time for the Rs to use as a tool in the Gubernatorial race.

That means progressives statewide--including our local grassroots progressive groups as well as the more traditional organizational pillars of progressivity like organizations of labor folks, enviros, choice groups, immigrant rights advocates, African-American, and others, all need to pile on to this fight.

Some progressives scorn LGBT organizing with its silly "one issue" focus and "siloing," Some even blamed us for losing the 2004 election. (never mind that Kerry was kind of a dud...)

Sure, the LGBT community is no monolith: queer African-Americans, queer Fillipinos, queer Jews, queer WASPS, women, men, transwomen, transmen, other gendered folks, femmes and butches, "str8 acting" and queens, we're all different. Although, unfortunately, within our community, privelleged white men still hold most of the power, just as in society as a whole. But at the end of the day we are all united by our exclusion from heteronormativity in a way that is unique.

That's left some LGBT folks bitter toward a progressive community that doesn't seem to see LGBT struggles as a priority.

Well, here's a chance to start from scratch and focus in on one Democrat on Philadelphia who should know better.

Mike Stack needs to get with the program. Help him do that by signing the petition here:

http://www.libertycity.org/forms/stack

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.

Our state senate is currently debating SB 1250 that would amend our state constitution to read:

No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference was nice enough to send their attorney to testify at a hearing on the bill yesterday. According to their press release:

Citing the 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia (580 Pa. 564, 862 A.2d 1234), Connell said, "Essentially, the Court said that the City could grant health benefits and maintain domestic partnership status for those in its employ and that the
conferral of such benefits and the creation of the status was not the functional equivalent of marriage.

"The language means that the Pennsylvania courts or the General Assembly could not create a status just like marriage but by some other name, whether that might be a civil union or some other term not yet part of the popular vernacular. It does nothing more and nothing less."

Oh yeah, that's no big deal.

Now remember, PA already has a "baby DOMA" on the books (a state Defense of Marriage Act) which prohibits same-sex marriage. This bill would obviously take this a huge step further.

Two things (among many) really annoy me about this bill:

1. This is total Republican election-year hijinks, with no real agenda other than to turn out conservative voters for the Republican presidential nominee.
2. The drift of the One True Church away from its core mission, and into evangelical craziness and partisan politics (a la Rick Santorum) really bugs me.
   

First, the politics. Today's Inquirer contains a story about Liberty City LGBT Democratic Club' state senate forum last week (disclosure: a group I am the co-chair of). The article lays out the Democratic position on SB 1250, from the article:

The three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo's seat are hoping to win the homosexual vote through a mix of personal connections and support for gay-friendly initiatives.

Their efforts, in turn, underscore the political influence of the gay community in the diverse First District, which stretches from Port Richmond to Philadelphia International Airport and includes Center City.

Two of the candidates - Anne Dicker and Larry Farnese - support gay marriage. John J. Dougherty says he is in favor of civil unions but would back legislation "to extend marriage to same-sex couples."

All three have promised to fight any effort to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman and say they back legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Their positions mirror those of Fumo, who has sponsored anti discrimination legislation and voted against measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage.

Thank God for the choice we have in all three of them, right? For the most part, Democrats are much better on LGBT issues, and certainly here in the city (though I wish Doc would support marriage too), than the Rs.

But the Republicans (and a few anti-gay idealouge Dems) in Harrisburg aren't just bad on LGBT issues, they actually see my community, and our needs, as an opportunity to create a wedge issue that they can use in the fall general election.

Any amendment to the state constitution must be brought before the voters after it passes both the house and the senate in the state assembly. And what better issue to draw McCain-timid Republicans to the polls than some good, old-fashioned lavender-baiting?

On the religion side: I got the Irish-Catholic and the Italian-Catholic in me. I am no practicing Catholic for sure, but I am a cultural catholic if you will. And like with my passing interest in the Eagles or SEPTA(as a very culturally Philadelphia), I sure wish the church would straighten up and fly right.

In the city of Philadelphia alone, 1/3 of all residents live in poverty. That really would have pissed JC off. There was a time (and maybe not for a long time, but a time) when fighting poverty was a priority at the Vatican.

And in fact, I used to know a staffer for the PA Catholic Conference (the group mentioned above) from my time as a welfare rights organizer. I traveled to Harrisburg monthly for a meeting of the PA Welfare Coalition which was fighting, at that time, to get the Republican-headed Department of Public Welfare to do a better job helping Pennsylvanians on cash assistance and Medicaid to get through the system.

The PA Catholic Conference then saw it as a priority to help fix welfare and address poverty: when did carrying the water against gays for Republicans become a bigger priority?

There's nowhere for a rant like this to go but down from here, but as someone who currently relies on the benefits reaped as a City employee domestic partner, and someone who wants the same rights as to be accessible to me as friggin' Brittany Spears gets, I must state for the record that SB 1250 is just not fair...and leaving aside all of our consternation about progressive issues in Philadelphia, the debate on this bill highlights the importance of statewide progressive (and even plain old Democratic party) organizing.

[Speaking of which, Kudos to Brady and everyone else who helped get the House to pass the health insurance bill yesterday!]

CORRECTION 3/19: Above, I say that one purpose of this bill is to get an anti-gay rights question on the ballot for the fall. That's wrong. This won't be something voters get to decide until 2009. Sorry for bad info.

I know I am not the first to break this story, but in case you have not heard, Sen. Vince Fumo is expected to formally withdraw his bid for re-election in the 1st state Senatorial district today.

This leaves Anne Dicker, John Dougherty, and Larry Farnese to duke it out on their own.

Woa. Read more here.

Love him or hate him, there's no denying that Fumo brought a lot of money home from Harrisburg to Philadelphia. And perhaps of even more use, he has showed us that local members of the state legislative delegation can wield a tremendous amount of power (definitely not the norm in the Philly delegation).

Now if only we could find someone to use that power for good...

Well, the wait is almost over. The Bureau of Elections is posting and updating the list of candidates as the petitions come in. Check it out here.

No huge surprises so far, though Doc is officially on the ballot in the 1st (some doubted it would actually happen). Thomas Blackwell, Bill Keller, Angel Cruz, Jewell Williams, and Curtis Thomas are all being challenged, and there are 2 Dem challengers to Harold James in the 186th. And there is a second challenger to Rosita Youngblood--other than Byron Davis--in the 198th.

Most interesting to me was the filing of a Richard Costello as a Democrat against John Perzel in the 172nd. Did I miss this--is this THE Rich Costello former head of the Fraternal Order of Police?

Let the games begin!

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.

Well, our merry band of of liberal ladies gathered for warm drinks at Bistro Romano last evening and we were discussing the growing buzz that GLBT lioness Renee Gellinger may run for Vincent Fumo's state senate seat. These rumors were confirmed over the weekend with an extesnive phone poll taking place that measured support and other items about Renee. It was obvious to those who received it that the poll was coming from Fumo's camp. Few of us at Bistro Romano know Gellinger beyond her reputation, which is quite substantive. She has been here for years, working quietly with various groups to imrove the lot of all of us. She would be a formidable challenger to Fumo. And she has substance behind her. I wonder if the prospect of a three-way race would scare her off though. Does anyone know her more personally?

Philadelphia, PA, Nov. 27 -- Today, the Anne Dicker for State Senate Campaign is running the first in a series of three full-page ads aimed at educating voters about the particulars of the Vince Fumo indictment. The three full-page ads will run on successive Tuesdays with the next two running in the Daily News on December 4 and 11.

To download a copy of the full page ad: www.DontFeedtheAlpacas.com

As many of you have heard, State Senator Vincent Fumo recently put his Fairmount area mansion up for sale. The asking price is a whopping $6.95 million dollars. According to the listing on Fox & Roach's website, the property has been "restored to it's original grandeur" with elevators on all 6 floors, a brick oven and spa, wine cellar, 7 fireplaces, 3 powder rooms, a large custom vault, and a state of the art security system.

However, the City of Philadelphia has the value of this famously opulent home listed at only $250,000. Accordingly, Fumo only pays $6,611 in property taxes--a tiny fraction of what he would owe if the building were taxed at its current sales price. On Thursday, in a vote that stunned reporters and drew widespread outrage, the BRT upheald the current listed value. The property will not be reassessed until 2009.