Bill would place new financial limits on Pittsburgh candidate campaigns |

Bill would place new financial limits on Pittsburgh candidate campaigns

Bob Bauder

Candidates seeking election to Pittsburgh government offices will be limited in how much money they can move from one political action committee to another under a bill slated for introduction Tuesday in City Council.

The bill would eliminate a so-called millionaire exemption from campaign finance regulations and set limits on donations to match those imposed by the federal government.

Councilman Dan Gilman of Shady­side said he plans to amend city election law to close loopholes that nullified donation limits during the race for mayor in 2013.

“Nationwide, money is having too large an impact on our electoral process,” Gilman said. “Locally, we tried to address this a few years ago, but council members made so many amendments, it watered down the bill to almost being useless.”

The ordinance limits donations to $2,000 per individual and $4,000 for political action committees, but the limits are void if a candidate gives his campaign a personal contribution of more than $50,000.

The millionaire’s exemption started in 2013 when city Controller Michael Lamb dumped $52,000 of his own money into his Democratic mayoral primary campaign. A judge ruled that the donation voided the limits, which permitted Lamb and another candidate, former state Auditor General Jack Wagner, to move large amounts from their existing political committees to ones for mayor.

Lamb dropped out of the race, and Mayor Bill Peduto defeated Wagner in the primary contest and won the November election.

Gilman’s legislation would follow federal donation limits of $2,700 per individual and $5,000 for political action committees. It would prevent transferring more than $5,000 from one PAC to another.

It would prohibit stacking, in which a supporter or PAC gives double the amount in one donation for a primary and general election during a campaign cycle. The bill would establish an online searchable database for campaign finance reports, require candidates to file reports in each of the last five months leading to an election and empower the city’s Ethics Hearing Board to enforce the ordinance along with the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.

Gilman is preparing separate legislation for Tuesday that would revamp the Ethics Hearing Board, which investigates alleged violations of city ethics law and claims of misconduct by city employees.

Under that bill, members would be appointed by a separate body of representatives from the Allegheny County Bar Association, dean’s office of the University of Pittsburgh’s Law School and the Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh. The board is now appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council. It would have a staff of at least one person, Gilman said. The board has no staff.

The bill would sever the board’s ties to the city Law Department, which acts as its legal adviser, and include a “whistle-blower” provision to protect people who file complaints.

“There hasn’t been a board that was independent or strong enough to encourage the public or city employees to have faith in the system,” Gilman said.

Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.