ShareThis Page
Fast Eddie misled the public |

Fast Eddie misled the public

| Sunday, November 17, 2002 12:00 a.m

PHILADELPHIA – “Eddie … Ed-ee … Ed-eee … Ed-EEEEEE!”

The crescendo was building at Ed Rendell’s victory celebration on Nov. 5. Hundreds of Rendell loyalists were cheering wildly. Rendell would soon stride to the microphone, claiming his gubernatorial victory.

They cared not about the sleight of hand at the end of the campaign designed to dampen coverage of his long-delayed 2001 federal income tax statement. The disclosure came only five days before the election and he got away with it.

Rendell and his wife Midge, a federal judge, made more than $900,000 in gross income. He received a $279,000 stock windfall as a board member of an electronic firm and $252,000 from a Philadelphia law firm for which he had done little work.

The election is over. Rendell won by 9 points. Who cares• Would it have made any difference• Rendell was not required to disclose the information. But his GOP opponent, Mike Fisher, did release his income tax statement.

Rendell did nothing wrong. He made a bundle of money. Terrific.

But if the tax return had been released earlier in the year, or even on Oct. 15 when it was filed, it would have given the Fisher campaign some credible fodder. The Oct. 15 filing had been Rendell’s deadline for his second extension. He didn’t release the documents until Oct. 31. His income statement was potentially a political time bomb.

Here’s why the documents were dangerous:

  • Rendell’s primary opponent, Auditor General Robert P. Casey Jr., who later ardently supported him, had blasted Rendell last spring for collecting the big fee from his law firm, Ballard Spahr, for basically doing nothing.

  • Rendell’s largest contributor, Stephen Frobouck of Pittsburgh, former president of ComNet, had chosen Rendell for ComNet’s board. Other big name politicos, including Republicans, were on the board. As a board member, Rendell received $25,000. When ComNet was sold to a subsidiary of embattled Tyco International last year, Rendell’s stock options brought $279,000. Frobouck had given $665,000 to Rendell’s campaign — $500,000 of it a “loan.”

  • Corporate scandals have fueled a frenzy about corporate greed. It’s not the best time to release this when you have championed the cause of working folks for better health care and lower property taxes.

    OK, who’s to say Rendell, busy on the campaign trail, didn’t need extensions until Oct. 15• But with a law firm and accountants at your disposal it’s hard to see why.

    In early October, I asked for copies of Rendell’s tax statements and was told they would be made available after he filed Oct. 15. Silly me. I thought they would actually be provided the same day.

    I called on the 14th of October and was told by his campaign spokesman that they would be released “sooner rather than later” after the filing.

    I called again on the 15th and they said they wanted to get all the copies and hand them out at one time to the media, probably by the end of the week.

    During a debate in Pittsburgh on Oct. 18, Rendell had stated the delay was due to a complicated land deal.


    The following week I was told – get this – that the delay after the filing was due to reporters supposedly wanting 25 years’ worth of his returns and all the copying that required. I said I only wanted one year. Fisher offered Rendell a Kinko’s gift certificate.

    In sum, Rendell and his campaign misled the press and the public. That’s worth keeping in mind.

    Categories: News
  • 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.