Hershey fight goes political with $100K donation to Kane campaign |

Hershey fight goes political with $100K donation to Kane campaign

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG — A former board member of the multibillion-dollar charity that controls The Hershey Co. has made a $100,000 campaign contribution to Kathleen Kane, the Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania attorney general, reports made public on Monday show.

The hefty donation from Robert Reese to Kane was made amid a pending state investigation of the Hershey Trust, whose board was once chaired by the father-in-law of Kane’s Republican opponent, David Freed.

Reese, a grandson of the man who created Reese’s peanut butter cups, is a former member of the boards of the Hershey Trust and the school for disadvantaged children that it benefits.

He sued the trust over alleged financial improprieties last year, a few months after the attorney general’s office revealed it was conducting a civil investigation of transactions by the trust. The trust sought dismissal of the lawsuit, denying any wrongdoing. Reese later withdrew it.

Freed’s father-in-law, former attorney general LeRoy S. Zimmerman, was the trust’s board chairman during the period in question. Freed has said he would turn the probe over to a special prosecutor if he is elected and it is still active when the next attorney general is sworn in in January.

Attempts to reach Reese by telephone were unsuccessful on Monday.

Kane, a former Lackawanna County prosecutor and political newcomer whose victorious campaign in the April primary was financed mainly by more than $2 million from her husband, has raised nearly $3 million since then without significant help from her family.

Freed, the Cumberland County district attorney, was not opposed in the GOP primary and has raised more than $2 million.

Both candidates released summaries of their contributions and expenditures on Friday, the state’s deadline for the last reports required before the Nov. 6 election.

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.