ShareThis Page
Probe zeros in on House Republican staffers |

Probe zeros in on House Republican staffers

| Sunday, August 17, 2008 12:00 a.m

Several state House Republican staff members have been subpoenaed in the attorney general’s investigation into whether state money was used to pay for political campaign work, a caucus spokesman said.

The exact number of subpoenas isn’t known. The Tribune-Review reported Aug. 8 that more than 20 House Republican staffers spoke to Attorney General Tom Corbett’s investigators without being subpoenaed.

House Republican spokesman Steve Miskin said Saturday he did not know how many subpoenas had been issued or in which offices the staff members worked. He has said the caucus is fully cooperating with Corbett’s investigation.

The investigation centers on bonuses awarded to legislative staffers in 2005-06, a tough election cycle for incumbents battling public outrage over pay raises that lawmakers granted themselves.

Legislative leaders have denied that the money was paid for political work. Most of it — $2.2 million — went to House Democratic staffers. Republicans got about $919,000.

Charges of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest were filed July 11 against 12 Democrats, including Rep. Sean Ramaley and former Majority Whip Mike Veon, both of Beaver County.

Corbett, a Republican, had been criticized because he has charged only Democrats. He is running for re-election this year.

Corbett has said he is investigating all four caucuses in the House and Senate. His spokesman, Kevin Harley, declined comment yesterday.

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.