Archive

ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: Paycheck protection defeat puts politics ahead of people | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Trib editorial: Paycheck protection defeat puts politics ahead of people

PennsylvaniaBudget62545jpgf2915
Matt Rourke | AP
The Pennsylvania Capitol building in Harrisburg.
PennsylvaniaBudget62545jpgf2915
Matt Rourke | AP
The Pennsylvania Capitol building in Harrisburg.

Politics as usual reared its obtuse head high in the state House last week as lawmakers voted 102-90 to retain government’s role in the collection of political campaign contributions from unionized public workers.

Let’s put this in perspective: Pennsylvania lawmakers and judges have gone to jail for using taxpayer resources in their campaigns. But using government payroll systems at the state, county and local levels to collect campaign contributions for unions’ political action committees? That’s different.

And that’s why Senate Bill 166, which would have removed government’s hand from union PAC collections, went down to defeat despite extensive arguments against this unseemly practice.

“Today, the politicians who are among the top recipients of government union campaign cash voted to continue exempting their big donors from commonsense ethics laws that govern everyone else in the state,” said Matthew Brouillette, president and CEO of Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs.

Harrisburg’s union acolytes say S.B. 166 is anti-worker. But these same workers are perfectly free to make their own political contributions. And the argument that it costs the state only $100 to run its electronic-deduction program goes to show that it’s no hardship for unions to collect their own PAC money.

The measure likely will resurface in the Legislature. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania lawmakers had a prime opportunity to vote for the people they supposedly represent instead of the unions that fill their campaign troughs. The people lost.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.