Commonwealth of Corruption: More DeWeeses? |

Commonwealth of Corruption: More DeWeeses?

The sad saga of “Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Corruption,” is one chapter longer with the sentencing of former state House Speaker Bill DeWeese on public corruption charges. But Keystone State residents can only wonder how many more chapters of that saga remain to be written.

The Greene County Democrat, 62, was sentenced to up to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and $116,000 in restitution last week. But considering he could be paroled after less than two years behind bars, that’s a slap on the wrist for a verbose and self-serving “public servant” found guilty of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest for using his staff to campaign on the taxpayers’ dime.

Oh, yes, Mr. DeWeese’s conviction also will cost him his $2.8 million-plus state pension. But that’s still not punishment enough, considering how obdurately oblivious DeWeese is to his egregious betrayal of the public’s trust.

Despite overwhelming evidence, DeWeese maintains he’s innocent, says he’ll appeal, waited until just before sentencing to resign from the House, remained on the primary ballot — unopposed — and remains a candidate in the November election. This, despite state law barring felons from House seats (and no legislator convicted of a felony being elected in three decades).

How many more thieves like DeWeese are there in Harrisburg? Sadly, tragically, we suspect there are more. And the place for them when they are caught should be the same place Bill DeWeese is headed — to prison, but for a much longer term.

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.