Close this special-interest loophole
Public resources and political activity are like oil and water — they don't mix. That's what we're told, but the truth might surprise you.
Because of a legal carve-out for special interests, Pennsylvania has been mixing public resources and politics for years. But that carve-out could soon end.
It has long been illegal for elected officials to mix political business and the people's business. Even sending a costless fundraising email from a state-owned computer will land any elected official in hot water.
Who can forget former Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin and former House Speaker John Perzel, both of whom violated the bright line between politics and public resources? The downfall of such high-profile politicians shows that subverting public resources for political gain will not be tolerated.
Except when it is.
Pennsylvania government regularly collects and distributes tens of millions of dollars earmarked for politics on behalf of one special-interest group: government union leaders. Not coincidentally, these leaders also happen to be among the state's biggest political spenders.
This political money, both union dues earmarked for political activity and political action committee (PAC) contributions, is deducted from workers' paychecks — just like taxes — then forwarded to government unions and their political organizations.
In turn, union leaders have used PACs to give more than $40 million directly to political candidates in the last 10 years. In the 2016 election alone, they donated over $400,000 to successful Democrat candidates for state treasurer, attorney general and auditor general; in 2015, they directed $340,000 to Democrat judicial candidates; and in 2014, $3.4 million went to Gov. Tom Wolf's campaign.
A comparison of government union spending with that of the natural gas industry — often criticized for its heavy influence in Harrisburg — offers some crucial perspective. The eight largest natural gas PACs spent $1.1 million during the 2016 Pennsylvania elections. The top eight government union PACs spent more than six times that amount—$7.1 million.
PAC contributions, however, capture only a portion of taxpayer-aided government union political spending. Since 2007, government union leaders spent an additional $55 million on politics from a portion of union members' dues explicitly dedicated to “political activities and lobbying.”
For example, Pennsylvania State Education Association members' dues fund the union's magazine, The Voice, which regularly endorses politicians such as Katie McGinty, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
All told, government unions have spent an astonishing $96 million on politics over the past decade, collected with taxpayers' aid. Clearly, public resources and politics are, indeed, mixing.
Paycheck protection would fix this ethical blind spot.
In February, the state Senate passed legislation that prohibits using public resources to collect money earmarked for politics. Under the bill, government union leaders would still be able to collect money and spend it on politics; they would just do it like everyone else — without government help.
Public resources and politics were never meant to mix. It's time to close this legal loophole, once and for all.
Jessica Barnett is a policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org).
