PAWaterCooler.com

Last week, we learned of a new legal standard in Montgomery County: it doesn’t matter if one blatantly ignores the letter of the law as long as one adheres to the “spirit of the law.” This bold new precedent was unilaterally set by Montgomery County Solicitor Barry Miller in explaining why law firms do not need to submit to the bidding process to get contract work with the County. We also learned from Mr. Miller that there are apparently only eleven––eleven!—law firms in existence that are qualified to do work for the County. As Mr. Miller explained, why bother to submit them to a bidding process when the talent pool is so small?

Whether Mr. Miller believes that “following the spirit of the law” is contingent upon the law firm question having donated to the election campaign of his mentor Jim Matthews is a bit unclear at this point.

The only snag in this brilliant legal reasoning is county ordinance 98-2. This ordinance, implemented during perpetual-candidate-for-any-available-office and ethics crusader extraordinare Joe Hoeffel’s first pass through the County Commissioners’ office back in the late nineties, specifies that any business performed for the county should go out to bid on a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to no less than five businesses. Ordinance 98-2 was put into place to enable the County avoid the appearance of favoritism, or pay to play, if you will, when soliciting bids for work.

As some more astute folks might point out, if there is no need for law firms, or any other such business that has such a “small pool” from which to draw, to submit competitive bids, what would said business’ motivation be for billing the County at its lowest, most competitive price, when eventually, that business’ turn for a sweet, uncontested, no bid County contract will come its way?

So wonders Bruce Castor, in a memo sent to Barry Miller earlier today:

I have attached a copy for convenience of Ordinance No. 98-2. Your statement at the publicmeeting that the hiring of bond counsel for the most recent issue was done within the “spirit of the law” led me to think you must have been thinking of a different law. Ordinance No. 98-2 requires a written request for proposals go out to prospective lawyers seeking to do legal work of any kind for the county. The system you described where we simply call law firms from an approved list and rotate the business around provides no incentive for the firms to keep costs down. Such firms can charge anything they want knowing that they are on a “wheel” and that our business will eventually get to them. The “spirit of the law” is that firms compete for every job and thus give us the best price each time. If the same firm always gives us the best price, and does a capable job, I see no reason why that firm shouldn’t get all the county’s work. We are not in the law firm welfare business. Our job is to get the best possible professional work at the lowest possible price for the taxpayers, while at the same time avoiding accusations of favoritism. The system we are using does not advance those goals and, in fact, is directly contradictory to the very law we enacted to combat allegations of pay to play.

Since this ordinance applies to all professional services, I wonder if we have routinely failed to comply with its provisions since the current Board took office? Based on your comments last week, I’m guessing we have never followed it. Can you reassure me in this regard? Is it not your duty as Solicitor to make certain that we follow the law, especially those laws the County has enacted itself? Are there other county ordinances that we have decided not to follow? I cannot recall the commissioners ever once discussing (in my presence anyway) the awarding of a contract for an outside law firm. Surely the potential for mischief is obvious when we fail to use the request for proposals system, as required by our own ordinance, and compound that failure by making the selections in secret with no public scrutiny of how these law firms are selected.

I would like a list of all professional service contracts entered into since the current Board assumed office. Further, I would like to know, for each one, whether we sent out written RFPs to at least five professionals as required by Ordinance NO. 98-2 and to whom the requests were sent. As I am sure you realize, this is an issue of great public interest and I request that you provide me with this information at your earliest convenience.

Oh, and Mr. Miller, do you think you can bring this request in for under $245.75?

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Super Bowl Saints, Katrina and Corruption
Feel-Good Stories Won’t Rebuild A City

BY CHRIS FREIND
“FREINDLY FIRE”

Off the bat, let’s get a few things straight:

1) New Orleans is a one-of -a-kind city. It should be on everyone’s list to visit at least once.
2) Despite the fact that the Colts will always be Baltimore to me, I am rooting for Indianapolis in the Super Bowl. And not because I am a Manning fan, but due to the nauseating media coverage that if the Saints win the Big Game, that will somehow heal all wounds from Hurricane Katrina.

Gimme a break.

When will people stop living in a fantasy land and speak the truth about what really happened before, during and after Katrina hit? The reality is that, regardless of whether the Saints win, New Orleans is still at risk and will continue to be until the people wake up, and no victorious football team or the infinite number of feel-good puff pieces about NFL players will change that.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but they aren’t entitled to their own set of facts. And here are the facts:

Louisiana in general, and New Orleans in particular, are among the most corrupt places in the country. This is nothing new, and residents have known this for generations. It has become such an ingrained part of the landscape that people have accepted it as a part of life. That’s their choice, but they shouldn’t turn around and expect the rest of the American taxpayers to foot the bill because their corrupt way of life finally caught up with them.

Everyone knows that New Orleans sits in a floodplain, with most of the city below sea level. So in order to protect the Crescent City, a series of levees were constructed. Rather than do the right thing, however, which would have been to follow recommendations designed to protect the city from Category Four or Five hurricanes, many state and city officials thought that diverting levee money to other projects would be a wiser course.

And since much of that funding came from taxpayers in the other 49 states, why not? It’s always a lot more fun to spend OPM— “other people’s money.”

You know kind of worthwhile projects I’m referring to — important ones that put the security of people and property ahead of all else.

Like millions for a Mardi Gras fountain. Fountains have water, and levees are related to water, so who could argue?

Or riverboat gambling schemes. Boats float, so they could just rise right along with hurricane storm surges while people continue to gamble.

Or a host of other projects, like green space, commercial buildings, and….the list goes on. And on, and on.

Because for decades New Orleans dodged the direct-hit hurricane bullet time and again, with storms diverting at the last minute and the city being spared, proper preparations still weren’t made. Many felt they didn’t need them because “God loves New Orleans.” Obvious lessons that should have been learned were simply ignored. Corruption trumped security.

In the aftermath of Katrina, attention shifted from why this wholly avoidable tragedy happened to the horrific response of leaders such as President Bush and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

Coverage of both men’s bumbling was merited, to be sure. But both also had an excuse.

They were incompetent.

Here’s the bottom line. Taxpayers are sick and tired of paying for other people’s mistakes, be they bank bailouts, auto company failures, or cultures of corruption that pad the pockets of the powerful while forsaking everyone else.

And in the larger picture, why should the federal government, which is funded by we the people, have any obligation to rebuild a city constructed in a known flood plain that is regularly visited by hurricanes?

If you want to live there, great. Flood insurance should be mandated. And if it isn’t offered, maybe that’s a clue that the risk outweighs the reward. If that risk is acceptable, fine. But the rest of us shouldn’t have to shoulder the responsibility to be the risk-free safety net for people who choose to live in high-probability disaster areas.

But the icing on the cake is listening to self-serving Louisiana political hacks who get outraged that Washington doesn’t pick up the ENTIRE cost of rebuilding and maintaining New Orleans. To them, I offer Dean Wormer’s legendary advice from “Animal House”— “fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.”

So if the Saints win the Super Bowl, become “America’s” team in the process, and make everybody feel good, it will only exacerbate the overarching problem that is endemic in this nation: looking the other way and pretending all is well.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change that fact that we will be called upon — again— to pay the bill— again— should New Orleans get slammed by another Katrina.

But given that we’re approaching insolvency as a nation, the safety net of taxpayer dollars may not be there next time.

It’s time the people of New Orleans stop pretending that a Super Bowl solves anything. Fix the problem now, or face the risk of going it alone.

If their city gets leveled— a very real possibility— they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose news site, The Artorius News Bureau, is slated to launch in mid-February. Readers of “Freindly Fire” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on a Philadelphia-area talk radio show, WCHE, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Freindly Fire’s Analysis of the Democratic Governor Candidates

BY CHRIS FREIND

The 2010 election cycle in Pennsylvania will be one of the most important in decades, highlighted by the gubernatorial contest. History favors the Republicans, since the governor’s office has switched hands every eight years since 1968, when governors were first permitted to serve two terms.

That said, the Democrats are not going quietly into the night. Conversely, the field continues to grow as more see promise that the eight-year trend may finally break due to the Democrats’ 1.2 million voter edge.

It is far too early to state that 2010 will be a watershed year for Republicans, as many in the GOP believe. While popular Attorney General Tom Corbett looms as the expected Republican nominee (he won a stunning victory in last year’s election, posting a 400,000 vote margin in an otherwise horrific year for Republicans), he must still get past Congressman Jim Gerlach’s insurgent candidacy.

No matter the GOP opponent, the Democrats will post a formidable challenger. Following is an analysis of the five most likely candidates, and their chances for victory:

Philadelphia Businessman Tom Knox

Many political observers believe that the next governor of Pennsylvania will be named “Tom,” and there is credible evidence behind this theory. While Tom Corbett is in the GOP’s driver seat, Tom Knox brings a plethora of assets to the race, and will present substantial obstacles for his opponents.

First and foremost, Knox can and will self-fund a large portion of his campaign warchest. He spent $12 million in his bid for Mayor of Philadelphia in 2007, narrowly losing to Michael Nutter. In doing so, he became a household name in southeastern Pennsylvania, which just happens to be home to 45% of the state’s electorate – a huge benefit to Knox.

Most political observers believe that $10 million is the minimum needed for the primary. Since Knox will easily pass this threshold, he immediately gains a huge advantage over his opponents. While they will spend their time fundraising, Knox will be traveling the state meeting, greeting – and raising even more money.

Knox’s positions on the issues also make him attractive to many of the state’s moderate Democrats, especially those in the northeastern and southwestern sections of Pennsylvania. He has been an outspoken leader in opposing electric deregulation and the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh Blues merger, and supports school choice and tort reform, all issues of significant interest to the business community.

At this point, color Knox the frontrunner.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato

Watch for Onorato to emerge as the Ed Rendell legacy candidate. While Rendell has not officially endorsed anyone – yet – it is clear to many that his close relationship with Onorato will be exploited to maximum effect during the campaign.

Onorato already has $5 million in his campaign fund. That gives him a solid start, and may be enough to weed out the rest of the field, with the exception of Knox. And while Rendell’s approval rating is dismal, he is still a popular figure in Philadelphia and its suburbs. Ed Rendell’s touting of Onorato, along with the use of the Rendell political machine, is certainly good for a significant boost, especially important because Onorato is barely known in the state’s most expensive media market.

But years as Allegheny County Executive comes with baggage. While Onorato pushed through a hugely unpopular drink tax, his biggest liability may be what many consider conflicts of interest with campaign donors. This could be a substantial negative factor, particularly since the current governor has been roundly criticized for his widespread conflicts, with some even suggesting rampant pay-to-play activity.

In an era where voters are increasingly concerned about the appearance of impropriety and corruption in state government, Dan Onorato may be in the wrong race at the wrong time.

Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty

While a nice town, Scranton is home to only 70,000 people, hardly the major metropolis in which an unknown mayor can launch a credible statewide campaign. The Keystone State has two major media markets, including the nation’s fourth largest, and they are not cheap. Going from a zero name ID to even 30 per cent will be extremely expensive, and Doherty will simply not be able to raise the campaign cash necessary to achieve this minimum level of effectiveness.

Since there are townships with more people than Scranton, it is clear that Doherty’s candidacy for governor is a joke, amounting to nothing more than a ploy to raise name ID for a Lt. Gov. run. No more ink is necessary for a non-starter like Doherty.

Auditor General Jack Wagner

Jack Wagner has proven to be an effective, independent Auditor General, one who has shown political courage by taking on Gov. Rendell and his Administration on various fiscal issues.

A former state senator, Wagner is a proven vote-getter in statewide elections, an endeavor none of his opponents has undertaken. Hailing from the same southwest base as Onorato, Wagner could pose huge problems for the Allegheny County Executive. While not being able to raise the same level of money as Onorato, Wagner’s possible motivation could prove more troublesome. It’s no secret that the Wagner-Onorato feud is viewed as akin to the Hatfields and McCoys; many observers think Wagner may jump into the race to play the spoiler.

An unheard of tactic? Try again. Just look at last spring’s district attorney race in Philadelphia. Dan McCaffery was one of only two viable candidates in the Democratic primary, yet two of his four opponents (like him, both white Irish Americans) stayed in the race to the end. Their disdain for McCaffery was palpable, and they clearly affected the dynamic of the race. McCaffery came in second.

Many Republicans have praised Wagner, which will not help him in a Democratic primary, but the biggest obstacle facing the Auditor General is his lack of fundraising prowess. If he can find a way to solve that problem, he will be an extremely viable candidate. Look for a Wagner candidacy soon, with a possible drop-out announcement a few months later, but not before Onorato’s image is seriously tarnished.

Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel

The recent announcement of a Hoeffel candidacy has the political observers buzzing, because on paper, it changes the dynamics of the race. A second candidate from the vote-rich southeast now dilutes the once-solid Knox base, especially since Hoeffel is a well-known figure who has represented Montgomery County for two decades.

While a Hoeffel candidacy is intriguing, it remains to be seen if he can raise the money to compete. If Onorato becomes the de facto candidate of Gov. Rendell, watch for the fundraising spigot to close from Rendell’s large-dollar contributors, many of whom hail from Montgomery County.

Interestingly, the Hoeffel candidacy places Rendell in an awkward position. A second candidate from the southeast would help Onorato, but if Hoeffel’s star falls quickly due to a lack of support, Tom Knox and his imposing warchest would again take center stage. Yet if Rendell tacitly helps Hoeffel to hurt Knox, there exists the possibility that Hoeffel would catapult to the head of the pack and end up hurting Onorato.

Conspiracy theory aside, Hoeffel is aided by the fact that he controls millions in county and federal stimulus money, and many recipients of such largesse would no doubt show their appreciation by supporting a Hoeffel gubernatorial campaign. If that becomes the case, however, Hoeffel will have to contend with charges of conflicts of interest, likely to be one of the hot-button issues in the campaign.

Hoeffel is no stranger to that. In a 1993 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, he was criticized for coming close to selling his office after sending a letter to supporters that “managed to tout both his key policy-making position as a county commissioner (’I have found myself ‘in the loop’ of policy and personnel decisions’) and his continued availability as a Norristown lawyer ‘to consult with you on any legal matters you might have,’” according to the editorial.

The newspaper stated that it would “feel more forgiving about the whole business, if Mr. Hoeffel himself conceded the perception problem – heck, it sounded like unabashed influence-peddling – instead of pawning it off as the creation of partisan mischief.”

If Hoeffel makes it to the spring, watch for that editorial to become part of your everyday television and radio lineup.

Hoeffel also has to contend with the perception that he cannot win a statewide race. His highly-touted announcement for U.S. Senate in 2004 was the highpoint of the Hoeffel campaign. He proved to be a non-entity against Arlen Specter, getting trounced by an 11 point margin.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent newspaper columnist and investigative reporter whose readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

Except here in Pennsylvania, we like to call it “pay to sue”. I’m a little late with this, but the WSJ ran this damning report back on April 8:

Rather, what’s at issue is the fact that the civil action against Janssen is being prosecuted on behalf of the state by Bailey, Perrin & Bailey, a Houston law firm. And it turns out that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s Office of General Counsel was negotiating this potentially lucrative no-bid contingency fee contract with Bailey Perrin at the same time that the firm’s founding partner, F. Kenneth Bailey, was making repeated campaign contributions totaling more than $90,000 to the Democratic Governor’s 2006 re-election bid.

Janssen’s motion seeks to invalidate the contingency-fee arrangement and lays out a detailed timeline of Mr. Bailey’s political contributions and the subsequent actions of the Governor’s office. Here it is in part:

- On February 23, 2006, Mr. Bailey contributed airplane travel valued at $9,200 to Governor Rendell’s re-election campaign.

- On March 3, 2006, Mr. Bailey contributed $50,000 to the Rendell campaign.

- On May 12, 2006, Mr. Rendell’s office submitted a “request of delegation” to the state Attorney General, a Republican, that would allow the Governor’s office to handle the case against Janssen.

- On May 24, 2006, the request was granted.

- On June 30, 2006, Mr. Bailey contributed $25,000 to the Democratic Governors Association (which gave Mr. Rendell more than $1 million for his campaign in 2006).

- On August 14, 2006, Mr. Bailey signed a no-bid contingency-fee contract with the state.

- On September 15, 2006, Mr. Bailey contributed airplane travel valued at $6,900 to Mr. Rendell’s campaign.

- On October 23, 2006, the Governor’s Office of General Counsel mailed the contingency fee contract to Mr. Bailey.

- On October 30, Mr. Bailey contributed another $25,000 to Mr. Rendell’s campaign.

- On February 26, 2007, Bailey Perrin filed the initial complaint against Janssen on behalf of the state.

Asked about the timing of Mr. Bailey’s political donations, Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo says Bailey Perrin was selected because of “their experience in these kinds of legal matters.” Mr. Ardo says the Governor was aware of the campaign contributions but “had nothing to do with the selection.” Asked why the Governor thought the case should be handled by his office rather than by the state AG, Mr. Ardo says, “the suit involves agencies directly under the Governor’s control, and the General Counsel’s Office believed it could eliminate a lot of unnecessary work by dealing with those agencies directly.” Readers can decide if they buy that one.

It’s funny how you can find a million reports on Rendell’s anti-assault weapon campaign, but this story, eh, not so much. Perhaps that’s why the WSJ ran this follow up a few days later:

It’s some racket. The plaintiffs attorneys come up with novel legal theories under which to sue companies or entire industries. They then solicit state AGs (or cash-hungry Governors like Mr. Rendell) to retain them to bring cases on behalf of the government on a contingency-fee basis. Motley Rice and Lieff Cabraser are among the firms that have targeted drug companies as well as makers of cigarettes, paint and guns.

I subscribe to the WSJ Online–the editorials come right into my in box. I remember seeing the “Pay-to-Sue” article, but for some reason, I did not read it. Had I not happened on to Philly.com today following a link about the assault weapon ban, I would have forgotten all about it. As it was, a commenter pointed out that Fast Eddie’s renewed interest in the assault weapon ban may be a diversion tactic from his involvment in pay-to-play. As the WSJ rightly points out, the episode speaks “volumes about Mr. Rendell’s political ethics.”

Cross posted on Bluftooni

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Fire Sale Of State Building Going To Rendell Backer?

Auditor General Is Reviewing Rendell Administration’s DGS Sale Agreement
By Chris Freind

Eyebrows have been raised concerning the possibility that some of Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell’s high-dollar donors may be buying state property at “fire sale” prices in a depressed real estate market. The prospective new owner of the State Office Building in Pittsburgh is affiliated with a company whose two top executives contributed $221,000 to Gov. Rendell’s campaigns.

Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner, the commonwealth’s elected fiscal watchdog, announced he was reviewing the Pennsylvania Department of General Service’s (DGS) agreement to sell the State Office Building in Pittsburgh to River Vue Associates for $4.6 million because the transaction amounted to a “fire sale.” DGS is part of the executive branch of the Rendell administration.

River Vue Associates is an affiliate of Millcraft Industries of Canonsburg, Washington County.

Millcraft chairman Jack Piatt has contributed $186,000 to Democratic Gov. Rendell’s campaigns, and Lucas Piatt, Millcraft’s Vice President, has donated $35,000 to Mr. Rendell.

River Vue would acquire the State Office Building early next year and possibly turn it into residential units with some hotel, retail or other types of space, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

In a letter hand-delivered to DGS Secretary James Creedon, Mr. Wagner said the Department of the Auditor General’s Office of Special Investigations would be seeking all available information pertaining to the sale, including lease terms and associated build-out costs at all privately owned buildings where DGS has relocated, or plans to relocate, 800 workers from at least 22 state agencies.

“I continue to believe this is the worst possible deal for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania,” Mr. Wagner said. “It makes no sense for the commonwealth to sell this prized asset — the signature building of state government in Western Pennsylvania — for the lowest possible price during the most depressed real-estate market in decades.”

Mr. Wagner asked DGS a month ago to take the State Office Building off the market until economic conditions improve, after another developer, the Buncher Co., withdrew its bid of $4.5 million. As an alternative to selling the building, the auditor general suggested the state investigate the possibility of using federal funds for green technology to rehabilitate the 52-year-old structure.

The 274,000-square-foot building occupies a prime, 1.3-acre location in downtown Pittsburgh, at the entrance to Point State Park, and offers sweeping views of the confluence of Pittsburgh’s three rivers. Along with the Gateway Center complex, the State Office Building is a symbol of the post-Word War II downtown renaissance envisioned by David L. Lawrence, the late mayor of Pittsburgh, who served as Pennsylvania governor from 1959-63.

“The land alone is worth more than the sale price,” Mr. Wagner said. He noted the state has agreed to purchase the City of Pittsburgh’s Municipal Courts Building, which is one-fifth the size of the State Office Building and is situated in a less desirable location, under the Liberty Bridge and next to the Allegheny County Jail, for $9 million.

The State Office Building sale is a bad deal, Mr. Wagner said, because there would not be enough profits from the sale to offset moving expenses and pay for the first year of leases at multiple locations in downtown Pittsburgh, saddling taxpayers with an additional spending burden.

“During these difficult economic times, with the state facing multibillion-dollar deficits for the next few years, we should not be saddling hard-working Pennsylvania residents with additional financial burdens they cannot afford,” Mr. Wagner said.

“In addition to being financially wasteful, it would be ludicrous for Secretary Creedon to decentralize state offices in Pittsburgh while other government agencies are moving to centralize other functions in order to save money,” Mr. Wagner said. “Under the terms of this sale, the only certain winners are the buyer of the building and the landlords of the office space where state employees will be relocated.”

Chris Freind can be reached at cf@thebulletin.us

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Comcast and Rendell: A High-Octane Connection

Conflicts of Interest Pervade the Relationship

BY CHRIS FREIND

Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell’s recent decision to criticize the Sunoco oil company for laying off 750 workers raises a number of intriguing questions. While the governor saw fit to hold a press conference solely to excoriate Sunoco, calling the company’s decision “unconscionable,” he has been notably silent concerning 3,000 layoffs — four times the Sunoco amount — which Comcast has executed in the past year.

Since the governor’s election in 2002, SUN PAC, the Sunoco political action committee, has contributed $55,000 to Mr. Rendell, with Sunoco employees donating an additional $2650.

During that same span, Comcast’s PAC, its employees, and the spouses of its top executives donated $634,350 to the governor. Additionally, Comcast spent at least $100,000 on Mr. Rendell’s inauguration festivities in 2007, being designated “Benefactor” by the governor, the highest level of contributor.
The David Cohen Factor

The governor’s closest ally at Comcast is Executive Vice President David Cohen, who has contributed $80,000 to Mr. Rendell. Mr. Cohen is a longtime Rendell confidante and fundraiser, serving as Chief of Staff when Rendell was Mayor of Philadelphia. Prior to joining Comcast, Cohen was Chairman of the Ballard Spahr law firm, where Mr. Rendell worked while campaigning for governor. Ballard, which provides legal counsel to Comcast, has come under intense media and legislative scrutiny for the frequency and amount of secretive no-bid contracts it has received under the Rendell Administration. In addition, it received almost $800,000 for work on the Pennsylvania Turnpike without any contract.

Ballard Spahr LLP has contributed $481,000 to the governor’s campaigns, with its attorneys donating an additional half million dollars. Also, the Philadelphia Future political action committee (PAC), registered at the Ballard offices and whose treasurer is Mr. Cohen, pumped $471,000 into the Rendell coffers.

The address on Gov. Rendell’s campaign finance reports is the 51st floor of 1735 Market Street in Philadelphia. Ballard Spahr occupies the entire floor.

Cohen also serves as Chairman of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Despite Mr. Rendell’s unprecedented intrusion into the private business sector by his attack on Sunoco, a major Philadelphia employer and Chamber member, no action was taken by the Chamber to defend the company.

The Comcast High Speed Money Connection

The Comcast money trail doesn’t end with Mr. Cohen. Ralph Roberts, Comcast’s founder, his son Brian, who serves as Chairman and CEO, and several other executives are strong Rendell backers. The elder Roberts contributed $52,500, and the son, $48,500. Comcast Chief Operating Office Stephen Burke donated $32,000.

According to Department of State records, the spouses of Comcast executives also made high-dollar contributions to Mr. Rendell. Rhonda Cohen donated $156,000, and the Roberts’ wives, Suzanne and Aileen, respectively, combined for another $25,250. Gretchen Burke contributed $5000.

The Comcast Corporation PAC contributed $93,500 to Rendell campaigns.

Rendell: On The Comcast Payroll

In addition to his $145,000 salary as governor, Mr. Rendell has also worked as a part-time football commentator for Comcast, earning a reported $20,000 per year. This arrangement has led many to question the apparent conflict, but the governor simply brushes off such criticism. As governor, Mr. Rendell has also collected a paycheck from the University of Pennsylvania, where Cohen serves as the Chairman-elect on the Board of Trustees, for his services as a lecturer. The university is a recipient of substantial state aid.

Comcast Aid: An End Run Around the Legislature

In constructing its new Center City headquarters, Comcast executives lobbied the state government for financial assistance. The firm sought a Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ) designation for its building, which would have provided local and state tax relief. Despite the fact that KOZ’s are intended to spur development in areas of blight, not prosperous Center City locations, the $30 billion company almost succeeded with the help of Gov. Rendell. Had the Comcast effort prevailed, the company would have been exempt from state and local business taxes until 2015.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania legislature defeated the efforts of Comcast and the governor.

The governor then made an end-run around the legislature, funneling nearly $43 million in taxpayer money to aid Comcast and pay for infrastructure near the Comcast building, prompting outrage from many. Comcast’s direct incentives were nearly $13 million.

The economic development funds equated to roughly 10% of the building’s cost.

A Cynical Public

At a time when political corruption trials, pay to play scandals and conflicts of interest are rampant, polls show a public with an increasingly cynical view of their government and elected officials. The Pennsylvania legislature has responded by introducing a number of bills aimed at how state contracts are awarded.

Under the Rendell Administration, over $1 billion in no-bid contracts have been awarded.

Chris Freind can be reached at cf@thebulletin.us

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...