John Baer: Could this be the year for financial reform?

TOMORROW'S FILING deadline for campaign contributions will show a broad disparity among six pols running for governor, with Allegheny County Democrat Dan Onorato far ahead in the money chase.

Onorato's campaign says he so far pulled in $9 million-plus, likely triple the amount raised by the three other Democratic candidates combined.

The irony here is that Onorato's first campaign position paper (on government reform), issued last November, lists his top reform proposal as limits on campaign finance.

He called such limits "the single most important reform in Pennsylvania government."

He might have added, sotto voce, "and thankfully they're not in place, nor will be soon, as I continue to pass the plate."

His stand is similar to Gov. Ed's who - after raising in the neighborhood of $40 bazillion in two runs for D.A., three runs for mayor and three runs for governor - also calls for limits, now that he can't be re-elected.

His Edness says there are those in office (though certainly not him) who let "campaign contributions influence decisions."

Ya think?

Money moves policy - gambling, energy, health care, you name it - or stops reforms. And limiting money in politics is a needed fundamental reform, especially in Pennsylvania.

Onorato notes that from 2004 to 2009 our state parties and candidates collected close to $400 million, exceeding all states but California, Ohio and Texas.

I'd note that California has triple our population, Texas has twice our population, and Ohio enacted limits last year.

Speaking of states, the National Conference of State Legislatures says that only 10 others allow the level of loose giving we do.

Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia have no limits; Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas have minor limits, such as ours prohibiting direct giving to candidates from corporations and unions - a joke because corporate and union political-action committees give as much as they want.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in January lifted gift bans, allowing corporations and unions to directly support candidates. While the case in question was federally focused, any state law banning corporate/union giving now is vulnerable.

So expect special-interest influence to increase, even as candidates call for reforms.

All four Democrats running for governor say they support limits. Two of them, Jack Wagner and Joe Hoeffel, seem to have imposed them on their own campaigns, though I doubt voluntarily; they're way back in fundraising.

The other candidate, Philly state Sen. Tony Williams, so far raised close to $2 million. Details are due tomorrow, but the biggest chunks are expected to be from a few guys who run a financial firm, Susquehanna International Group in Bala Cynwyd, and who favor, as does Williams, school vouchers. So Williams' stated support for limits does not extend to current collections. Republican candidates for governor (shocker) do not support limits. Attorney General Tom Corbett so far raised $6 million. He supports "transparency and full disclosure" of contributions, according to campaign manager Brian Nutt.

Berks County Rep. Sam Rohrer, expected to finish last in fundraising, supports immediate, 24- to 48-hour, disclosure, but not limits. Campaign manager Jeff Coleman suggests that large contributions help lesser-known, lesser-connected candidates to compete. Republicans never want controls on money because their friends tend to have more of it. But campaign cash should be cut. And compared to other major reforms to improve the shabby state of the state, limiting loot is easier than creating term limits or reducing the Legislature or fixing redistricting.

It would be nice if someone serious about such change would, for once, offer something more than talk.