THERE IS MORE than one reason to applaud Attorney General Kathleen Kane's challenge to Gov. Corbett's deal to privatize the state lottery.
Last week, Kane held a news conference to announce that her office was rejecting Corbett's contract with Camelot, the British firm that was to take over the management of the state's $3.5 billion lottery, saying the contract was unconstitutional.
That left Corbett scrambling to salvage the deal, and got Camelot to extend its bid by another weekwhile it explored its options. We don't know what's going to change in a week. Kane's legal review of the contract led her to conclude what seems obvious: that it contravenes the state Constitution and usurps the Legislature's power to make lottery decisions.
The Corbett lottery action - he announced in January that he had struck a deal with Camelot, which was the only bidder, with virtually no notice, no public hearings and scant involvement with the Legislature - seemed to come out of the "not broke, let's fix it" public-policy playbook.
More serious than that, the new deal would expand the lottery to include online and electronic games. This represents an expansion of gaming that should come under far more scrutiny and require more public input, to say nothing of requiring the authority of the Legislature and the oversight of the state Gaming Control Board.
We were heartened by Kane's mention of the gaming board, since we already have argued for having all gaming activities - slots, table games and the lottery - overseen by a single entity. That's the case in many states, and as governments like ours rely increasingly on gambling to raise money, more consistent policy-making and oversight is a priority. The lottery is not an isolated business that can be spun off; it must fit within the rest of the programs that are designed for the good of the commonwealth.
More disturbing is that a big portion of Corbett's governing policies seems to rest on privatization; he has also announced that privatizing liquor sales is a priority. With complicated 21st- century problems like the job market, education, poverty and health care, does Corbett really think that the best he can accomplish is spinning off two government functions, and slashing funds for the rest? He could end up with a legacy of governing by "No." No money for jobs, education, no expansion of Medicaid, and no state participation in the Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
Many read Kane's announcement as a political shot across the bow - and it has to be particularly galling to Corbett to be halted by the person who now holds the office he once did. It bears noting that many raised questions about Corbett's own Bonusgate investigations when he was attorney general - with complaints that his actions were designed to give him a political edge in his subsequent win of the governor's office.
The fact is, we don't want the office of attorney general - the highest law-enforcement office in the state - to be a political bully pulpit for either party.
But Kane was right to put a halt to this questionable deal.