The bipartisan commission trying to make Harrisburg work better plans to vote today on a sorely needed proposal that would limit political campaign donations in Pennsylvania.
Currently, candidates for state office are under virtually no restrictions on how much money they can raise from individual donors. Only 12 other states allow such a wide open system of fund-raising, which gives an unfair advantage to incumbents.
Under such lax rules, Gov. Rendell was able to accept six-figure donations from wealthy individuals for his reelection campaign last year. Some contests for state legislative seats ended up costing nearly $1 million.
Not only does this unregulated process put challengers at a disadvantage, it creates greater potential for corruption. The focus on big donors is also partly responsible for a legislature that grew out of touch with the public in recent years. If the culture is to change for the better, there must be limits on the amount of money flowing into candidates' coffers.
The 24-member commission co-chaired by State Reps. Josh Shapiro (D., Montgomery) and David Steil (R., Bucks) will vote on whether to bring Pennsylvania's fund-raising guidelines into line with standards for federal candidates. That means candidates for state office could accept no more than $2,300 per donor per election, and political action committees would be limited to donations of $5,000 per election.
The commission should approve these limits unanimously, to send the strongest recommendation possible to the General Assembly to enact them into law.
Another good idea under consideration would deal with the Tom Knox factor. The so-called "rich man's exception" would allow a challenger to exceed the contribution limits three-fold if his or her opponent spends more than $250,000 of his own money on the campaign. Knox spent about $10 million in his losing effort to win the Philadelphia mayor's race, but about 85 percent of candidates with a fund-raising advantage win.
The commission also will vote on proposals to beef up disclosure requirements, and make so-called "527" advocacy groups comply with reporting rules. Just do it.
Also to be voted on is a measure concerning the state's open-records law, which badly needs to be updated and improved. The commission will consider a proposal to change the current law by creating a presumption that all state records are open, unless the state can prove otherwise. Again, the vote here should be a resounding "yes."
Current law puts the burden on the public to demonstrate why records should be available, a concept that runs counter to the spirit of open government.
Two final proposals deal with trimming the size of the legislature and imposing term limits of eight or 12 years. Both are ill-conceived ideas. Eliminating legislative seats would only reduce the public's access to its representatives. And term limits should be imposed in the voting booth, not artificially by decree.
While the commission should reject the notion of reducing the size of the legislature, the cost of the legislature is another matter. Pennsylvania's legislative branch ranks as one of the most expensive, per capita, in the nation. The commission should vote to recommend cutting costs by 10 percent or more, a savings of more than $30 million annually.
With the voting today, the commission set up by Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.) will conclude its second phase of work to reform Harrisburg. Strong votes on campaign finance limits and improvements to the open records law will send a clear signal to the General Assembly to adopt these reforms swiftly.