«
»

Unless You Get In The Game Now, There Is Like An 85% Chance That Philly’s Next D.A. Will Be A Revolting Fucking Knucklehead.

boss_tweed_nastLook, we know you don’t care, in all likelihood. But you need to. Take a long, hard look at the people currently running for District Attorney in the City of Philadelphia. It’s like friggin’ happy hour at Finnegan’s Wake in there. And we get a deeply dirty, old-school Fumo vibe from just about every one in this rabble-rousing, ham-fisted bunch. On Friday, for instance, Danny McCaffery apparently pulled some strings and, for the moment at least, got the perceived front-runner, Seth Williams, kicked off the ballot over a financial-disclosure issue so arcane and obscure it makes City Hall itself look like a friggin’ Ikea store. And this is to say nothing of how dirty it’s gonna get: We can smell the race-baiting beef-n-beers from here, Philly D.A. candidates. We know what you’re up to. And we’re already ashamed of you. Everybody else, please start paying attention.

Previously: The Philly D.A. Race Is Already Decadent And Depraved (And You Probably Don’t Even Care)

This entry was posted on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 10:20 am.

  • t-train

    I don’t relish being a contrarian, but I’m thrilled to see Philadelphia’s campaign finance ordinance finally enforced, and with such teeth.

    Too many candidates think they can get around the ordinance through artful dodges. Others think they will not suffer serious consequences because their shenanigans won’t be discovered until after they’ve been elected — when any fine would be too little, too late.

    It’s sad for Seth Williams, but I cannot feel extremely sorry for him. The disclosure issue might be arcane and obscure to Philebrity, but it ought not to have been (and likely was not) to Williams’ campaign. Sounds like the campaign took an aggressive legal position.

    Plus, Judge Tereshko is an intelligent, hard-working, and independent judge — one of the best on the Court of Common Pleas. Perhaps that’s a low bar, but he’s an awfully respectable jurist.

    The appeal of the disclosure issue will go to the Superior Court on an accelerated basis in time to be decided well before the May 19 primary. It might get to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as well. Maybe Williams will win in the appeal. Regardless, candidates might now think twice about schemes to get past the ordinance’s contribution limits.

    Let the sun shine in.

  • Zombie Larry

    This is the same office that produced “Fast Eddie”. If there were no corruption in the DA’s office, it just wouldn’t be Philly.

    Oh, I’d like to wish the current hag of a DA a fine fair well. I will miss your driver blocking traffic for blocks so you don’t have to walk two extra steps to get into the Reading Terminal.Also, I will always fondly remember how you took a huge payoff from the auto insurance lobby then started harassing people who registered there vehicles at their beach houses. In the scheme of things that really was a super important thing for you to make your number one priority. It is my hope that you choke to death on your morning bagel during your first week of retirement, your friend, Zombie Larry

  • Dan U-A

    @T-Train:

    First, you love Philly’s campaign finance laws and Judge Tersheko? Guess who killed our campaign finance law, only to be overruled? That would be Judge Tereshko.

    Second, this has nothing to do with the campaign finance law. Instead, it was a judge deciding, out of the blue, that when you spend money on your campaign and then get paid back for it, that counts as personal income to you, which is not only ridiculous, but contrary to the IRS, the ethics board, etc etc etc.

  • t-train

    @Dan U-A

    I’m well aware of Judge Tereshko’s ruling on the campaign finance ordinance. Was he wrong that the state Election Code was intended to preempt localities from regulating campaign finance on their own? The Supreme Court disagreed, but I thought it was a close call.

    The Election Code is awfully comprehensive. Balkanization of campaign finance regulation might not be the best thing for Pennsylvania — and, more important legally, might not have been what the state legislature intended. Legislative history demonstrated that the representatives considered but rejected imposition of contribution limits. Does the silence of the Election Code on the subject mean that the legislature intended to cede the field to localities?

    At any rate, Tereshko’s ruling on that issue was a good demonstration of his independence. The man doesn’t seem to be overly concerned with doing what’s popular.

    As far as Tereshko’s ruling in the current case goes, the easiest reaction to a losing legal argument is to blame the judge. Had Tereshko ruled in Williams’ favor you might have been calling him King Solomon. Maybe Williams is right about the definition of income under the statute. Looking at the opinion, however, it doesn’t appear that Tereshko’s reasoning is obvioulsy “ridiculous.” http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/ruling

    It’s not outrageous, for instance, that Tereshko chose to ignore the definition of income under the federal income tax code or even that he might not have chosen to follow the opinion of the ethics board on the matter. Neither the IRS nor the ethics board wrote the Election Code.

    Candidates have tried in the past to hide the sources of their funds. I’m sure that Seth Williams was not trying to do that. Nonetheless, he took an aggressive stand on the issue when he maintained his position in his amended disclosure statement. It’s a tough old world.