Showing posts with label third-parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third-parties. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Governor Pawlenty Eliminates PCR Program

One of my favorite Monty Python skits is the infamous encounter between King Arthur and the Black Knight. What makes the scene so funny is that after first losing one arm – and then a second – the Black Knight keeps on fighting as though nothing has changed. I was reminded of this scene yesterday after Governor Pawlenty disclosed he was eliminating the Political Contribution Refund program effective July 1, 2009.

On principle, the Independence Party of Minnesota has always agreed to fight its Republican and DFL opponents with one arm tied behind its back because of our refusal to accept and be influenced by special interest and lobbyist money. Now the Governor is slicing off our other arm by eliminating the PCR program which rebates political contributions dollar-for-dollar up to $50 for individuals ($100 per couple).

Like the noble Black Knight, the Independence Party will proceed on its noble quest. As the only political party truly dedicated to fiscal responsibility, I am of the opinion that during these difficult economics it is only fair that political parties and candidates share in the burden of balancing the state budget. As such, I have no qualms with Pawlenty’s decision.

What this means, however, is that all of us must rise to the occasion and embrace the IP’s other time-honored principle of personal responsibility. In other words, we must now fund the party and its candidates before the benefit of this program is eliminated.

The fact that the Republican governor and the DFL-controlled legislature couldn’t come up with a budget-balancing agreement this past session tells us that the common-sense wisdom of the Independence Party is needed in Minnesota now more than ever.

If you feel the same way and believe in the party and its bedrock principles, help the party by making a contribution today! Don’t delay! Go to www.independenceminnesota.org and click on the Contribute link at the top of the page. Or mail your contribution today to Independence Party of Minnesota - PO Box 40495 - St. Paul, MN 55114. You will receive your PCR application and rebate receipt in the mail as soon as we receive your contribution. Hurry - you have until June 30, 2009 before the PCR program is elimininated!

Jack Uldrich

Chair

P.S. If you prefer to fight with at least one hand, make your contribution today at www.independenceminnesota.org – while you can still qualify for the rebate!

Prepared and Paid for by the Independence Party of MN
Your contribution is not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Constitution Party of Minnesota Supports the Hauser Family


We live in a Constitutional Republic founded on personal freedom and
responsibility. The Declaration of Independence focused on rights granted
to individuals by our Creator, and the Constitution that formed our
government outlined specific limitations on how those rights and freedoms
were to be protected. We now have a government that is infringing on
those rights and freedoms at every turn. The latest example is the New
Ulm, MN court ruling against Colleen Hauser and how she and her family
Choose to raise their son and receive medical care. The Constitution Party
of Minnesota supports Colleen Hauser in her defiance of this tyranny.
She is a true hero and patriot, risking incarceration for the right to raise
her family free of government interference.

The issue should not be about the validity of chemotherapy, which has
clinical studies paid for by the pharmaceutical companies to prove the
efficacy of their claims, or whether the natural remedy chosen by the
family is reasonably effective, which has anecdotal support but no
clinical studies to prove or disprove its claims because no one is making
enough money from them to finance those studies. The issue at stake is
government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and
infringing on their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment
to the Constitution. The court ruling against the family bases its
authority on the assumption that children are property of the state, not
the parents, when in reality it is the parents, not the state, that will
stand before God to be accountable for how they raised their children.

As Thomas Jefferson predicted, the central government has been quietly
encroaching into our lives for generations (under both major parties),
picking off our freedoms one by one, mostly unnoticed by the populace,
and replacing those freedoms with government "benefits" that soften us for
the next level of intrusion. If the New Ulm court ruling stands, this now
includes how we raise our children.

Constitution Party of Minnesota

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Senate race shows need for runoff system

By: Nick Hannula , Duluth News Tribune

As I write this, the 2008 election for U.S. Senate in Minnesota is, as of yet, undecided. Incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken each won about 42 percent of the vote. Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley scored 15 percent. Coleman and Franken are separated by hundreds of votes, with Coleman holding a slim advantage. Per Minnesota law, ballots are being recounted to decide the race’s winner.

Whichever candidate prevails will have barely won a narrow victory to the dissatisfaction of the majority of Minnesota voters; 58 percent will have not voted for the winner.

This race and other recent elections underscore a need in Minnesota to reform election law.

Coleman also failed to meet the 50 percent threshold in his 2002 election. The last three gubernatorial elections — in 1998, 2002 and 2006 — were won with 37 percent, 44 percent and 46 percent of the vote, respectively. And this year, two Minnesota congressional seats were won without a majority of the vote.

The fact that most voters did not choose former Gov. Jesse Ventura, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Coleman, Rep.-elect Erik Paulsen and Rep. Michele Bachmann in their respective races is problematic. Voters’ choices are not accurately being portrayed through the election results.

Third-party candidates have skewed results from whichever candidate is actually preferred by the voters.

The Independence Party and other third parties hold a strong place in Minnesota, and, as such, should not be disenfranchised in our system. Rather, they should exist within a system that allows a candidate, no matter the party, to win with a majority of the vote.

To solve the problem of the non-majority electoral victory, Minnesota should adopt either a two-round runoff system or an instant runoff system.

A two-round runoff system would mean that, if no candidate attains an absolute majority on Election Day, the top two candidates would proceed to a second round soon afterward. The winner at the second round wins the office. Similar systems are in place in states and localities nationwide, including Louisiana and Georgia.

The other choice is instant runoff voting, or IRV. In IRV, voters mark their choices for any given office in order of preference. If their first choice is not among the top two vote-getters, their vote is redistributed to their second choice. For example, in this year’s Senate race, a voter could have marked Barkley as their first choice and Franken as their second choice. As Barkley ended up in third place, his votes would have moved to Franken and Coleman, depending on how individual voters marked their ballots. The end result would have been a majority victory for either Franken or Coleman. This would result in a faster victory for one candidate or the other, but tends to be more confusing than the two-round system.

Whichever choice is made, electoral reform is needed in Minnesota. We cannot have our elected officials take office without the election results being anything but the best representation of the voters’ choice.

Nick Hannula grew up in Duluth, graduating from Denfeld High School in 2006. He’s a senior at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minn., double-majoring in political science and economics. He interned this summer in the Washington, D.C., office of U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar

forwarded to me by Michael Schaefer

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Farheen Hakeem's Political Courage












Voters in south Minneapolis district have the right to know where their candidates stand on the issues. Only
Farheen Hakeem has the audacity to stand up for what she believes in and how she will fight for her constituents. This is taken from her Political Courage Test at VoteSmart.org:

Abortion Issues


Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding abortion.

a) Abortions should always be illegal.
X b) Abortions should always be legal.

c) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.

d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.

e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

f) Abortions should be subject to a mandatory waiting period.

g) Require clinics to give parental notification before performing abortions on minors.

h) Other or expanded principles

Budget and Tax Issues

State Budget: Indicate what state funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category, you can use a number more than once.
Slightly Increase a) Education (Higher)
Greatly Increase b) Education (K-12)
Maintain Status c) Emergency preparedness
Greatly Increase d) Environment
Maintain Status e) Health care
Slightly Decrease f) Law enforcement
Maintain Status g) Transportation and highway infrastructure
Greatly Increase h) Welfare
Greatly Increase i) Other or expanded categories
For Health care, I would like to join with other legislators to bring Single Payer Universal Health care to Minnesota.

State Taxes: Indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category, you can use a number more than once.

Greatly Increase a) Alcohol taxes
Slightly Increase b) Cigarette taxes
Greatly Increase c) Corporate taxes
Slightly Increase d) Gasoline taxes
Maintain Status e) Income taxes (incomes below $75,000)
Slightly Increase f) Income taxes (incomes above $75,000)
Greatly Decrease g) Property taxes
Maintain Status h) Sales taxes
Slightly Increase i) Vehicle taxes

j) Other or expanded categories
Undecided 1) Should state sales taxes be extended to Internet sales?
Yes 2) Should accounts such as a "rainy day" fund be used to balance the state budget?
No 3) Should fee increases be used to balance the state budget?

4) Other or expanded principles

Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding campaign finance and government reform.
Yes a) Do you support limiting the number of terms for Minnesota governors?
Yes b) Do you support limiting the number of terms for Minnesota state senators and representatives?
c) Do you support limiting the following types of contributions to state legislative candidates?
Yes 1) Individual
Yes 2) PAC
Yes 3) Corporate
Yes 4) Political Parties
Yes d) Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Yes e) Do you support imposing spending limits on state-level political campaigns?
No f) Should Minnesota participate in the federal REAL ID program?
Yes g) Should Minnesota allow homeowners whose mortgage is in foreclosure a one-year deferment on their primary residence?
h) Other or expanded principles
No Answer

Crime Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding crime.

a) Increase state funds for construction of state prisons and hiring of additional prison staff.

b) Establish the death penalty in Minnesota.
X c) Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
X d) Implement penalties other than incarceration for certain non-violent offenders.
X e) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

f) Minors accused of a violent crime should be prosecuted as adults.

g) Support state and local law enforcement officials enforcing federal immigration laws.
X h) Support hate crime legislation.

i) Other or expanded principles

Education Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding education.
X a) Support state funding of universal pre-K programs.

b) Support federal education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students (No Child Left Behind).
X c) Support state education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students.

d) Support requiring public schools to administer high school exit exams.

e) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any public school.

f) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any private or religious school.
X g) Provide state funding to increase teacher salaries.

h) Support using a merit pay system for teachers.
X i) Provide state funding for tax incentives and financial aid to help make college more affordable.

j) Support allowing illegal immigrant high school graduates of Minnesota to pay in-state tuition at public universities.

k) Other or expanded principles
I support J, but I would term it to be "Support allowing undocumented high school graduates of Minnesota to pay in-state tuition at public universities.

Employment Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding employment.
X a) Increase funding for state job-training programs that re-train displaced workers and teach skills needed in today's job market.

b) Reduce state government regulations on the private sector.

c) Provide low interest loans and tax credits for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses.

d) Provide tax credits for businesses that provide child care for children in low-income working families.
X e) Increase state funds to provide child care for children in low-income working families.
X f) Increase the state minimum wage.
X g) Support laws that prevent employers from dismissing employees at will.

h) Support financial punishments for those who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

i) Support increased work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients.

j) Increase funding for employment and job training programs for welfare recipients.

k) Other or expanded principles

Environment and Energy Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding the environment and energy.
X a) Promote increased use of alternative fuel technology.

b) Support increased production of traditional domestic energy sources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil, etc).

c) Support providing financial incentives to farms that produce biofuel crops.
X d) Use state funds to clean up former industrial and commercial sites that are contaminated, unused, or abandoned.

e) Support funding for improvements to Minnesota's power generating and transmission facilities.
X f) Support funding for open space preservation.
X g) Limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
X h) Enact environmental regulations even if they are stricter than federal law.

i) Other or expanded principles
I would support increased production of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. I would also support funding for improvements to Minnesota's power generating and transmission facilities if it was to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet.

Gun Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding guns.
Yes a) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
No b) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
Yes c) Should a license be required for gun possession?
Undecided d) Do you support current levels of enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
Undecided e) Do you support current state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?

f) Other or expanded principles

Health Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding health.

a) Ensure that citizens have access to basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, or state-funded care where necessary.

b) Guaranteed medical care to all citizens is not a responsibility of state government.

c) Limit the amount of damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits.

d) Allow patients to sue their HMOs.

e) Require hospitals and labs to release reports on infections that are a risk to public health, while not compromising patient confidentiality.

f) Legalize physician assisted suicide in Minnesota.

g) Support allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.

h) Other or expanded principles
I support single payer universal health care.

Social Issues


Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding social issues.
Yes a) Should Minnesota recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
Yes b) Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
Yes c) Should Minnesota provide state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples?
No d) Do you support a moment of silence in public schools?
Undecided e) Do you support voluntary prayer in public schools?
Yes f) Do you support sexual education programs that include information on abstinence, contraceptives, and HIV/STD prevention methods?
No g) Do you support abstinence-only sexual education programs?
Yes h) Should the state government consider race and gender in state government contracting and hiring decisions?
Yes i) Do you support affirmative action in public college admissions?
Yes j) Should Minnesota continue affirmative action programs?
Yes k) Do you support state funding of stem cell research?
Yes l) Do you support state funding of embryonic stem cell research?
No m) Do you support allowing pharmacists who conscientiously object to emergency contraception to refuse to dispense it?
n) Other or expanded principles

I am confused to what "e) Do you support voluntary prayer in public schools?" Students should have the right to pray in schools if they choose, but the school administrators should not require students to attend prayer. For example, is a student wished to do Friday Prayers, which happen at lunch time, the school should not stop the student, and meet their needs. Yet, a teacher can not require all of the students in the class to pray along with the student.

Legislative Priorities

Please explain in a total of 100 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.

The big challenge that I see in the Legislature is to balance the 2
billion dollar deficit without cutting programs and services to the poor.
As your State Representative, I would advocate that housing, jobs, youth
programming, and programs to end poverty are an investment, not an
expense. I will fight to secure general funds to sustain programs for
education and social services, and work beyond party lines to create
solutions to balance the budget, find funding for community programs, and
bring landmark legislation to law.

[ These taken from VoteSmart.org Farheen's primary opponent has this listed on their site:

Mr. Hayden repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

I consider Mr. Hayden's inaction to be yet another sign of local DFL corruption, ineptitude, and not truly standing for anything but getting elected. - KC ]

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Whose Congress is this?


Anyone who still thinks that either of the two major parties represent the interest of Main Street rather than Wall Street should take a look at how much money the members of the US House of Representatives who voted for the "No Tycoon Left Behind" bailout bill have raked in from the same financial sectors responsible for the whole mess in the first place.

According to The Center for Responsive Politics, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received on average 51% more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries (FIRE industries) over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation.

In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78% more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. The data shows that, over their careers, they collected 88% more. While the gap is smaller on the Republican side, those who voted yes on the bailout bill got an average of 23% more in contributions from the FIRE industries in this election cycle than House Republicans who voted against it. In the long run, they got 53% more.

When it comes to raking in cash, party leadership fares even better. House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank (D-MA) received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries. Ranking Republican committee member Spencer Bachus (AL) received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989.

Unlike the two corporate parties now running Congress, Green Party candidates accept no corporate contributions. When in office, we will not be owned and bossed by Wall Street fat-cats. Green Officeholders are free to vote for what's best for us, the American people, instead of the Wall Street insiders who now run the show.

But to make your voice heard, we need your support. If your Congressperson voted against the bailout bill, thank them. If they voted for it, tell them how you really feel. Support Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente and other Green Party candidates on the ballot in November; and donate to our future today.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Offshore Drilling and American Political Party Stances

Since 1981, drilling in the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific off U.S. shorelines has been banned under a federal moratorium. Last week, in response to high gas prices and continued dependence on an oil-based economy, the Democrat-controlled House voted 236-189 to open these offshore areas to exploration and drilling. If passed into law, the House bill would allow oil drilling 50 miles from shore with a state's permission and 100 miles from shore without a state's permission. The bill would also remove restrictions on oil shale drilling in the western United States (which the National Wildlife Federation called a "double disaster" for our climate), eliminate some tax credits currently held by oil companies, and require that 15% of U.S. energy production be by renewable sources by 2020.
The Republican view:

The McCain/Palin rallying cry has been "Drill, Baby, Drill!" House Republican leaders spent the summer holding weekly press conferences calling for resumed drilling. Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, strongly supports oil exploration in her home state's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. John McCain - who asks crowds at his campaign rallies for their support for drilling for oil wherever they happen to be standing - states that he will "cooperate with the...Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources," illustrating his belief that U.S. energy policy and the invasion and occupation of oil-rich nations are clearly linked.
The Democratic view:

The key word has been "compromise". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traded support for a 27-year old moratorium on offshore drilling for slightly higher taxes on oil companies, who will likely immediately continue making record profits by passing increased costs onto customers. Instead of focusing on the need for new, truly clean energy sources, Barack Obama trumpets his willingness to work across the aisle on increasing vehicle fuel efficiency (instead of replacing polluting engines with replacement technologies) and further development of so-called "clean" coal. Obama's support for new coal development (and the mountaintop removal and strip mining we use to obtain it) is a step back to a 19th-century, not 21st-century, energy strategy.
The Green view:

We oppose the toxic and environmentally-destructive national oil-based energy strategy. We agree with the experts who insist that new sources of domestic oil could not be discovered, processed, and refined within a decade. We urge immediate investment in strategies that can have both a short-term and sustainable impact on our national energy strategy, such as solar, wind, and other non-polluting alternative energy sources.
As Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney says, "Leave the Oil in the soil." We support leaving it in the soil, ocean floor, shale, and wherever else the oil parties imagine they might find it.
Help the Green Party win investments in sustainable alternative energy sources by investing in the McKinney/Clemente campaign and the Green Party of the United States. Democrats have called for increasing investments in renewable energy sources by a paltry 15% over the next decade - we can make real changes if you pledge to increase your support of the Green Party and its candidates by 15% right now!

Sunday, September 21, 2008

We Agree

The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.


We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation co-chaired by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Party. It is time for our Presidential Debates to once again be hosted by a truly non-partisan civic-minded association

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Wall Street Socialists

by Amy Goodman

The financial crisis gripping the U.S. has the largest banks and insurance companies begging for massive government bailouts. The banking, investment, finance and insurance industries, long the foes of taxation, now need money from working-class taxpayers to stay alive. Taxpayers should be in the driver's seat now. Instead, decisions that will cost people for decades are being made behind closed doors, by the wealthy, by the regulators and by those they have failed to regulate.

Tuesday, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department agreed to a massive, $85-billion bailout of AIG, the insurance giant. This follows the abrupt bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank; the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America; the bailout of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the collapse of retail bank IndyMac; and the federally guaranteed buyout of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase. AIG was deemed "too big to fail," with 103,000 employees and more than $1 trillion in assets. According to regulators, an unruly collapse could cause global financial turmoil. U.S. taxpayers now own close to 80 percent of AIG, so the orderly sale of AIG will allow the taxpayers to recoup their money, the theory goes.

It's not so easy.

The financial crisis will most likely deepen. More banks and giant financial institutions could collapse. Millions of people bought houses with shady subprime mortgages and have already lost or will soon lose their homes. The financiers packaged these mortgages into complex "mortgage-backed securities" and other derivative investment schemes. Investors went hog-wild, buying these derivatives with more and more borrowed money.

Nomi Prins used to run the European analytics group at Bear Stearns and also worked at Lehman Brothers. "AIG was acting not simply as an insurance company," she told me. "It was acting as a speculative investment bank/hedge fund, as was Bear Stearns, as was Lehman Brothers, as is what will become Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. So you have a situation where it's [the U.S. government] ... taking on the risk of items it cannot even begin to understand."

She went on: "It's about taking on too much leverage and borrowing to take on the risk and borrowing again and borrowing again, 25 to 30 times the amount of capital. ... They had to basically back the borrowing that they were doing. ... There was no transparency to the Fed, to the SEC, to the Treasury, to anyone who would have even bothered to look as to how much of a catastrophe was being created, so that when anything fell, whether it was the subprime mortgage or whether it was a credit complex security, it was all below a pile of immense interlocked, incestuous borrowing, and that's what is bringing down the entire banking system."

As these high-rolling gamblers are losing all their banks' money, it comes to the taxpayer to bail them out. A better use of the money, says Michael Hudson, professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and an economic adviser to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, would be to "save these 4 million homeowners from defaulting and being kicked out of their houses. Now they're going to be kicked out of the houses. The houses will be vacant. The cities are going to [lose] property taxes, they're going to have to cut back local expenditures, local infrastructure. The economy is being sacrificed to pay the gamblers."

Prins elaborated: "You're nationalizing the worst portion of the banking system. ... You're taking on risk you won't be able to understand. So it's even more dangerous." I asked Prins, in light of all this nationalization, to comment on the prospect of nationalizing health care into a single-payer system. She responded, "You could actually put some money into something that pre-empts a problem happening and helps people get health care."

The meltdown is a bipartisan affair

Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama each have received millions of dollars from these very companies that are collapsing and are receiving the corporate welfare. President Clinton and his treasury secretary, Robert Rubin (now an Obama economic adviser), presided over the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed after the 1929 start of the Great Depression to curb speculation that caused that calamity. The repeal was pushed through by former Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's former top advisers. Politicians are too dependent on Wall Street to do anything. The people who vote for them, and whose taxes are being handed over to these failed financiers, need to show their outrage and demand that their leaders truly put "country first" and bring about "change."

Denis Moynihan contributed to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!" a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.


Tuesday, August 12, 2008

An Unreasonable Mandate


Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney find common ground: state laws designed to keep third parties off the ballot

By Andy Bromage

Vic Lancia's phone rang. It was Ralph Nader asking for help gathering signatures to get him on the presidential ballot in Connecticut.

Lancia, a loyal foot soldier for third party political campaigns, didn't believe it was Nader. He hung up. Nader called back. Lancia still didn't believe him. "Stop fucking with me," Lancia said, and hung up again.

So Nader called Ken Krayeske, who's running his state campaign. "What are you doing giving me a guy who hangs up the phone on me?" Nader asked. Krayeske made a quick phone call to explain, and before long Lancia was outside a Middletown supermarket sweet-talking shoppers into signing for Nader.

The Nader campaign submitted 17,000 signatures to state election officials in Hartford last week—twice the number needed to secure a line on the ballot this fall—but they didn't do it alone. Nader had help petitioning from Libertarians and the Greens, who in turn got help from Nader.

In a rare show of third party unity, the campaigns of Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney, the last two former Congress members, are joining forces across state lines to overcome ballot access rules designed to keep minor party candidates out. The camps are sharing workers, swapping petitions and urging voters to sign up for another third party candidate along with their own. They've joined forces in Maine, West Virginia, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and now Connecticut, where Barr submitted 13,000 signatures and McKinney turned in "close to the necessary number," a Green Party boss says.

Libertarian petitioners were instrumental in getting Nader on the ballot in the all-important state of Pennsylvania last month, so Nader's team repaid the favor in Connecticut, dispatching his clipboard-equipped raiders on sidewalks and town greens. Not because the campaign especially loves Bob Barr, though.

"I couldn't care less about Libertarians," says Krayeske. "The hurdles to democracy that the two parties put out in front of you are so onerous that third parties are learning to cooperate."

Sidewalk petitioning can be thankless work: Campaigns pay workers $1 to $1.50 per signature to stand on baking asphalt, asking irritated grocery shoppers to sign in support of a candidate they've often never heard of, or might consider a "spoiler." Nader's national ballot coordinator, Christina Tobin of Illinois, arrived in Hartford last week to turn in the fruits of their labor.

In true Nader fashion, Tobin used the occasion to agitate rather than celebrate, telling reporters that petitioning onto Connecticut's ballot is a "tedious" and "ridiculous" process designed to "make our lives more difficult." For example: State law requires petitions be certified by local officials in Connecticut's 169 towns, even though federal law requires states maintain a centralized list of all registered voters.

That means petitioners must carry a form for every town—Andover to Woodstock—which the state then mails to those towns. Another law says petitioners must be state residents, which poses a problem because the most reliable workers are the few paid national staffers who travel from state to state, not local volunteers. Beyond that, requiring 7,500 valid signatures when other New England states require a fraction as many (1,000 in Rhode Island, 3,000 in New Hampshire) disadvantages small-dollar grassroots campaigns, Tobin says.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the state's top election official, is unsympathetic. She says town officials must validate petition signatures because only they have the original signed voter cards. If something looks suspicious—say, several signatures in the same handwriting—officials need to check the source documents.

On requiring circulators to be state residents, Bysiewicz says it's perfectly reasonable. "You ought to be able to have support in the state you're running in if you are going to have a real candidacy," Bysiewicz says. But third party campaigns are modest endeavors, often relying on a few dedicated staffers to do heavy lifting over huge geographic areas. Besides, can't voters just register their support at the polls? Is luring state residents away from their jobs to spend a full day collecting signatures for $1 a pop the only way to demonstrate ballot-worthy support?

Bysiewicz is unmoved. "You ought to have people in the state willing to go out and get petition signatures."

Mike DeRosa, the state Green Party chair, disagrees. "Not everyone can just go out and petition. Some people are too shy. The two major parties will create all kinds of barriers to full participation in the political process."¦

Send your comments to editor AT hartfordadvocate DOT com

Monday, July 21, 2008

Anti-Democracy Democrats facing Felony Charges

Attorney General Corbett announces charges in legislative bonus investigation - 12 suspects charged in 1st phase of the investigation

Bonus-Probe1-366x244

Click here to watch video of the news conference

HARRISBURG - As part of an ongoing public corruption investigation, agents from the Attorney General's Office today filed numerous theft charges, as well as criminal conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, against 12 suspects, including a state representative from Beaver County, a former House Democratic Minority Whip and four current House Democratic staffers. The investigation has uncovered the illegal use of millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds, resources and state employees for political campaign purposes.

Attorney General Tom Corbett said the charges are part of an ongoing grand jury probe into bonuses paid to employees of the Pennsylvania Legislature along with the use of state resources for political campaigns. (Read the Harrisburg Grand Jury Presentment - Read the Pittsburgh Grand Jury Presentment) Among those charged are former House Democratic Minority Whip Mike Veon, Michael Manzo, the former chief of staff to Pennsylvania Democratic House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese and Beaver County State Representative Sean Ramaley.


Mike VEON


Sean RAMALEY

Michael MANZO

Rachel MANZO

Scott BRUBAKER

Jennifer BRUBAKER

Brett COTT

Jeff FOREMAN

Annamarie PERRETTA-ROSEPINK

Stephen KEEFER

Patrick J. LAVELLE

Earl MOSLEY
Also charged are four current members of the House Democratic Caucus: Jeff Foreman, chief counsel to House Democratic Majority Whip Keith McCall and former Veon chief of staff; Rachel Manzo, executive director of the House Democratic Policy Committee and wife of Michael Manzo; Jennifer Brubaker, director of the Legislative Research Office for the House Democratic Caucus and Patrick Lavelle, a research analyst for the House Democratic Caucus.

Also charged are former House Democratic Caucus employees Scott Brubaker, the former director of staffing and administration for the House Democratic Caucus and husband of Jennifer Brubaker; Brett Cott, a former analyst on Veon's Capitol staff; Steven Keefer, the former director of information technology for the House Democratic Caucus; Earl Mosley, the former director of personnel for the House Democratic Caucus and Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink, a former legislative assistant and district chief of staff in Rep. Veon's Beaver County office

Corbett explained that his office initiated the investigation after a series of newspaper stories revealed that millions of dollars of taxpayer funded bonuses were paid to employees of the Pennsylvania Legislature.

As part of the investigation, Corbett said, agents and prosecutors from the Public Corruption Unit interviewed hundreds of individuals and reviewed thousands of documents and e-mails. Grand juries in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg heard testimony and reviewed extensive documentary evidence from numerous current and former House Democratic Caucus employees, attorney general agents and other witnesses.

The Pittsburgh grand jury began receiving testimony in June of 2007 regarding Veon's use of his district legislative office for political purposes and the Harrisburg grand jury began receiving testimony in August of 2007.

The Harrisburg grand jury found that the award of bonuses was only one facet of the effort to use employee taxpayer funds and resources for campaign purposes. Additionally, the grand jury found that the actual diversion of resources and employees to campaigns and political endeavors was of no less importance. The theft of taxpayers' funds and resources was extensive and ranged from the obvious - directing public employees to conduct campaign work while paid by the taxpayers, to the subtle - issuing taxpayer paid contracts for campaign work disguised as legitimate legislative work.

The Habay Precedent
Corbett said the investigation, prosecution, conviction and prison sentence of former Republican Representative Jeff Habay in 2004 and 2005 by the Attorney General's Office for using his legislative staff for campaign and fundraising purposes should have put legislative leaders and their staffs on notice that the Attorney General's office and the courts take a stern view of such illegal activity.

Corbett said the grand jury used the guidance of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in its Habay decision, when the Court stated that an elected representative is "not allowed to direct state paid employees under his authority to conduct campaign and or fundraising related work, during state paid time, for his personal benefit." The court said such actions secure "a private monetary advantage" for an elected representative because, "by having state employees work for him on his campaign and or fundraising task while they were being paid by the state, he obtained the benefit of free campaign work funded by the taxpayers."

As part of the investigation, Corbett said, on Aug. 23, 2007, attorney general agents executed a search warrant on the Democratic Legislative Research Office and seized 20 boxes, the contents of which were reviewed by the grand jury. Corbett noted that the search warrant was executed after his agents obtained evidence that House Democratic staffers were destroying the contents of boxes.

Corbett said the grand juries heard former staffers and employees of Veon, the minority whip for the House Democratic Caucus from 1998 through 2006, who described a culture of employing taxpayer funding and resources for campaign purposes.

The grand jury found that to be an employee on Veon's staff, campaign work was expected. The illegal campaign work was directed by Veon's district chief of staff Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink in Beaver County and by Jeff Foreman in Harrisburg.

Brett Cott's title on Veon's staff was policy analyst, but according to numerous witnesses he was hired because of his campaign skills and was one of the lead promoters of the culture of using taxpayer funds for campaign purposes.

The grand jury also found that Michael Manzo, who was DeWeese's chief of staff, directly coordinated with Veon on the illegal use of taxpayer funds and resources.

2004 Election of Sean Ramaley
In 2004, when Ramaley ran for the 16th legislative district, which includes parts of Beaver and Allegheny counties, he left his job as a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Labor. After Ramaley won the Democratic Party primary, Veon offered him a position as a legislative assistant in his Beaver Falls district office. Ramaley started on June 25, 2004.

The grand jury found that Veon's hiring of Ramaley was never intended to serve his constituents, but was purely a "no-work job" which allowed Ramaley to run his campaign directly from Veon's taxpayer-funded district office with the assistance and direction of Veon's taxpayer paid political operatives.

The grand jury heard testimony from one of Veon's political operatives assigned to work with Ramaley, stating that he and Ramaley typically began their campaign work around 9 a.m. by making fundraising telephone calls in an office they shared at Veon's Beaver Falls taxpayer-funded district office. After fundraising calls, they knocked on doors until dark and followed-up by compiling voter data in Veon's district office for the remainder of each day. Ramaley used Veon's district office equipment, including the computers, phones, printers and copier.

The grand jury found that Ramaley, in agreement with Veon, used taxpayer funded resources for campaign purposes, accepted a salary as a taxpayer funded legislative assistant in Veon's office, provided no work in return for the benefit of the people of Pennsylvania but instead, used the job as a taxpayer-funded base of operations for his own political campaign.

The Birth of the Illegal Bonus Program
The grand jury found that in 2004, Veon and Manzo directed Eric Webb, a House Democratic Caucus employee, to maintain a list of all House Democratic Caucus employees who assisted with political and campaign related work.

Webb was directed to track campaign work performed by "volunteers" in the field and also to track all manner of other campaign work as directed by Veon, Manzo and others. Webb was instructed to classify the type of work performed and also to monitor and critique the efforts and time committed by the House Democratic Caucus employees. Webb's list formed the basis of who would receive taxpayer bonuses.

The grand jury found that the political culture created by Veon consistently sought to promote and reward, with taxpayer monies, those staffers engaged in political endeavors and campaign work, as opposed to those engaged solely in work on behalf of the taxpayers, such as legislative and constituent work.

Webb, who testified before the grand jury under a grant of immunity, stated that it was clearly understood by all of these employees that campaign work was part of their public employment and not something done after work hours or on personal time. Webb also detailed to the grand jury how the "volunteer" list that he maintained was specifically designed to act as a foundation for an "incentive" structure to entice House Democratic Caucus employees to commit greater efforts and time on political endeavors and campaigns.

The grand jury found that Webb's 2004 list cataloged 458 House Democratic Caucus employees by using a computer program that noted the various efforts and campaign activities of the "volunteers." The 2004 list, like all subsequent lists, detailed the type and amount of campaign work performed by public employees.

Webb's 2004 list cataloged, to name a few, efforts such as: the number of days each employee spent on campaigns or campaign activities; whether employees worked on the special election in the 109th Legislative District; assisted on the petition challenge to Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader; conducted opposition research; circulated nominating petitions; made campaign contributions to DeWeese, Veon or the House Democratic Campaign Committee and, if so, the amount contributed. The list also noted whether employees worked on overnight trips, when they worked on day trips and whether they worked on Election Day.

The grand jury found not a single entry on Webb's 2004 list, or his lists for the following years, for legitimate legislative work or constituent services. Webb testified that such work was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the list or to those who directed its creation.

Following the 2004 general election, at Michael Manzo's request, Webb provided a breakdown of those who excelled on the selected campaigns and political endeavors. Webb provided a list of those who he described as "superstars" and forwarded it to Michael Manzo and Veon. The grand jury found that, subsequently, a number of other names were added, such as those individuals who worked in Veon's Harrisburg and district offices. After Webb complied, highlighting those who had done the most, Manzo told Webb that these people were going to receive an award for their campaign efforts. In 2004, a total of $188,800 of taxpayer funds was paid to these staffers as a reward for their participation in political endeavors and campaign work.

2005 Bonuses
The grand jury found that Webb continued the tracking of "volunteers" by creating a new list in 2005. Webb created new rankings of Rock Stars, Good, and OK for the employees on his list. The list revolved largely around two special elections, one held in July of 2005 in a legislative district in the Allentown area between Linda Minger and Karen Beyer and another in a legislative district in Allegheny County.

The grand jury heard numerous witnesses testify that by the time of the Minger - Beyer special election in July of 2005, the word had spread among House Democratic Caucus employees that working on campaigns was the best method to obtain a bonus.

The grand jury found that in 2005, despite being an off-year for legislative elections, the House Democratic Caucus produced more volunteers than it had in the 2004 legislative election year. For example, the Minger-Beyer race alone drew more than 170 "volunteers" from the House Democratic Caucus.

More than $106,000 in taxpayer funded bonus checks were issued to all the employees on Webb's list who performed campaign work in 2005. An additional $61,500 in taxpayer funds was paid in December 2005 in the form of "executive bonuses" to those supervisors in the House Democratic Caucus who were most intimately involved in the conducting and promoting of campaign work.

Gone Fishing
The grand jury heard testimony from a Democratic House staffer who testified about his understanding that the bonuses were tied directly to campaign work. He stated that in 2005 there was an extremely large push to get volunteers to go to Allentown to work the special election on behalf of Linda Minger, the Democratic candidate.

The House staffer testified that he traveled to the Minger campaign office with two other House employees who brought their fishing gear. Upon their arrival, they were given campaign literature and directed to distribute it. Instead, they went to breakfast, threw away the campaign literature and went fishing. About a month later, the three employees got identical $250 bonuses. The employee stated to the grand jury that, "we joked when we got the bonuses - we're not idiots - we figured out what it was for, we all joked that we are professional fishermen now."

2006 Bonuses
The election year of 2006 would prove to be the largest effort yet undertaken as part of the incentive scheme. Eric Webb testified that in 2006 the pay raise vote had "changed the whole map." He testified that there were many "more seats in play" requiring more volunteers to do everything from opposition research to campaign work in the field. It was also a unique year because both caucus leaders, Veon and DeWeese, had serious challengers. As a result of these factors, the campaign efforts started in earnest very early in the year.

Whether measured by the effort expended in tracking the campaign work of caucus employees, the number of bonus recipients or the dollar amounts expended on bonuses, 2006 far exceeded the prior years. Webb told the grand jury that after everyone who worked on the special election in 2005 got bonuses, "it became very apparent" to the caucus employees that "if they volunteer, they get a bonus." As a result, when the election cycle of 2006 started, Webb stated: "more and more people are volunteering that I haven't seen before because of the incentive structure."

By the end of 2006, two waves of bonuses had been issued for campaign work - one in August and one at the end of the year. A total of $1,285,250 was paid in public funds for secret bonuses in 2006.

The grand jury found that around August or September 2006, Michael Manzo approached Eric Webb and told him that his wife, Rachel Manzo, was bored with her $78,000-a-year job as the executive director of the House Tourism Committee and would be helping Webb out on the volunteer list effort.

Webb testified that Rachel Manzo kept her own duplicate copy of the volunteer list and was assigned to monitor specific legislative races. Webb testified that he and Rachel Manzo were in constant contact for several months, exchanging the list back and forth with updates and additions. He explained this was the only way to ensure that accurate records of the "volunteer efforts" were being maintained. Webb also discussed how Rachel Manzo had prepared her own variation of the list during the 2006 Veon primary race, where she traveled to Beaver County and worked at least four to five weeks as the volunteer coordinator on Veon's race.

The grand jury found that after the 2006 Veon primary election, in addition to maintaining the "volunteer" list with Webb, Rachel Manzo was involved in various campaign activities over the summer and fall, assisting with opposition research, petition challenges and the recruitment and assignment of "volunteers" for campaign work. In October she was dispatched to assist Representative Rick Taylor's campaign in Montgomery County.

Veon's Capitol Campaign Organization
The grand jury found that Veon, who had one of the largest Capitol and legislative staffs of any member, ran an illegal campaign organization from his offices which included fundraising, opposition research, the preparation and distribution of campaign mailings, blast e-mail messages and nomination petition challenges.

The grand jury found that Veon, through Foreman and Cott, directed Veon's employees to "volunteer" for work on specific political campaigns. Veon's employees accumulated days or weeks of fraudulent comp time so they could spend time away from their legislative offices and still be paid their taxpayer-funded salaries while they worked on campaigns.

The grand jury also heard how Veon turned his Beaver County district office into a campaign machine. The office equipment including the copy machine, computers and printers were all used to create and print campaign material.

Fundraising
The grand jury found that Veon created and operated a massive fundraising operation within an office suite in the Capitol, which was fueled almost exclusively by personnel and resources paid for by the taxpayers.

The operation was led by Veon, who put Patrick Lavelle in charge. Witnesses testified that Lavelle was simply known as the "fundraiser" for Veon and appeared to have no other duties beyond fundraising. Many of those who worked around him everyday testified that they had never seen him do anything but fundraising.

The grand jury found that Lavelle worked closely with and received direction from Veon, Foreman, Cott and Peretta-Rosepink. The grand jury found that virtually every aspect of the fundraising operation was orchestrated out of Veon's Capitol offices. Lavelle built extensive campaign donor lists and all of Veon's fundraisers were meticulously planned and organized from the Capitol. Veon's staff booked locations, prepared menus, established guest lists and assembled the invitations for Veon's fundraisers. All of these efforts were conducted under the direct supervision of Veon and Foreman.

Campaign and Fundraising Mailings
The grand jury found that another significant operation of Veon's Capitol staff involved the writing, printing and folding of tens of thousands of fundraising and campaign mailings, all completed at taxpayers' expense. Keefer performed most of the graphic design work on the mailings and the bulk of this illegal operation took place behind closed doors of Veon's Capitol suite.

Opposition Research
The grand jury also found that under the direction of Veon, opposition research was conducted by Democratic Caucus employees. Opposition research is an extensive investigation into the personal and professional life of political opponents and details the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent in an attempt to find general and specific campaign strategies for defeating the opponent. These opposition research reports are detailed, often taking weeks to prepare and are frequently more than 100 pages in length. This was all done at taxpayers' expense for the benefit of campaigns.

Corbett noted that the boxes that his agents seized from the Legislative Research Office contained hundreds of instances of opposition research and reports dating back to 1990.

Petition Challenges
The grand jury found that employees and resources of the House Democratic Caucus were historically and routinely used to conduct petition challenges against candidates who were opponents of Democratic House candidates or the Democratic Party. This effort was typically led by Michael Manzo or Cott. Employees were not required to, and did not, take leave for the time spent during their regular work hours on challenging nominating petitions.

These efforts were by no means limited to House races. Two outstanding examples of misappropriation of taxpayers' resources on petition challenges were the Ralph Nader for President of the United States in 2004 and the Carl Romanelli for the United States Senate in 2006.

The grand jury found that as many as 50 Democratic House Caucus staff members participated in the Nader petition challenge and contributed a staggering number of man-hours. A House Democratic employee testified before the grand jury that "everybody was working on this." It was virtually a caucus wide endeavor and many of the employees spent an entire week on the Nader petition challenge.

Upon the successful challenge to the Nader petition, Veon sent an e-mail to his staff stating:

"FYI .great job by our staff! This would have never been successful without your work. You have given John Kerry an even better opportunity to win this state.one of the 5 most important states to win this year."

"This is a very significant fact and significant contribution by each one of you to the Kerry for president campaign.you should take great pride in your efforts."

The Romanelli petition challenge was led by Cott, who announced it was very important to "leadership" that Romanelli not appear on the ballot. Staffers were told "not to worry about leave," but to focus on getting the petition challenges done as soon as possible.

Leader's Communication Office
The grand jury found that in 2003, Veon and Michael Manzo established the Leader's Communication Office (LCOMM), directed by Stephen Keefer. The supposed purpose of the office was to communicate to the residents of Pennsylvania about legislative efforts and agendas, through internet websites and blast e-mails. The reality proved to be quite different.

One of the people who worked in the Leader's Communication Office was Eric Buxton, who testified about the extensive campaign work performed by the LCOMM office. For example, he detailed about how he set up the entire House Democratic Campaign Committee website in 2004, while he was employed by the taxpayers. Buxton also detailed how campaign e-mails were written and sent from inside the Capitol by use of an offsite server, located in Michigan, which masked the true origin of the e-mails.

Buxton testified before the grand jury that he began negotiations in 2005 with Michael Manzo and Keefer that he should leave the caucus and start his own company to do work for the caucus on a contract basis. They agreed and Buxton formed a company called Govercom, and the House Democratic Caucus paid him $10,000 a month from September 2005 through the end of 2005 and $16,875 a month from Jan. 1, 2006 through the end of September 2007.

Buxton testified that his contract appeared to be for legitimate legislative work performed by his company, but that the contract was for services completely unnecessary to the Caucus and was a vehicle for the House Democratic Caucus to pay for campaign e-mail communication.

From subpoenaed contracts, invoices and Buxton's records, the grand jury found that the House Democratic Caucus paid $420,000 to Buxton's company between August 2005 and October 2007. Additionally, the grand jury discovered a second vendor, Gravity Webb Media, who was engaged in campaign work by providing candidate websites and mass e-mails. This cost the taxpayers more than $82,000 in 2006. This amounted to more than a half million dollars in taxpayers' funds used solely for campaign work.

Jeff Foreman's Private Law Practice
The grand jury found that Foreman, while employed as Veon's chief of staff, was paid $103,408 in 2004 and received a bonus of $8,315. In 2005 his salary was $118,352 and received a bonus of $5,565. In 2006 he was paid $126,204 and received a bonus of $14,815. Additionally, Forman worked at his own private law firm, Foreman & Foreman, and billed clients at the rate of $200 per hour. He often claimed to work a full day for the taxpayers, claimed multiple additional "compensatory" time for the taxpayers and claimed significant hours for his private legal practice. Sometimes, these totals exceeded 24 hours in a day.

Corbett said the grand jury found that while he was physically present at his legislative job in the Capitol, Foreman was actually doing work for his private law firm. Thus, the taxpayers paid Foreman, in salary, bonus, and compensatory time, to work on his private law firm business.

Michael Manzo's Ghost Employee
The grand jury found that in the summer of 2004, Michael Manzo met Angela Bertugli, a 21-year-old legislative intern, with whom he allegedly developed a long-running sexual liaison that continued through November 2007.

In September 2005 Manzo created a taxpayer-funded job for Bertugli in Pittsburgh and put her in charge of the Pittsburgh Field Office for the newly formed House Allegheny County Delegation.

Bertugli did not go through an interview or job application process prior to starting her "employment" and was not told what she would be doing, however she was told by Manzo to report on Sept. 12, 2005, to an office located above a cigar store in Pittsburgh.

The grand jury found that other DeWeese staffers were not aware that Bertugli had been hired or that there even was a Pittsburgh Field Office for the House Allegheny County Delegation. Staffers for the representative who chaired the Allegheny County Delegation were unaware of the existence, location or staff of such an office. Since the 19 Allegheny County Representatives already had offices, there was absolutely no need for an Allegheny County Delegation office. In fact, the grand jury found that no such office ever existed.

Bertugli, who was going to graduate school in Pittsburgh, was classified as a part-time employee and received an annual income of $21,091. Bertugli was given very few assignments by Manzo and had nothing to do up to 70 percent of the time and instead was being paid by the taxpayers to do her schoolwork or for doing nothing at all. The tasks that she did receive from Manzo were campaign related.

In 2006, Bertugli's annual salary was increased to $29,103, because her "employment" status was supposed to be increased to four days per week. She also received a $7,065 bonus in 2006. Her actual duties remained the same and the percentages of schoolwork/idleness and campaign work remained constant until she left the Pittsburgh office in July 2007.

In July 2007, Manzo arranged for Bertugli to be transferred to the Democratic Caucus Legislative Research Office in Harrisburg to accommodate Bertugli's acceptance into a Harrisburg law school.

A grand jury review of Bertugli's e-mails revealed both the intimate nature of her relationship with Manzo, as well as the political nature of the endeavors undertaken by Bertugli while she was "employed" in Pittsburgh.

Testimony from various witnesses and e-mail evidence corroborated the "ghost" aspects of Bertugli's position. One DeWeese assistant testified that:

"We don't know who works there and I don't know what is going on out there. I don't want to know, but it just didn't seem kosher to me. So, I never asked anybody about it after that. I just let it drop."

Another DeWeese staffer testified before the grand jury that neither he nor any of his co-workers among the leadership staff ever had professional contact with Bertugli or any Pittsburgh regional office. That staffer stated:

".I never knew anybody who interacted with Angela Bertugli. She - we figured it was a favor. I think she went to college in Pittsburgh, but they gave her the job as a favor."

By hiring Bertugli the grand jury found that Michael Manzo created an unnecessary, useless, non-productive position in an equally wasted location.

Veon's Vacation to South Dakota
The grand jury found that in 2004, Veon used two public employees, at taxpayer expense, to assist him with his vacation to South Dakota. He had them drive his and his wife's motorcycles to Sturgis, S.D., to save him the time and allow him to fly there and have the motorcycles waiting. The travel expenses, which totaled nearly $1,500, included flights for these public employees and were paid by the taxpayers.

Veon's Basketball Dinners
From 2002 through November of 2006 the grand jury found that Mike Veon, along with other House Democratic Caucus Members and certain employees, played basketball on Tuesday nights. Veon staffers were tasked with taking food orders from the players, ordering and purchasing food, and arranging it on Veon's conference table in his capitol offices for the returning players.

Veon's basketball dinners cost from approximately $100 to nearly $300. All of these dinners were paid from Veon's contingency account with taxpayer funds. The grand jury found that the taxpayers paid more than $22,000 for Veon's basketball dinners.

Corbett said the defendants will be arraigned before Harrisburg Magisterial District Judge Joseph Solomon, 1705 N. Front St., Harrisburg, 717-255-1365. They will be prosecuted in Dauphin County by Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek, Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Blessington and Deputy Attorney General James Reeder, all of the Attorney General's Public Corruption Unit.

Corbett said the investigation is continuing and that more arrests are expected.

Below is a list of the defendants and the charges against them:

Michael R. Veon, 51, 2527 N. 2nd St., Harrisburg, is charged with 11 counts each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft of services, theft by deception, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and four counts of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 381 years in prison and $805,000 in fines.

Sean M. Ramaley, 33, 3 Leaf Court, Baden, is charged with one count each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison and $85,000 in fines.

Michael Manzo, 39, 6200 Run Cross Lane, Enola, is charged with nine counts each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 311 years in prison and $660,000 in fines.

Rachel L. Manzo, 27, 6200 Run Cross Lane, Enola, is charged with two counts each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and criminal conspiracy. She faces a maximum penalty of 80 years in prison and $170,000 in fines.

Scott V. Brubaker, 43, 24 N. 20th St., Camp Hill, is charged with four counts each conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 144 years in prison and $310,000 in fines.

Jennifer K. Brubaker, 35, 24 N. 20th St., Camp Hill, is charged with three counts each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. She faces a maximum penalty of 113 years in prison and $240,000 in fines.

Brett W. Cott, 36, 1305 ½ Green St., Harrisburg, is charged with eight counts each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 272 years in prison and $575,000 in fines.

Jeff Foreman, 57, 705 ½ Front St., Harrisburg, is charged with four counts of conflict of interest, five counts of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, five counts of theft by deception, four counts of theft of services, four counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 160 years in prison and $340,000 in fines.

Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink, 45, 1421 5th Ave., Beaver Falls, is charged with four counts each conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and two counts of criminal conspiracy. She faces a maximum penalty of 146 years in prison and $310,000 in fines.

Stephen Keefer, 38, 12 Circle Drive, Fredericksburg, is charged with three counts each of each conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and one count of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 106 years in prison and $225,000 in fines.

Patrick J. Lavelle, 29, 211 Boas St., Harrisburg, is charged with one count each of conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, theft of services, theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison and $85,000 in fines.

Earl J. Mosley, 52, 872 Country Lake Dr., Harrisburg, is charged with three counts of conflict of interest, three counts of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, two counts of theft by deception, three counts of theft of services, three counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds and one count of criminal conspiracy. He faces a maximum penalty of 106 years in prison and $225,000 in fines.

(A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.)

###

Locations of visitors to this page