Yesterday, rather than pointing a finger of blame at Brady, Commonwealth Court blamed the state Ethics Commission, arguing that it produced a flawed set of instructions.
In the opinion, Pellegrini acknowledged that pension contributions are the type of “thing of value” that ought to be reported under the Ethics Act. But he said the instructions got in the way by limiting “what is to be included in income.”
The judge noted that cases such as this, in which the issue is exactly what must be disclosed by a candidate, are becoming increasingly common. He asked for someone — presumably the Supreme Court or the legislature — to draw a clear line.
Should that happen, Pellegrini wrote, “candidates will then be treated the same and the outcomes will not be dependent on the unique factual circumstances of each case that requires judges to find whether a candidate’s failure to disclose crosses some unknown lines.”
INQUIRER: So Let’s Make Sure We Have This Straight — Brady Breaks The Rules And Still Gets To Stay On Ballot, BUT The People Of Philadelphia Are Not Entitled To Put The Casino Issue On The Ballot, Because That Would Be Breaking The Rules? That’s Justice And Liberty For All?
[Illustration by Angel Boligan]