Monday, May 09, 2011

Koch files ethics, but not court, complaint against Bruce Kraus, hypocrite

Bruce Kraus fumbles, big time.
Koch files ethics, but not court, complaint: "Bruce Kraus is a hypocrite who refuses to follow his own laws. How can we trust him with the welfare of the city of Pittsburgh when he cannot follow the very laws that he wrote and is subject to? Its deceptive, hypocritical and reveals a dangerous proclivity to say one thing, do another and violate the law for his own benefit.

Mr. Koch is considering all possible avenues in an attempt to address this matter. He is filing his ethically sound financial disclosure reports to the Allegheny County Board of Elections by todays deadline."
I was there when this law was hatched. I helped it NOT occur in an earlier edition. Then I was put onto the task force to help craft the law.

Some of what I wanted did NOT make it into the law. Some did.

But with this fumble from Bruce Kraus, if it was up to me, and I speak as a member of the task force appointed to study and craft a bill for city council, I would have the guilty with a scarlet letter punishment. This means that Bruce Kraus would not get any more pay checks. He could keep his seat, but the controller would suspend his pay until he resigned. Then if he did resign, he'd be able to run again the next time. Or, he can choose to not follow the rules and serve out his term -- but not get paid anything to do so.

Furthermore, those that paid the extra money to the candidate would be on a black list and those people and firms would not be able to get any money from the city either. Once Kraus was out of office, they'd be okay to resume business with the city.

In the city, we choose to not sell property to anyone who has an outstanding property tax due to the city. That is a good policy. This punishment option I suggest is similar. The city should choose to not do business nor make city payouts to anyone that choose to break the campaign finance laws of the city.

1 comment:

Caesar said...

Seems like a rather harsh and unprecedented form of punishment for a candidate who has gone "above and beyond required reporting for the sake of transparency" and who, depending on how one interprets the language of the ordinance, may in fact be in full compliance.