PACleanSweep Calls for
Investigation of Nigro's Campaign Finances
Supreme Court Justice's campaign finance
reports contain 30 questionable contributions totaling over
$130,000.
In a letter sent today to the Pennsylvania
Department of State's Director of Campaign Finance, PACleanSweep formally
requested an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro's
campaign committee.
Publicly available documents suggest Nigro may be
accepting illegal campaign contributions, according to the grassroots
citizens' organization. After reviewing Nigro's campaign finance reports,
PACleanSweep researchers uncovered thirty suspicious contributions,
including thirteen which appear to be from sources prohibited by
law.
"A quick glance at Nigro's campaign finance
reports reveals that he is not in compliance with the law," said
PACleanSweep Research Director Leo Knepper. "It's not one or two minor
errors. Dozens of entries fail to pass the smell test. Many are
incomplete."
Campaign finance law prohibits Nigro from
receiving contributions from corporations and other associations, and
require him to obtain and disclose the full name, address, occupation, and
employer of persons who donate more than $250.
Nigro's campaign finance reports list 17
contributions without providing all required information. More troubling
however, were 13 others attributed to law firms - totaling $53,925 - which
appear to be illegal. The suspicious entries include:
- $10,000.00 on April 27, 2005 from "Saul
Ewing LLP." Nigro listed the contributor as a "Political Committee"
despite no such committee having registered with the Commonwealth.
- $10,000.00 on August 16, 2005 from "Swartz
Campbell LLC." LLCs are prohibited by law from making political
contributions, according to the PA Department of State's Bureau of
Elections.
- $20,000.00 on August 22, 2005 from
"Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin." The "Occupation" was listed as
"Attorneys" (plural). PACleanSweep contacted the contributors'
Philadelphia office and was told, "We're a corporation."
- $20,000.00 on June 24, 2005 from "Sprague
& Sprague." The occupation listed was "Attorney" (singular) but Nigro
failed to report the full name of the person contributing.
During the initial review of Nigro's reports, Knepper was
immediately shocked at the large number of donations from law firms. The
reports state the firms themselves made the contributions rather than an
individual contributor. Knepper was quick to acknowledge, however, the
possibility of Nigro's contributions being legal.
"They certainly look to be unlawful, but it is possible Nigro has
simply made dozens of major bookkeeping mistakes. If that's the case, so
be it, but correct the mistakes and clear the issue up," said
Knepper.
"This man is on the Supreme Court. He's charged with interpreting law
and protecting the rights of all Pennsylvanians," noted PACleanSweep Chair
Russ Diamond. "If he can't comply with some of the simplest requirements
of campaign finance law, how could he possibly ask for another ten years
presiding over the most important and complex issues of the
Commonwealth?"
"Taking Nigro's reports at face value, one is left with an unsettling
dilemma," noted PACleanSweep Strategic Director Mike Bergmaier. "If the
reports are accurate, Nigro has violated campaign finance law by accepting
prohibited contributions. If the reports are inaccurate, Nigro has
systematically violated campaign finance reporting law. Either way you
slice it, the law appears to have been violated."
PACleanSweep's investigation also discovered a number of prominent
attorneys and law firms as contributors to Nigro's retention effort. High
profile personal injury and medical malpractice firms such as The Colleran
Firm, Wapner Newman, and Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner appear on
Nigro's reports. Nigro also received contributions from firms who argued
numerous cases before the Supreme Court, including Sprague & Sprague,
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and Hangley Aronchick Segal &
Pudlin.
"Nigro simply should not accept contributions from law firms," added
Diamond. "Even lawful contributions from attorneys raise ethical concerns
if those attorneys argue cases before the Court," added Diamond. "A
Supreme Court Justice should avoid even the appearance of impropriety at
all times."
PACleanSweep's report on Justice Nigro's campaign finances has been
published online at http://www.PACleanSweep.com/nigroreport.html.
The group is advocating a "no" vote on the retention of both Russell Nigro
and Sandra Shultz Newman on November 8. PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort
dedicated to defeating incumbent elected officials in Pennsylvania and
replacing them with true public servants. For more information, please
visit www.PACleanSweep.com. |
