Five Allegheny County judicial candidates missed deadline to file campaign finance reports
Five candidates for judge from Allegheny County missed the June 20 deadline to file campaign finance reports, the Pennsylvania Department of State said on Thursday.
Common Pleas Judge Jack McVay is running for Superior Court. The other four candidates — Dan Regan, Marcia Cooper, Marc Daffner and Common Pleas Judge Paul Cozza — ran for spots on the county bench in the primary, though Regan dropped out before the election. Cozza was appointed to fill an open slot on the bench but had to run for election.
“I was under the impression it was already filed,” McVay said. “It will be corrected.”
McVay's campaign manager, Marty Marks, said one report was filed on time but another required report was in the process of being filed. Any fines will be paid, Marks said.
Other candidates said they have since filed their reports, but state officials said they will remain on a published list of those who did not until they pay their fines.
“I know that mine is filed. I don't know if it was a day late,” Cozza said.
Ron Ruman, spokesman for the State Department, said Cozza's campaign owes $40.
Cooper showed that hers was filed June 24. She said she did not get notice of her $40 fine until Thursday but intends to pay it.
Regan said he didn't think he had to file a post-primary report because he dropped out of the race. Daffner could not be reached for comment.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.