Pa. hopes to impose law on NCAA
Pennsylvania lawmakers passed a bill to require that the $60 million fine the NCAA levied against Penn State in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal stay in Pennsylvania.
But the law could be an exercise in futility.
Lawyer Stephen Morgan, former chief of staff for the NCAA Division I section, said an effort in Nevada to legislate state-level guidelines for the operation of the national collegiate athletic oversight agency was declared void after a federal court ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution protected the national agency from state regulation.
The NCAA could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
“I don't know if the NCAA chose to fight it that (the Nevada case) could be cited as a precedent. And if they're trying to get at the Penn State money, it's an ex post facto law,” Morgan said, adding that courts often strike down laws meant to apply retroactively.
The law passed by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate. A spokesman for Gov. Tom Corbett told The Associated Press that Corbett, who is suing the NCAA to overturn the sanctions, will sign the bill.
The bill requires that fines of $10 million or more imposed on Pennsylvania institutions of higher learning be deposited into a state-administered account and be spent on in-state programs that address the sexual abuse of children.
Sandusky, a retired Penn State assistant coach, is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence on charges that he sexually abused 10 boys in and around campus facilities.
Debra Erdley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. The Associated Press contributed.
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.