ShareThis Page

Felonious ex-lawmakers lobbying: Time for long, hard look

| Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 11:00 p.m.
Former state House Speaker John Perzel leaves the courtroom after being sentenced in Dauphin County in March 2012. (AP Photo)

Prison time for abuse of office should mean permanent disgrace, but it doesn't in the State of Corruption. Some ex-lawmakers with criminal records are lobbying in Harrisburg — a practice that deserves a long, hard look by the Legislature.

Pennsylvania law requires one year's wait before those who leave the state payroll can lobby. Interest groups, which have a right to lobby, value ex-lawmakers' knowledge. And even convicted ex-lawmakers have a right to seek employment once they've paid their debt to society.

But should those convicted of abuse-of-office felonies continue influencing, as lobbyists, the business of the public, whose trust they violated so egregiously?

Former House Speakers Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, and John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon of Beaver County and former Senate Majority Leader Joe Loeper, R-Delaware County, are all convicted ex-lawmakers turned lobbyists. In their clients' eyes, their insider connections apparently outweigh their baggage. But their lobbying blunts the deterrent effect that their convictions should have on sitting lawmakers. And it doesn't ease voters' suspicions about the Legislature and influence-peddling in its orbit.

Past calls to ban Harrisburg lobbying by felonious ex-lawmakers have gone nowhere. The time has come to reconsider this practice, which reinforces Pennsylvania's status as the State of Corruption.

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 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.