The campaign contributions case: A better approach
A group of Democrats has an issue with the way Armstrong County Commissioner Chairman Dave Battaglia, a Republican, and his campaign officials filed the required campaign contributions report. They have taken their case to Common Pleas Court.
The Democrats, represented by attorney Chuck Pascal of Leechburg, say $7,800 in contributions was inappropriately recorded.
For their parts, Mr. Battaglia and his campaign treasurer said they never read the rules for filing, which were provided by the county's election office.
So as voters watch the ongoing sniping, what are they to make of it?
Mr. Pascal says the public deserves full disclosure of the source of the funds. And he's right.
Battaglia and company say there was nothing nefarious going on. That's sounds plausible — especially if they hadn't read the rules, even after amending the forms.
Still, this is not the finest hour for politics in Armstrong County.
If the plaintiffs believe the donations were purposely hidden, they should make that case to the public. A press conference would be cheaper than a court case.
And Battaglia and his supporters should publicly explain what all the donations were and from whom.
Then the issue would be front and center for the public to consider. Ultimately, that's the court that will render the most important decision in this case.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The overtime proposal: Regressive economics
- The Thursday wrap
- Collaring the EPA: Hold the cigars
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Merit selection: Less political?
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Apple Music & Taylor Swift: A good & timely lesson
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Social Security’s mess