Pennsylvania may have another Bonusgate around the corner, but Tom Corbett didn't want to talk about it.
"I am not going to be able to answer your questions. I don't have any facts in front of me. Now please don't take this wrong, but how do I know you are a reporter?" said state Attorney General Tom Corbett.
Shouldn't someone running for Governor and the sitting Attorney General, answer questions from anyone? "You need to contact my press office. We have an active investigation on this matter."
Mr. Corbett was on his way to a campaign event in Philadelphia last Thursday evening and did not want to talk, but the next day after reviewing official documents and questions related to them, his official email answer came from his press office: "No comment."
 |
What did the Attorney General not want to talk about? The similarities between the recent "Constituent Data Files" contracts signed with a database company - Labels & Lists, Inc. - by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and the ones mentioned in Mr. Corbett's November 19, 2009, 188 page-long, Grand Jury Presentment against state Rep. and former House Speaker John Perzel (R-Philadelphia).
While the presentment makes no allegation against the company, on page 119 it makes the claim "Labels and Lists was a primary supplier of voter data that was utilized, at no expense by the HRCC. (House Republican Campaign Committee)" and goes on to detail how the data was used, not for legitimate legislative purposes but for illegal campaign purposes.
On page 120 it states, "The cost for a sophisticated package of voter data was approximately $140,000".
So is the recent $225,950 worth of "Constituent Data Files" contracts more of the same from Harrisburg?
Anthony Frank Barbush, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, who signed both contracts, said "Look, I came on board last August...I had nothing to do with the way it was done before."
Mr. Barbush said the contract language is very specific - the data not be used for campaign purposes - and he is going to be vigilant it is not used in campaigns.
If the data is not going to be used in political campaigns, why are the "Constituent Data Files" broken down in "Active Voter", "Inactive Voter" and "Non-Registered Adults"? Mr. Barbush said Labels & Lists was going to remove the party registration designation before delivering the data to the Democrat and Republican caucuses. Mr. Barbush also pointed out the contracts are signed by the House Bipartisan Committee rather than the individual party caucuses.
 |
One contract, worth up to $48,750, has the company identifying and creating a database of email addresses of Pennsylvanians for use by the politicians in their official capacities. The other "Constituent Data Files" contract, valued at $177,200, states "Each non-registered adult file shall be enhanced with telephone numbers, political boundary information and age information." Later the contract mentions cell phone numbers should be identified in the database.
Eric J. Epstein, coordinator of the nonpartisan, voter education organization group, RockTheCapital.org, reviewed the contracts and said, "'Essential constituent services' is an abused code for using taxpayer dollars to mine demographic data for self serving purposes. Simply put, taxpayers can live without political junk mail."
Mr. Epstein also said, "Legislators are preoccupied with getting themselves elected, period. Accumulating personal and demographic data is the function of political parties, and should be financed by private donations. The contract advertises that the data can't be used for political purposes, but self-policing policies don't work as evidenced by the sorry state of Pennsylvania government. If the data is indeed apolitical, why is necessary to distinguish between voters, nonvoters, and inactive voters?"
While Corbett refused to comment on the legality of the contracts, Tim Potts of Democracy Rising, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working for integrity, value, transparency, and citizen confidence in government, said "The only reason for lawmakers to discriminate between voters and non-voters is a political one. It is to target those who can vote for the person making the contact, and that makes it campaigning in my mind, and that makes it illegal. If the justification for the expense is to communicate with constituents, the database should be blind as to whether the constituent is a voter or not."
While the contract specifically prohibits the transfer of the data to a political campaign, it also prevents the data from being transferred to any "other governmental agency", which doesn't make sense according to Mr. Potts.
"Even if you assume that all of this is legitimate activity, as opposed to campaigning at taxpayer expense, you have to ask whether it would be cheaper to have one office, that serves the entire Commonwealth, including all four caucuses plus any executive agency that needs a database of mailing addresses, instead of several contracts for the same purpose," said Mr. Potts.
But with respect to the inclusion of email addresses, Mr. Potts explained his organization's policy on email. "Most organizations that value people's privacy do not send unsolicited emails. Since day one, our position has been never to add anyone to our mailing list who did not request it. There's no reason lawmakers can't adopt the same policy instead of spending money to troll for email addresses of people who may not want to be contacted at all."
Further investigation revealed House Republicans are still utilizing the "RepNet" program which is mentioned in the Attorney General's presentment. That program allows staffers to keep track of requests made by constituents, as well as data such as email, address, phone numbers, party registration and voting activity.
Ron Harper is an investigative reporter for the Pennsylvania Independent.
