Dueling standards on campaign contributions

In 1977, while running for district attorney, Ed Rendell received a $10,000 loan from a Philip Milestone. Unbeknownst to Rendell, Milestone was under federal indictment for attempting to bribe an IRS agent. This fact was known to an Inquirer reporter, who called Rendell and asked him if he was going to accept a loan from someone charged with a crime.

Rendell, obviously taken by surprise, told the reporter he would call him back in 10 minutes. When Rendell called back, he told the reporter he was going to return the check and promptly did so. In the post-Watergate era, it was customary for campaigns to have someone scrutinize contributions so as to protect against the type of media flack Rendell would have received had he not returned the Milestone loan. It appears to be a different world today.

In October last year, Gov. Corbett accepted a $35,000 contribution from Louis DeNaples, a Scranton businessman who was indicted federally in 1977 for mail fraud. Though his trial resulted in a hung jury, he later pleaded nolo contendere and received a fine and probation, making him a convicted felon. During the ensuing years, DeNaples was described by various law enforcement authorities as a close associate of Russell Bufalino, one of the most powerful crime bosses in Pennsylvania history.

In the past decade, DeNaples has been issued a casino gaming license, has been charged with perjury by a state grand jury, and has negotiated a dismissal of the charges in exchange for transferring the gaming license to his daughter. He has also served as a bank director in Scranton and has been a major financial benefactor to his community. In addition, he has contributed thousands of dollars to political campaigns, including those of Ed Rendell for governor, campaigns wherein I served on Rendell's finance committee. It was while Rendell was governor that DeNaples received his gaming license.

Should Corbett, with his background as a U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and the state's attorney general, accept a $35,000 contribution from someone with DeNaples' questionable background and criminal history?

In 1987, Robert Asher, a wealthy Montgomery County businessman, was convicted in federal court of racketeering, perjury, and bribery and served one year in prison. Since then, Asher has immersed himself in GOP politics, becoming Pennsylvania's member on the Republican National Committee. He has also played key roles in Corbett's and other gubernatorial campaigns.

Have attitudes evolved and standards changed over the last 40 years? If so, perhaps this is not surprising. Efforts have been under way to accept into society, and even make a better life for, those who have strayed over the line. Legislation has been passed in 38 states giving convicted felons the right to vote. States and municipalities have passed, or are considering, legislation or regulations that would prohibit employers from requiring job applicants to provide their criminal history, at least until they have been offered a job. Reentry courts, a recent phenomenon, assist criminal offenders to assimilate back into the community.

Not only did Rendell accept thousands of dollars in contributions from DeNaples, but so have a considerable number of other elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans. So, after four decades, perhaps we have changed our perspective.

New Jersey seems to have gone down a different road. When gambling was legalized in New Jersey, its Casino Control Commission, with much fanfare, talked about keeping organized crime, or any criminal elements, out of casino gambling. Merely associating with organized crime figures or people convicted of a crime could result in a ban on doing business with casinos.

Does New Jersey have higher ethical standards than Pennsylvania? Or does Pennsylvania have a more progressive view with respect to people with troublesome backgrounds who make efforts to rehabilitate themselves? Do we believe more strongly in redemption, at least when all that the DeNaples and Ashers of the world are doing is exercising their First Amendment right to express their preference for a candidate?

Regardless, as a former federal prosecutor who investigated and prosecuted official corruption, I find troubling, as most Pennsylvanians I think would, that Corbett would accept a large campaign contribution from someone with DeNaples' checkered background - even though it is legal and even acceptable in some circles. Unlike Rendell when he ran for governor, Corbett staked his initial bid for governor on his reputation as the attorney general who convicted and sent to jail public officials for violating their trust in what was known as Bonusgate. In a campaign in which tens of millions of dollars will be raised and spent, why wouldn't the governor want to avoid questions and return the $35,000?