PITTSBURGH – The City of Pittsburgh believes that a lawsuit alleging it is illegally enforcing campaign finance regulation ordinances is groundless, and that its Home Rule Charter status allows it to enact and enforce such laws.
Darlene Harris filed a complaint Dec. 9 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against the City of Pittsburgh, Mayor William Peduto, the City of Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board and Leanne Davis, seeking declaratory judgment.
Harris alleged she filed papers with the Allegheny County Board of Elections to run for Mayor of Pittsburgh in February of 2017 and in February of 2019 to run for a seat on the city of Pittsburgh Council, District 1.
The suit stated in February 2019, the Ethics Hearing Board notified the plaintiff of campaign finance requirements and she informed it and Davis “that she did not intend to file campaign finance reports” with the City, and she believes the requirements conflict with state campaign finance laws and are unconstitutional.
As a result, Harris was fined $4,150 in September. Harris seeks for the court to find that the ordinances in question are unlawful, injunctive and all other just equitable relief.
On Jan. 15, the City filed an answer to the lawsuit, countering that it fails to state a claim and “cannot be adjudicated because it fails to present an actual and justiciable controversy ripe for judicial review.”
Counsel for the City argued that as a Home Rule Municipality, Pittsburgh enjoys “broad authority” and “a greater amount of self-governance” than other municipalities who do not possess that designation, and that the campaign finance ordinances in question are “valid exercises of legislative authority.”
“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Election Code does not pre-empt municipalities from enacting campaign finance ordinances and that, in fact, the Pennsylvania Election Code encourages such ordinances. The fines imposed by the Ethics Hearing Board do not violate applicable restrictions because each day the applicable ordinance is violated is a new violation,” according to the City’s response.
On Jan. 28, Harris responded to the City and denied much of the defendants’ new matter as conclusions of law to which no response was required and demanding strict proof of same at trial.
Harris reiterated that the ordinances violate legislative pre-emption doctrines and overstep the bounds of the City’s authority.
“The City of Pittsburgh has created a ‘slippery slope,' which, arguably, would allow and enable every single government entity in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from the level of a second-class city like Pittsburgh to a municipality or borough, such as Millvale, Pennsylvania, to enact their own campaign finance legislation,” Harris replied in her response.
The plaintiff is represented by James R. Burn Jr. of Abes Baumann, plus Daniel M. Booker and David J. Berardinelli of DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Berardinelli, all in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Assistant City Solicitor Lawrence H. Baumiller of the City of Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-19-015376
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com