Well Councilman Jack Kelly is in the news again for factors unrelated to his recent razor thin electoral win. Federal investigators are looking at alleged deals in his office involving two brothers who are real estate developers, large scale landlords and coincidentally friends and large campaign contributors to the councilman. As is always the case in such instances, Kelly is providing "full cooperation" with Federal investigators.

The case hinges around questions about the connection between Kelly's chief of staff, Christopher G. Wright, and the two brothers, Hardeep and Ravinder Chawla. According to the Inquirer , Wright recieved a $1000 Christmas check from the Chawla brothers.

Hardeep Chawla spent five months in prison for deceiving the IRS, a tenant in one of his properties, about property-tax breaks he received and was supposed to pass on in the lease. Kelly and City Councilman Brian J. O'Neill wrote to U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson in February 2006, asking for leniency.

Hardeep Chawla had been charged in November 2005, which would have been shortly before he gave $1,000 to Wright. Asked why a developer would give money to a Council staffer, Teitelman said, "My understanding is it was done on a personal level and had nothing to do with Chris' position within the city."

Wright is also a licensed real estate agent, who as part of a Coldwell Banker team in 2006 represented prospective buyers for the Chawlas' property off JFK Boulevard and Schuylkill River Park, Teitelman said. No deal was ever consummated on the property, owned by the Chawlas' World Acquisition Partners, which would have been known as River City, Teitelman said.

In addition:

Investigators are exploring an allegation that Wright lived in a Chawla-owned apartment rent-free, the sources said. Wright could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Beyond the tedious familiarity of yet one more city council office being investigated for questionable interactions with a real estate developer (what is this 3 or 4 in as many years?), the case raises interesting questions for how the Chawla brothers stepped around campaign contribution limits.

From an earlier article:

Apparently without violating any of the new, stricter contribution limits, Councilman Jack Kelly, a Republican in a tough race to retain his at-large seat, had nearly 25 percent of his primary campaign funded by partnerships associated with the Chawla brothers, Hardeep and Ravinder, the largest property owners in the Northeast, who are now making a push in Center City.

Kelly got $30,000 on April 26 - $10,000 each from three small partnerships that include Chawla family interests. They are Sant Properties, Philadelphia Chancellor L.P., and 11501 Roosevelt Partners L.P., all based out of the Chawlas' office in Huntingdon Valley. Only one other donor - a political committee - has made a single donation of that size to Kelly, according to campaign-finance reports released Friday.

If giving as individuals, the Chawlas would be limited to $2,500 each, or $10,000 from a single partnership, according to new campaign limits.

The Chawlas' lawyer, Andrew Teitelman - who is also Kelly's campaign treasurer - said he inquired about this specific issue at a seminar offered by the city on the new law, and was told by the executive director of the Board of Ethics, J. Shane Creamer Jr., that it was perfectly legal for multiple partnerships with common ownership to make maximum contributions.

"If he were able to tell me this was not proper, we wouldn't have done it," Teitelman said.

The Committee of Seventy, however, has questioned whether the Chawlas had successfully - and legally - exploited a weakness in the law.

"It seems to me like Kelly and this group are a little too close, and that's exactly the kind of relationship that the campaign-finance law was intended to avoid," said Zack Stalberg, executive director of the campaign-watchdog nonprofit. "In the current context, this adds up to a lot of money. And, while technically legal, it adds up to a lot of money from the same source."

So what do folks think we should propose to stop multiple business partnerships connected to the same parties from tip-toeing around the campaign limits?