I took the opportunity to listen to the arguments since they were taking place in Room 456 - right upstairs from my office.

Greg Harvey argued that the State Legislature only enacted one "post-Watergate" reform while the Federal Legislature enacted several reforms - therefore, he contended, the State Legislature only meant to enact one reform. The State Legislature only limited candidates from taking more than $100 in cash during the "post-Watergate" era of reform.

Richie Feder, from the City, countered that while the Federal Legislature spoke on several issues and the State Legislature spoke on only one - we still can't determine what the State Legislature thought about the other issues from its silence. Furthermore, even if the State Legislature meant to be silent on other issues as it relates to Statewide legislation - it did not "fill the field" through its "silence" with respect to home rule municipal authority on all issues.

Feder further argued that the City was empowered under the State Ethics Act to legislate on campaign contribution limits and that the limits are not simply a State Election Code issue. In other words, City elected officials are elected as prescibed by the State Election Code and the City has not altered that electoral process - instead, the City has established ethical guidelines for potential City elected officials consistent with the State Ethics Act but those officials must still be elected as prescribed by the State Election Code.

Feder also countered a George Bochetto argument that the campaign contributions limit law violated the State Home Rule Act because it takes away a "right" established by state law. Feder correctly insisted that the State Election Code does not give the "right" to unlimited contributions, as Bochetto claimed, but it is simply "silent" on the issue.

I think the City made its case - and the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

WWGjr

Someone explain this for me, there must be some fine legal point that I am missing as I do not have my JD:

Taken from the Daily News article on this: "George Bochetto argued that under the state's Home Rule Act, municipalities such as Philadelphia may not enact ordinances that limit powers granted by the Legislature."

On behalf of Jonny Doc he is arguing that a local municipality, Philly, cannot enact laws tougher than the state's laws. Repping the City at the behest of Clarke and DRM, Bochetto is suing the state so that Philly can enact tougher gun laws. Why are we paying taxpayer $ to this guy to sue the state when he is arguing the opposite argument in another case?!?

The state is "silent" on campaign finance limits but it does have gun laws. Does that make the cases different? From what I see it seems to be the same sort of case.

Bochetto is very politically connected and I bet getting the City's suit against the state was Clarke and DRM's way of throwing him some work/cash for a favor he did for them at some point, because the case really seems to be a dud. And with Scott Sigman, who works for Bochetto, planning to run for DA on the GOP side he probably plans to use his association with the suit to boost his campaign. Why isn't the Stinky Inky or Daily Snooze writing on this?

Councilman Goode, I'm sure you have say over who represents the City in a lawsuit like this. Do you see this as a good use of taxpayer money? Was any of this discussed? It seems absurd to hire someone who will have to argue against his own former arguments!