Democracy for Pittsburgh

===For immediate release===

April 10 (Pittsburgh)

The candidates responded, the members of DFP have voted. Our endorsed candidates are:

Eugene DePasquale for PA Auditor General

and

Erin Molchany for State Representative (PA General Assembly, district 22)

How do these candidates differ from others who garnered significant support, but not quite the 70% support required for DFP endorsement?  A key commonality springs to mind.  The two candidates share strong progressive tendencies, but they also share something more essential: a deep-seated commitment towards doing right by all citizens of PA, in a way that transcends ideology.

One presumes that every human being has occasional negative moments or a fleeting uncharitable thought. But these two candidates seem as immune to negative sentiment and divisiveness as it’s possible to be while living a life of deeply-felt convictions.  In the public sphere or the nonprofit world, each has made a habit of listening well to, and working respectfully with all who are willing to reciprocate.  In politics, even the very best too often allow themselves to “go negative.”  We not only hope but expect that both of our endorsees will continue to emphasize their strong backgrounds, their problem solving skills, their energy and their commitment–not the flaws (perceived, manufactured, or all-too-real) of their opponents.

We suggest that these are candidates anyone could proudly support, and we invite others to join us in doing so.

###

These are apparently all of the responses we’re getting. Voting is now open. 

RACES

Auditor General

Eugene DePasquale has strong qualifications and a history of standing up for the rights of the citizen.  Gene is also the only Democrat in the PA Auditor General’s race.

Eugene DePasquale’s website

Eugene DePasquale’s Answers: DePasquale DFP 2012

Attorney General

oddly, we have only received answers from one of the two Democratic Attorney General Candidates, while the other one of the two candidates has responded to social issues groups.  They both have similar (and relatively progressive) stances on individual and corporate rights and responsibilities, and both have both held positions of significant relevance and responsibility.  They are currently splitting support within the party, but not along ideological lines (and they are running a mutually respectful campaign).  Please find out more about both candidates to decide if we want to endorse in the primary, even though only one candidate has asked for our endorsement.

Kathleen Kane’s website

Kathleen Kane’s answers: Kane DFP 2012

Patrick Murphy’s website

(Patrick Murphy, no answers submitted)

link to an article about their campaign styles here .

Kane has Rendell’s election team, great intensity, and  a history, as a prosecutor, in going after child abusers (certainly currently topical, and her “a prosecutor, not a politician” stance should speak to a broad swath of the electorate). Murphy has raised about 5 times as much money (including many union supporters and LGBT supporters who are grateful for his leading role against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).  Either one would be a solid and highly credible AG candidate in the general election, compared to past Democratic candidates.

State Representative District 22

DFP endorsed Erin Molchany in 2005 another office (where she did credibly in the election, but did not win against the establishment candidate).  Since then, she has served ably as Executive Director for PUMP (where along with a lot of young professional-focused networking, they’ve done good work on community engagement, “giving back,” and voter registration).  She is not the only progressive in the race, but she has far more experience and polish than her competitors, and a history with us.  She’s also the only candidate to respond to our request for answers. At least one strong candidate has potentially embarrassing past legal issues. I am therefore going to suggest that people do not vote “endorse whichever Democrat wins the primary, for the general election” in this race, unless they know more about that situation than I do. 

Erin Molchany’s website

Erin Molchany’s answers: Erin Molchany DFP 2012

State Representative District 20

This is our only head-to-head matchup for endorsement, and it does not include responses from incumbent (and frontrunner) Adam Ravenstahl.

David Schuilenburg facebook page and an interview from a previous political race (for city council), included here because his campaign website is currently nonfunctional.

David Schuilenburg’s responses: schuilenburgDFP2012

Article on Mark Purcell (because I can’t find his campaign website)

Mark Purcell’s responses:  Mark Purcell DFP 2012

All Races

For those interested in personal rights-style social issues (esp. LGBT/feminist), you will likely also want to check the candidate responses to the Steel City Stonewall Democrats, available here.

VOTING

Ballot and voting instructions

Here is the endorsement ballot, including voting instructions. DFP Ballot 2012.pdf

There are two ways to vote.

a) classic secret ballot  Print out a ballot.  Vote. Do not put your name or any identifying marks on the ballot itself. Then put the ballot in an unmarked envelope. Stick that unmarked envelope in another envelope. Sign your name on the flap of the OUTER envelope, and include your legible, printed name with your return address.  Send it to DFP c/o Sabl, 7008 Willard st. Pittsburgh PA 15208, postmarked by March 30, 2012.  Also email jfsabl@gmail.com to say the ballot is on its way.

b) quick and easy for those who really hate the two envelope process and who happen to trust Joy Sabl with their choices (hi, Marty, this is for you) you can email your choices to  jfsabl@gmail.com.  They will be printed out, stuck in an envelope, and mixed with the other envelopes.

QUESTIONS

Unclear? Confusing? Errors?  Please contact jfsabl@gmail.com.  Thanks!

Note: this process does not cost money and was therefore not paid for by anyone.  DFP does not collect or spend funds in support of any candidate. 

Multiple members having expressed support at our main communications tool, the DFP yahoo group, and nobody speaking against, the group is now an official supporter of the “move to amend” campaign. The single goal of this campaign is to reduce or remove the presumption of “personhood” for corporations.  Until ~ 120 years ago, corporations did just fine in the US without having the privacy or free speech rights of individuals.  In much of the world, corporations have no such rights, but manage to go about their business…without directly warping the political process.

We encourage anyone who reads this to go to the Move to Amend page, and sign on as an individual supporter.

To quote from Move to Amend:

There are two conceptions of corporate personhood. The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this.

However, corporate personhood also commonly refers to the Supreme Court – created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution.

I’ve relocated the Democracy for Pittsburgh blog from a self-hosted site to a WordPress.com account. Unfortunately, this breaks a lot of the links, even though all of the old posts and comments have been preserved.

If you find any broken links on this site, please report them by posting a comment.

If you find any broken links to this site, we can’t do much about that. Let the webmaster of the other site know.