Onorato’s proposals get the skeptical treatment

Good-government advocates on Wednesday had a reaction to Dan Onorato’s ethics reform plans similar to their thoughts on Tom Knox’s proposals a couple weeks ago: mostly great ideas, good luck forcing them through a recalcitrant legislature.

Even as he called it a “bold step step in the right direction,” Eric Epstein, coordinator of the watchdog group RockTheCapital.org, asked, “How will Mr. Onorato motivate the legislature?”

“This body has a pathological aversion to structural reform. Legislative leaders—many who will play a key role in electing the next governor—will seek out the weakest measures and kill off the reform meat and potatoes. That’s why we need a Constitutional Convention.”

Tim Potts, the co-founder of Democracy Rising PA, gave Onorato “a lot of credit for giving matters of public integrity such a prominent place in the gubernatorial debate.”

But, Potts said, “it appears that Mr. Onorato doesn’t understand how weak the infrastructure is for enforcing existing laws, much less new ones. Publicly available databases for campaign financing, lobbying and legislation are not related, making it extremely costly and difficult to connect the dots.”

Potts said even federal campaign contribution limits are “way too high.”

“All that does is make state election campaigns as expensive as federal election campaigns,” he said. “The limits should be at least half of the federal limits.”

And he was less enthusiastic about term limits.

“We’ve never been a fan of term limits because it takes choices, even bad choices, away from voters,” Potts said. “We prefer term limits on how long any individual lawmaker can serve in a leadership position.”