From PNA, Deborah Musselman

Notes from the Capitol

Money was the theme in the General Assembly this week as, by unexpected coincidence, the Pennsylvania General Assembly moved several bills that involve newspaper revenues, along with the House wish-list budget for Fiscal Year 2005-06, just two days before today’s uniquely recognizable date on the calendar.

Almost everyone in Pennsylvania now knows that on Wednesday, April 13 Gov. Rendell signed House Bill 2, Printer’s No. 1618, his “Growing Greener II” environmental bond issue, into law as Act 1 of 2005, the final step after its mid-February House passage.

As a Harrisburg lobbying firm put it April 14 in their daily online newsletter, “That was quick …the bill seemed to squirt through …” the final steps along the way to the Governor’s desk, after two months of negotiation between Senate leadership and the Administration.

The Senate quickly moved the bill out of committee and into position for final passage, and then over to the House for concurrence, immediately after negotiators reached agreement on the $625 million amount of the bond issue. Effective immediately, it’s now up to the Dept. of State and county election boards to get the language onto the May 17 primary election ballot, and the Governor will get his wish for a vote on the measure this spring.

The way to the primary vote was smoothed by the decision to waive or abrogate certain Election Code provisions pertaining to absentee ballots and to the form of the question. Overlooked in all the analysis and declarations of victory is the fact that the Code’s requirements for public notice and advertising also were waived outright in the bill that went to the Governor, replacing the bill’s original language to waive Election Code time limits for advertising notice.

Ironically, earlier that same day, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had carefully discussed the value of legal advertising to the public, defeating by a 9-5 vote an amendment to strike public notice advertising requirements from Senate Bill 392, which amends the Associations Code, Title 15. This legislation, the successor to last session’s SB 276, provides general partners in a restricted limited liability partnership or company with the same protection from liability as shareholders in a professional corporation, and the same protection afforded by LLP laws of 36 other states. PNA and its member publisher, American Lawyer Media, of Philadelphia, have been pursuing this advertising requirement as an appropriate protection and notification to consumers and other businesses of the fiduciary protection afforded partners in these corporations. The PA Bar Association also endorses advertising.

The amendment’s sponsor, Sen. John Gordner [R., Columbia Co.] argued that the public can obtain all necessary information regarding corporations from the Dept. of State Corporation Bureau website, making legal advertising an unnecessary cost to businesses, a point also pushed by business organizations. The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Stewart Greenleaf [R., Montgomery Co.] pointed out the deficiencies of relying on the Internet for obtaining records and the value of informing the public that certain events actually have taken place, as opposed to whether the information is available, while Sen. Mary Jo White [R., Venango Co.] remarked that the value to the public far outweighs the cost to individual businesses.

Senate Bill 392, Printer’s No. 678 was reported from committee by a unanimous vote and is now on the Senate calendar, and I expect it to be moved into the Appropriations Committee next week. Our recent survey of papers across the state found overall costs of running an average notice run are in the range of $80 to $120. PNA and our partner organizations are working hard to counter the “tax on business” arguments and fight future efforts to delete the advertising requirements. We hope to see the bill move over to the House before the summer recess.

In a way, the coincidental juxtaposition of these two measures involving public notice ads, and their contrasting disposition, aptly highlights the message we always strive to convey at the capitol – that public notices involve fundamental rights and interests of the public, and that it’s about a lot more than newspaper revenues (and of course they’re important!). The attention that has been given to the environmental initiative, and the various elements of the debate – the amount of indebtedness to be authorized, how it would be incurred, the areas of remediation or cleanup, not to mention the debate about tipping fees – demonstrates the public nature of these concerns, and shows that these issues are of personal interest and meaning to the state’s citizens for many reasons.

As the Act 1 juggernaut rushed along on Wednesday I joked “Well, they are still relying on newspapers to print their press releases and publicize the vote in May,” and although we don’t like the removal of the advertising requirement, we know that on this issue the public interest is nevertheless being served, because of the nature of the legislation itself, and because newspapers and other media responsibly address the issues of the day. We emphasize that not every bill generates such interest, or can be covered so extensively, nor is every proposal debated by so many advocacy organizations. Only someone who actively avoids the news will not know that voters have a decision to make on May 17, by the time that date arrives, but the protections afforded under SB 392 are the ones that are often taken for granted, and it is that debate which shows what it’s really all about.

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact me if you need further information or want to discuss these issues.

Deborah Musselman
Director of Government Affairs
(717) 703-3077
deborahm@pa-news.org