Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Audit of Campaign Expense Statements

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 10, 1994Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

I dissent from the majority decision in this case. Appellants’ request before the trial court was not a complicated one. They merely challenged certain individuals’ reporting of campaign expenditures as “lobbyists” rather than as a “political committee” which received contributions or made expenditures for purposes of the May 1991 primary election for Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, township supervisor positions.

Appellants petitioned for audit of campaign expense statements, election reports and affidavits pursuant to Section 1636 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cole v. EvaninaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API