The race between state Rep. Kate Harper (R-Lower Gwynedd) and Democrat Frank Custer has grown significantly more contentious in recent weeks, with attacks flying and recriminations from both sides.
Custer is trying to unseat Harper in Montgomery County's 61st Legislative District. County Democrats are pegging it as one of the down-ballot seats they hope to pick up, but being a more traditional suburb that some others in the area, Republicans think it's one they can hold onto.
Custer has mounted a series of attacks on Harper during the campaign. What started as criticism of her municipal law work outside of Harrisburg has escalated into a larger attack on what he calls her ambition to hold other offices. Harper, for her part, has dismissed the attacks as everything from hypocritical to desperate, while criticizing him for not wanting to talk about issues.
Though the campaign was always contentious, the last few weeks have seen a new level of vitriol between the two candidates.
Custer, pointing to the fact that Harper has expressed interest in a county judicial appointment, called on her to pledge to serve a full term if reelected.
"I just think that people really should have some sense of confidence that the two people who are running to get their support actually want to go there and do the job," Custer told PolitickerPA.com recently. Harper, in an interview, said she didn't want to dignify the challenge with a response.
"He's throwing stuff against the wall and hoping something will stick," she said. "The real voters out there, they're not buying this."
Harper has indulged in her own criticism of Custer, questioning his record and his qualifications, though her attacks haven't seemed to quite match the wrath of her opponent's. In a mailing, Custer, using a tactic favored by Democratic candidates this election cycle, seeks to tie Harper to support for President Bush's economic policies.
"What else isn't she telling us?" the mailing asks.
The race could still prove to be one of Montgomery County's more competitive down-ballot contests. Custer had about $26,000 in cash on hand at the end of a reporting period that closed last week, according to campaign finance reports filed Friday. Harper's latest campaign finance report had not yet been published on the Department of State Web site Sunday, but she told PolitickerPA.com her campaign had a little more than $62,000 on hand.
DAN HIRSCHHORN is a PolitickerPA.com Reporter and can be reached via email at danh@politickerpa.com.
HARPER HIDES BEHIND VOMITING PUMPKINS AND FUNNY COSTUMES
Upper Gwynedd, PA (October 24, 2008) – Frank X. Custer, the Democratic candidate for the 61st state legislative district seat, today charged State Rep. Kate Harper with hiding her record behind mail pieces that highlight vomiting pumpkins and ridiculous costumes.
“It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic,” Custer said. “I really don’t know why Ms. Harper is resorting to this type of campaigning for a job she apparently doesn’t even want. Usually, it is the challenger that resorts to over-the-top mail and advertising, but in this case Ms. Harper is reacting poorly to the first real challenge she has ever had.”
Custer has criticized Harper for holding four taxpayer-funded jobs at the same time and for skipping close to 50 important votes in Harrisburg to tend to her three municipal attorney positions. In addition, Custer has tried to draw a contrast between Harper’s extremely conservative and anti-reform record (anti-choice, against funding stem cell research, embracing Bush economic policies, opposing plans to cover uninsured Pennsylvanians, voting for the midnight pay raise and opposing reform efforts) and his more progressive platform.
Harper has denied none of Custer’s charges, and openly admitted that she missed votes on multiple evenings to earn additional paychecks for her legal work. Her response has been a direct mail and television campaign attacking Custer’s character and lying about his commitment to open space. The mail has been punctuated with pictures of pumpkins being sick and a lame attempt at dressing Custer in a jester outfit through computer graphics.
“Our mailings have been straight forward, factual, and admittedly tough,” Custer said, “but Ms. Harper’s response has been juvenile and, frankly, untrue.”
Custer provided a list of Harper’s charges and his response:
Custer has minimal work experience. “Actually, I have a 35 year career (20 in the private sector and 15 in the public sector) ranging from 12 years as a vice president of an advertising and public relations agency to heading up the largest tourism publicity office in the world to serving as press secretary and senior advisor to a respected congressman to running my own small business to serving our country in the armed forces for four years.”
Custer has held no elected office and was rejected by voters. “If my biggest flaw is losing an election (for county commissioner in 2003), I’ll allow that on my tombstone. Ms. Harper, I will point out, ran for county commissioner last year and was rejected by her own party in the endorsement process.”
Custer has held a series of political jobs. “I have been honored to serve in government four times (twice for Republican administrations), and each time I was sought out by the people who hired me. I did not seek the positions. I have held four government jobs in 35 years. Ms. Harper is holding four taxpayer-funded positions right now.”
Custer works for a developer, so he doesn’t care about open space. “The only development project our firm has promoted is the redevelopment of Logan Square shopping center in Norristown into a movie studio and commercial center. Redeveloping distressed properties saves open space. Our firm also helped promote an open space referendum in another Montgomery County municipality, which passed with over 70 percent of the vote. The rest of our clients are educational entities or non-profit organizations that do such things as provide health care to uninsured and underinsured; run homeless shelters and shelters for battered women; and senior centers.”
“I find it puzzling why Ms. Harper is fighting so hard to hang on to a seat that she apparently doesn’t want,” Custer said.
In 2006, just weeks after winning a third term in the House and before she was sworn-in for that term, Harper announced her candidacy for county commissioner and explained at length why she preferred that position. She ultimately was rejected by the Republican committee during the endorsement process.
Recently Harper admitted in a newspaper interview that she is interested in becoming a Montgomery County judge. There are expected to be seven open seats on the Montgomery County bench next year.
“Ms. Harper misses votes, runs for other offices and wants to be a judge,” Custer said. “That doesn’t sound like someone who really wants to represent the 61st district. I do, and I will do it enthusiastically and full time.”
Upper Gwynedd, PA (October 16, 2008) – Frank X. Custer, the Democratic candidate for the 61st state legislative district seat, today said that if Harrisburg is to be reformed, it must start on November 4 – election day.
"There is no doubt Harrisburg needs to be reformed, but it will not be reformed if voters keep returning those legislators who want things to stay the way they are," Custer said. He pointed to his opponent, State Rep. Kate Harper, as one of those legislators that have consistently resisted and derided reform efforts.
Custer said the so-called “Bonusgate” scandal that hit Harrisburg this past summer is just a symptom of what is wrong with Harrisburg.
“There is an environment of entitlement and arrogance in Harrisburg that must be changed, and that change will not happen until those who want to reform our state government outnumber those who want to retain the status quo.
“Ms. Harper is one of those who want to maintain the status quo,” Custer charged.
He listed several examples of Harper’s resistance to reform and her support of the status quo:
Harper voted to gut a bill that would have strengthened the House Ethics Committee by randomly selecting its members as opposed to having them handpicked by House leadership that has a vested interest in a toothless committee.
When defending her vote, Harper dismissed reform efforts with the following quote: “The cause of reform is so well-liked by the press that if the cafeteria offered a sandwich made of dead skunk called ‘reform du jour’, we’d all probably order it and eat it.”
Newspapers across the state ridiculed Harper for her comments and the Scranton Times lampooned the comments in an editorial cartoon.The Times said: “As long as Ms. Harper and her colleagues view reforms as being akin to a ‘skunk sandwich’, Pennsylvanians will have to continue to put up a stink over their bloated, self-indulgent and unresponsive Legislature.”
When advocates of reform called for a special legislative session this fall to deal with reform measures, Harper ridiculed the move.
When the “Open Records Act”, the most significant piece of reform legislation passed in Harrisburg in years, came up for a final vote, Harper skipped the vote and was back in Montgomery County tending to her tax-payer funded municipal law practice.
Harper voted for and defended the infamous midnight pay raise the legislature passed in 2005
Despite staying past midnight to vote for the pay raise, Harper several times has skipped out on evening sessions of the House to go home and earn hundreds of dollars an hour as a municipal attorney.
Custer said when he is elected he will enthusiastically join with reform-minded legislators to make meaningful changes to the way business is conducted in Harrisburg.
He pointed to his pledge made after the “bonusgate” revelations to not vote for Democratic leader Bill DeWeese should he run for leadership next year.
“Bonusgate sickened me,” Custer said.“Taxpayer dollars should not be used for partisan political activities, and whether Bill DeWeese was involved or not, it happened on his watch, and that is not the type of leadership we need.”
Custer admitted that his stand could cause him problems with certain legislators when he takes office in January, but he said, “at least I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror.”
On the other hand, when Custer criticized Harper for missing votes to do her legal work, she said her second job provided her with the “integrity” to stand up to her leadership.
“If you don’t have the integrity and courage to make tough decisions and cast tough votes, you are part of the problem, not the solution,” Custer said.
Custer said he would push for many legislative reforms when elected including:
More transparency in government
Campaign finance reform
Random selection of members to the ethics committee
A non-partisan approach to redistricting House and Senate seats
Eliminating costly legislative perks
Eliminating the slush funds controlled by legislative leaders, and redirecting those dollars to education, health care or property tax relief
Over the past eight months, I have knocked on over 7,000 doors in the 61st District and talked to thousands of people.Many important issues are on the voters’ minds, but as I criss-crossed the district from Plymouth to North Wales and from Towamencin to Lower Gwynedd, health care, and specifically access to affordable health insurance was a serious worry to what seemed like an inordinate number of people.
In a county where unemployment is relatively low and in a district that is relatively affluent, the level of fear and frustration is striking.
I talked to a young man in his 30s who was a self-employed contractor.He said that despite earning a decent living he could not afford health insurance, and because of that his wife, who was six-months pregnant at the time, had not yet seen a doctor.
In a comfortable neighborhood in Upper Gwynedd I talked to a single mother who said she could not afford health insurance for her and her teen-aged son.In Whitpain, I talked to a woman who had health insurance, but she said the premiums were more than her mortgage payments.
There were many more stories.People with health insurance they could no longer afford.Others who had insurance, but could get no coverage for pre-existing conditions.Still others who had family members with debilitating conditions or illnesses not covered by insurance.And, of course, those who were employed, but simply could not afford coverage and none was provided by their employers.
In all, there are 760,000 Pennsylvanians and 46 million Americans without health insurance.That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable.Much of the debate in the current and past presidential campaigns has dealt with health care issues, but still little has been done at the federal level.That is why it is so important that the states step up.
A few years ago, Massachusetts passed a bi-partisan program that so far has exceeded all expectations.Former Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the Democratically-controlled legislature found a way to provide Bay Staters a critically-need program that works.
In Pennsylvania, not so much.Gov. Rendell’s plan to insure most Pennsylvanians has, so far, been shot down by Republicans, and even a scaled back plan that would have provided coverage is mired in the muck of the Republican-controlled state Senate.“Too expensive!,” claim the Republicans.“We can’t afford it.”
We can’t afford not to do it.Yes, given the current financial situation in the country that is having devastating effects on state governments, we need to make careful judgments and set our priorities judiciously, but making sure our residents have access to health care should be at the top of the list.
Those without insurance end up in the emergency rooms, and we pay for that.Those same people end up in the emergency rooms sicker than they would be had they had medical care sooner, and we pay for that.The hidden cost of not providing affordable health care to everyone is much higher than if we came together and passed a workable plan.
It is time for Republicans and Democrats to come together in Pennsylvania and get this done.
I know firsthand the importance of having decent health insurance coverage.My first wife battled cancer for over three years before succumbing at the age of 48.My family would have been devastated without the coverage we had, and even with that we owed thousands.In addition, the insurance company denied certain treatments my wife desperately wanted to try. More recently, my son needed an out-patient surgical procedure.Had this happened a few months earlier, he would not have had insurance having just returned from Eastern Europe where he was teaching.Luckily, he had just started graduate school, and the procedure was covered by his school insurance.
My opponent, State Rep. Kate Harper has joined her Republican colleagues in opposing Gov. Rendell’s proposals.This despite the fact that if she completes one more term in the legislature, she will receive health insurance for life.The legislature should vote to make the same type of insurance programs it gets available to the people they represent.
For Immediate Release: Contact: Rob Dann
October 13, 2008 215-361-8650
HARPER MAKES BOGUS CLAIM ON REFORM VOTE
Upper Gwynedd, PA (October 13, 2008) – State Rep. Kate Harper (R-61) today made a bogus claim that she was party to passing the state’s Open Records Act that she termed “far reaching and comprehensive.”
Harper made the comments in questions posed by The Times Herald, which were published in today’s editions of the newspaper.
The only problem, however, is that when that vote was taken Harper was 100 miles away double-dipping into taxpayer dollars as a municipal attorney, while her colleagues were passing the legislation.
“The Open Records Act was a milestone in efforts to reform Harrisburg, and it will have far-reaching effects” said Frank X. Custer, Harper’s Democratic challenger for the 61st district seat. “However, the much farther reach is Ms. Harper’s contention that she passed the bill. While her colleagues were hard at work in an evening session, Ms. Harper was long-gone from Harrisburg and earning over a hundred dollars an hour as a municipal attorney,” Custer said.
In all, Harper has missed several evening sessions of the House to double-dip into taxpayer funds through her attorney activities with three municipalities in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. She has missed a total of 48 votes on a number of important issues in order to conduct her legal business.
Harper has admitted in interviews that she missed the votes. She defended her absence by claiming her three municipal attorney jobs provide her the integrity to stand up to her Republican leaders when they ask her to vote a certain way.
“Harrisburg needs reform badly, and the Open Records Act is a significant step forward, but Ms. Harper, who has ridiculed reform attempts and was against a special session on reform this fall, remains part of the problem,” Custer said. “She had no problem staying around until after midnight voting for her pay raise, but when she had a chance to vote for a significant reform bill she was missing in action.
Ms. Harper needs to make up her mind whether she wants to be America’s attorney or a legislator,” Custer said. “She is being paid an excellent salary, per diem, lots of perks, and a comprehensive and far-reaching health insurance package that becomes hers for life after another term to be a fulltime legislator.”
Some of you may have seen the negative mail piece my opponent, Kate Harper, sent out this week.I will let you decide how much truth is in it.
Frank
It was just four or five days ago when my opponent was lamenting negative campaigning.I responded that one person’s negativity is another person’s truthfulness.I then tried to point out the truth of the arguments I was making.
My opponent did not refute a single point I made.She only was upset that I raised the points in the first place.Well, now my opponent has gone “negative” on me.I won’t cry foul.After all, campaigns are about drawing comparisons between candidates.I will point out that while my so-called negativity dealt primarily with our respective stands on issues, my opponent’s negativity did not mention a single issue.Instead, she essentially talked about my life experience, which, ironically, I believe is one of my strongest points.Let’s take a look at what she said.
She said I “had a dismal employment record” and had “minimal work real work experience”, and that I held a “series of political jobs.”
Well, let’s see, in my 35-year career, I have worked 20 years in the private sector and 15 years in government.In government, I worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations at the state (Florida), county (Chester and MontgomeryCounties) and federal (six years as press secretary and senior advisor to Congressman Joe Hoeffel) levels.Except for the time I worked for Congressman Hoeffel, who is a Democrat, I had no involvement in partisan politics because I believed that anyone serving the general public and not in a strictly political job should be above politics and should serve all the people.
During those 35 years, I thought I was getting “real work” experience.What could my opponent be referencing?Would it be the five years I spent as a reporter and editor for a daily newspaper?I think that is real work.Would it be the two years I spent as public information director for ChesterCounty under a Republican administration?That seems real, also.
Or, could she be referring to the five years I spent running the day to day operations of the largest tourism publicity office in the world in Florida?Being responsible for promoting the largest industry in the state of Florida certainly seems like real work.
Could it be the 13 years I spent as an account executive and ultimately a vice president of an advertising and public relations agency in suburban Philadelphia?I doubt that would be it, do you?
Next, the Republican chairman of the Montgomery County Commissioners approached me and asked me to consider being the county’s public information director.I hesitated, but ultimately I took the job, and served in that position for two years.I certainly think that would qualify as “real work experience.”
When Joe Hoeffel was elected to Congress in 1998, he asked me to be his press secretary and senior advisor, and for the next six years I built an excellent relationship with the media, the public and served as one of Congressman Hoeffel’s chief advisors, even arguing against voting to give the President the authorization to go to war in Iraq.During that time I commuted almost daily between MontgomeryCounty and the nation’s capital, because I was a single parent (my wife had passed away a few years before) and wanted to be home every night with my son, who was in high school.Could she be talking about that being minimal work experience?
Finally, after Hoeffel left Congress, I started my own public relations and government affairs consulting firm with a partner, and we have been running this small business for the past four years.We are entrepreneurs running a small business, and our clients provide social services to those in need, environmental services and rebuild distressed properties.Certainly that is real work.
Does all that seem like “minimal real work experience”?I did have other jobs.Three times in my life, I have worked multiple jobs.Of course, there was college when I worked two jobs and went to TempleUniversity fulltime.Years later when my wife was battling cancer and medical bills piled up, I took a second job to pay the bills.A few years later, after my wife died, and my children were in college or about to go, I worked a second job to make ends meet.Do I lose points for working harder?
Wait!Wait!Possibly, she is talking about the four years I spent serving my country in the U.S. Navy.No, I doubt that is it, because earlier this year when she held an event to honor, among others, Vietnam era vets, I was one of the ones to whom she gave a certificate and medal.So, I don’t think those years lost any importance in the ensuing months, do you?
Frankly, I think my opponent and I should match work experience, and see whose is “minimal.”
My opponent also says I ran a “losing campaign” for county commissioner in 2003, and only decided to run after I failed to get a “political appointment.”Okay, let’s get the facts straight.First of all, when I ran I was employed as Congressman Hoeffel’s press secretary and senior advisor, so I did not run because I needed a job.Secondly, I made sure I was in compliance with the Hatch Act that controls political activity of federal employees.Third, since I was sensitive to the fact that I might lose some work time to the campaign, I asked for a reduction in pay until the campaign was over.I wonder if my opponent’s Republican colleague, who is an assistant district attorney, is still taking full pay from the DA’s office as he campaigns for the legislature.
Yes, I did lose the election.Someone always does.However, my running mate and I received the highest vote total of any Democratic candidates in history up to that time.I think it is worth pointing out that my opponent ran for county commissioner in 2007, but never had a chance to be accepted or rejected by the voters, because she was unceremoniously rejected by her own party when they nominated two other candidates.
Finally, my opponent criticizes me because my consulting firm represents a developer, and she says that means I am “not concerned about our region.”
Au contraire, mon opponent!The developer in question specializes in redeveloping distressed properties in older communities, instead of chewing up open space.The project in question promises to be the biggest redevelopment project in Norristown in decades and will create hundreds of new, permanent jobs.My opponent’s two Republican House colleagues who represent Norristown are two of the project’s biggest supporters, and the last time I looked, Norristown was in our region, and our county seat.
A review:
Minimal work experience?That doesn’t seem to be the case.
Lost a previous election because I was rejected by voters?I was honored to put myself before the voters, and lost graciously.At least my party gave me the chance to run.
More interested in helping a developer than my region?Actually, helping the developer is helping the region.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.I appreciate your support.
Custer calls for Harper to serve full term, if elected
Upper Gwynedd, PA (October 9, 2008) – Frank X. Custer, the Democratic candidate for the 61st state legislative district seat, today called on his opponent, State Rep. Kate Harper (R-61), to pledge to voters of the 61st Legislative District that she will serve a full two-year term if she is elected in November.
“I pledge to be a fulltime legislator and to serve a full term if I am elected, and given Rep. Harper’s record I think the voters deserve the same pledge from her.”
In his comments, Custer was referring to Harper’s abortive run for county commissioner in 2006; the fact that she has skipped scores of votes in Harrisburg to tend to taxpayer-funded legal work at home; and, her stated desire to be a Montgomery County judge.
“Clearly, Rep. Harper does not want to be in Harrisburg,” Custer said. “It appears that her heart and her wallet want to be back home.”
Just a couple of weeks after being re-elected to her current term, and before even being sworn-in, Harper announced in December, 2006 that she was running for Montgomery County Commissioner in the 2007 election. Ultimately, the Republican Party rejected her candidacy and gave the GOP nominations to Bruce Castor and James Matthews.
Forced to return to Harrisburg after failing to gain the endorsement, Harper has skipped votes whenever there was a conflict between her legislative position and her three publicly-funded municipal law gigs in Montgomery and Bucks Counties.
Harper recently admitted in a newspaper interview that she would like a seat on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, although she claimed that was not in her immediate future. What is in the immediate future, however, are seven openings on the county bench. Retirements and legislatively-approved judgeships have combined to provide those openings for the county next year. There is no guarantee when there would be additional openings on the county bench after next year.
“Ms. Harper would be misleading the voters of the 61st district for the second consecutive election, if she opted to seek one of the judicial openings next year,” Custer said. “I can understand why, after eight years of commuting to Harrisburg, she might want to give it up, but at least be honest with the voters. I think it was very duplicitous in 2006 to spend months asking the voters to give her their support, and then turn around and run for county commissioner before the voting machines got back to the warehouse.”
Custer opined that Harper may be counting on a perfect financial scenario that would allow her to fill a judicial opening sometime in 2011, because if she serves one more full term in the legislature she qualifies for lifetime health insurance.
Paid for by Friends of Frank X. Custer. Joan Nagel, treasurer. Produced in-house.
The Times Herald has launched a new feature allowing candidates from all around the area to have their own blog on the Times Herald website. I am excited to announce that my blog is now up and running and I will do my best to post on it a few times a week. I will be posting information about myself, updates from the campaign trail and more. This is a really cool resource and I want to thank the Times Herald for adding this feature and helping the people of the 61st State House District to make informed decisions on Election Day.
My blog can be accessed by clicking here. If you have trouble with the link, you can paste this address into your browser:
