DV Journal

Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, who is running for reelection, traded barbs with her Democratic opponent Erin McClelland. McClelland also failed to secure the endorsement of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Garrity called for McClelland to “immediately correct her campaign finance report” after finding a mistake of about 10 percent more than McClelland has in cash on-hand.

“Comparing the two reports shows us that – either by error or design – Erin McClelland double-counted the same $10,000, resulting in an incorrect total that misleads the public and represents roughly 10 percent of her campaign’s cash-on-hand,” said Jim Tkacik, Garrity’s campaign manager. “This is simple, basic math. If McClelland can’t get this right, why should voters trust her to oversee $150 billion in taxpayer money?”

McClelland’s records showed $10,000 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 5 dated July 9.

McClelland has made mistakes on her campaign finance reports before, according to published reports. On Feb. 28, the Pennsylvania Capital-Star reported that McClelland’s campaign improperly spent money on a race for political office without filing the necessary state paperwork.

On May 31, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote formal complaints were submitted to the Federal Election Commission by three Democratic elected officials. Additionally, the story detailed how McClelland has been sued previously for nonpayment of bills.

Stacy Garrity
(CREDIT: Facebook: @garrityforpa)

Asked to comment, McClelland came out swinging and denied there was an issue with her latest finance report.

“I am so glad to see that Stacy Garrity has finally emerged from her media coma,” said McClelland.  “After refusing two televised debate requests and declining the endorsement interview of the Philadelphia Inquirer, it seems the only person in the race for treasurer she believes should be held accountable is me.

“Stacy Garrity has repeatedly made accusations of campaign finance impropriety in order to deflect attention from her alarming foreign investments of taxpayer dollars, such as her contract to invest the teachers’ pensions in Saudi Arabia, as well as numerous failures in the performance of her duties. Her preposterous accusations have already been twice proven unfounded by the State Bureau of Campaign Finance as well as the attorney general.

“That said, I would be delighted to have a televised debate in which I can elaborate further on the campaign’s decision to amend the cycle three report and move the $10,000 contribution, which she is questioning to the cycle four report to reflect when the check was deposited versus when it was received.

“In turn, I also have some questions on her job performance and questionable investments with taxpayer dollars which she has consistently dodged at every turn,” added McClelland.

“Why does she have a contract with BNY to invest the teachers’ pension dollars in the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange? How much of the pension fund is in the exchange and which companies is she investing in? Furthermore, the largest company in that exchange is Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia. Has she made direct investments in a foreign oil company supporting the crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who murders and dismembers reporters? Does she not feel that we, as Americans, should stand in solidarity with the victims and affected first responders of 9/11 who have filed a lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, listing evidence that Saudi intelligence assets were instrumental in planning the 9/11 attacks?” asked McClelland.

However, Penn Live reported McClelland has her facts wrong in her criticism of Garrity over Saudi Arabia, noting that the Public School Employees’ Retirement System, the State Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), and the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System (SERS) said their plans have no direct investment in the Saudi stock exchange but rather, have limited indirect exposure to Saudi Arabia through commingled investment funds.

Also, the state treasurer is one board member for both SERS and PSERS. SERS has an 11-member board and PSERS has 15 members.

Tkacik said, “McClelland is not a serious candidate, but she is a serious danger to the commonwealth.

“Pennsylvania’s pensions have no direct investments in the Saudi Arabian stock market, and the treasurer is not empowered to make such investments. McClelland needs to peddle Saudi conspiracy theories because she has nothing negative to say about Treasurer Garrity’s record-setting term in office and to deflect from her own shortcomings.

“The facts are clear: McClelland misreported her campaign’s cash on hand by roughly 10 percent. This is unacceptable for a candidate running to be the commonwealth’s financial watchdog and would equate to a several billion dollar error on the scale of state finances,” he said. “She ran a quack drug rehab center that was cited by the state 20 times and lost $2 million in investment capital. She has been sued for unpaid bills and the FEC had to close down her congressional campaign committee because she stopped filing reports,” he said.

“The only thing serious about Erin McClelland is the danger she poses anytime she gets near other peoples’ money,” Tkacik said.

As for debates, he said, “Erin McClelland needs to get her own house in order” and to stop “wild conspiracy theories and endless excuses for her financial incompetence. These are issues that go directly to matters of fiscal competence and Erin McClelland continues to fail at demonstrating even a basic grasp of these things. Treasurer Garrity will continue to do the job to which she was elected.”

McClelland defeated state Rep. Ryan Bizzarro (D-Erie) in the primary. Bizzarro, the establishment candidate, had attacked Garrity instead of his Democratic opponent.

But McClelland reportedly failed to garner the support of Gov. Josh Shapiro (D), after she criticized Shapiro when Vice President Kamala Harris was considering him as her running mate. Now Shapiro is returning the favor, the Inquirer reports.  

The Democratic governor offered endorsements for Eugene DePasquale and Malcolm Kenyatta, the Democrats running for attorney general and auditor general, but left out McClelland.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

To what extent was the Biden administration responsible for the events leading up to the attack by Hamas on October 7?

Before the war, the administration was busy trying to hammer out an unprecedented Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement while downplaying the Palestinian question.

President Biden’s efforts to conclude a landmark Israeli-Saudi peace deal were intended to build upon the Abraham Accords signed in Washington in 2020, sponsored by the Trump administration. The accords normalized diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel. Morocco and Sudan also joined the accords later.

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), sought a hard bargain from the United States in exchange for the proposed deal with Israel. Riyadh demanded a mutual defense treaty with Washington and a green light for an ambitious civilian nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil.

Saudi Arabia’s re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, orchestrated by China in March 2023, raised alarm bells in the White House. Given the animosity between Washington, Tehran and Beijing, a trilateral Israeli/Saudi/American treaty would counter Iran’s regional ambitions and check China’s growing influence in the Middle East. Moreover, it was hoped that such a spectacular foreign policy breakthrough would pay off domestically by elevating Biden’s popularity before the elections.

Ultimately, were those formidable concessions, especially committing its military to defend an unpredictable Saudi royal autocracy, congruent with America’s vital national interests? Further, should the United States have sanctioned nuclear proliferation in the world’s most volatile region? Certainly not on both counts.

The Trump and Biden administrations were captivated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of the pathway to peace with the Arab world. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2023, Netanyahu declared that “I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians. But I also believe that we must not give the Palestinians a veto over new peace treaties with Arab states.” He continued, “The Palestinians could greatly benefit from a broader peace. They should be part of that process but they should not have a veto over it.”

The Saudi position on peace with Israel was outlined by the resolutions of the 2002 Arab League summit in Lebanon. It called for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 war and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel, however, rejected it as a basis for negotiations.

Once the White House approached Riyadh about a possible deal with Israel, the 2002 plan was no longer relevant. MBS dismissed the centrality of the Palestinian issue in any future deal as envisioned by Netanyahu.

Unquestionably, the Biden administration bought into this half-baked scheme. Publicly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that “normalization (with Israel) cannot come at the expense of the Palestinian cause.” 

Such a statement, however, was issued for public consumption only. It had no real policy relevance. There was no way that Netanyahu’s Israel would make any meaningful concessions to the Palestinians. The administration was aware of that, yet it went along with the proposed treaty while disregarding its potentially dire consequences.

This cynical triple deal was meant to satisfy each player’s interests; MBS, a ruthless dictator, exploited Washington’s anxiety about China and demanded an alliance; Biden aspired to re-establish a “pax Americana” in the Middle East; and Netanyahu planned to celebrate the “deal of the century” by making peace with the most prominent Arab state. This untenable diplomatic ménage à trois collapsed on October 7. Hamas’ leaders were fully aware that once an Israel-Saudi agreement was inked, Netanyahu’s goal to crush the Palestinians’ aspirations for an independent state would be realized with MBS’ blessing.

The attack by Hamas was partly an attempt to derail the Israeli-Saudi deal, and it succeeded in aborting it. Biden acknowledged this saying, “One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel … they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis.”

“Guess what? The Saudis wanted to recognize Israel.”

After the October 7 attack, the administration’s vocal support of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel has become a core component of its conflict resolution strategy once the war is over.

Advocating peace and promoting a two-state solution is certainly laudable at this juncture. But given the deep-seated mutual hatred, the rejectionist disposition of both parties, the fresh scars left by the continuing violence and the humanitarian trauma in Gaza, peace is nothing short of a pipedream.

Still, Biden’s misguided diplomatic adventure, peddled by Netanyahu and cheered by MBS, has exposed America’s gullibility and ineptitude to pursue a coherent policy worthy of a superpower trying to steer clear of the deadly Middle East quicksand.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal