Search
Close this search box.

Smith Mailer Hits Rohrer on Pay Raise

Tom Smith is going for Sam Rohrer’s Achilles heel: his 2005 vote in favor of the legislative pay raise. In a visually concise mailer to GOP super voters across Pa, Smith slammed Rohrer for that, as well his vote in favor of a 2001 pension increase.

“Sam Rohrer voted for the unconstitutional midnight pay raise,” the mailer says.

Smith campaign manager Jim Conroy said Rohrer was being disingenuous to cast himself as the strongest conservative in the race.

“Sam Rohrer isn’t being honest with voters about his record. A record that includes voting for an unconstitutional pay raise in the middle of the night, voting to increase his own pension, and bilking taxpayers for massive personal expenses,” he said.

Rohrer’s campaign said the mailer doesn’t tell the whole truth.

“The truth is, Sam never took a dime from the pay raise and immediately successfully fought for its repeal.  In his 18 years he never once cast an Unconstitutional vote and never voted for a tax increase,” said Rohrer campaign manager Zac Moyle. Rohrer, of Berks County, served as a state Rep. from 1993 to 2010.

“The fact that the Tom Smith and his consultants think highly enough of our poll numbers to attack our campaign and mislead the voters of Pennsylvania shows what every independent public poll has said so far in this race, that Sam Rohrer is the favorite and the only lifelong Constitutional Republican in this race.”

He’s likely not far off.

As the presidential contest rolls into Pa., and both candidates crowd the airwaves, Senate hopefuls (and all candidates) must now spend more on television but receive a diminished benefit. For example, the Romney campaign purchased $2.9 million in TV for the next two weeks.

The new dynamic favors candidates with built in name ID, like Rohrer who ran for Governor in 2010 and maintains a loyal following of supporters. (Smith’s camp argues that it favors them, as they have been on TV for months and have grabbed the lead in recent polls; Steve Welch’s camp argues that it favors them, as he has the endorsement of the Pa. Republican party and the ground game that comes with it).

Meanwhile, several readers reported receiving a push-poll style robocall from the Rohrer campaign which informed voters leaning toward Smith or Welch that each had previously been registered as a Democrat.

Smith is a former coal company owner from Armstrong County; Welch is an entrepreneur from Chester County.

They face David Christian, a businessman and veterans’ advocate from Bucks County, and Marc Scaringi, an attorney from Cumberland County in the GOP primary to face Sen. Bob Casey.

Below is the back of the mailer; the front is above.

 

27 Responses

  1. I believe Sam Rohrer on the pay raise vote and the facts given above on votes by Julian R are hard to refute. Scaringe has foreign policy issues similar to Ron Paul and that eliminates him as my choice. Tom Smith seems like he believes in conservative principles but he supported Sam substantially in past so his criticism seems hypocritical and purely political and is engaging in half truths which does not uphold the values conservatives should be seeking. If it is winnability you are after, how is a totally inexperienced, recent Democrat, poor debater the one you think can win against the Democratic Machine backed, raised-on-politics, living off his father’s good name, Bob Casey?

  2. So Barb, we don’t like career politicians but career statesmen are ok? Get over yourself.

    And did anyone else notice how these all of these Rohrer-bot posters seem to CAPITALIZE words in certain places? Makes me wonder if they’re all being written by the SAME PERSON…

  3. I never cease to be amazed at people who support candidates who find it so much easier to trash a good man instead of telling voters about themselves and what they will do to solve the problems. I find it a big turnoff when candidates spend their time and money telling about what all the others in the race have done wrong. Why not spend your resources explaining your positions and your ideas for how to get this country back on track? Yes I think Sam Rohrer is the best candidate for U.S. Senate. He supports life, the 2nd Amendment, fiscal responsiblity, smaller government, etc. However the major reason I will be voting for Sam is that he is the best man in the race. He is the most honorable and decent man I have ever met. Even though other candidates are telling half truths and outright lies about him, you will not see Sam lash out in anger or seek revenge for it. I think that is what sets Sam apart from the others in the Senate race and it is what makes him not a politician but a STATESMAN!

  4. See how these Rohrer-bots are? If you dare to suggest that Sam is anything less than perfect, they fly off the handle and attack you as a RINO and a lackey for the establishment. What will they do in November if Rohrer is our nominee and Bob Casey attacks him for his bad votes? Their holier-than-thou attitude will send swing voters running to Casey in droves.

    Marc Scaringi is the best choice to beat Casey. He’s the most knowledgeable on the issues, a far better debater/speaker than Sam (or Tom), and doesn’t have any baggage that the Democrat attack machine can use against him.

  5. There are four conservatives running Smith, Scaringi, Christian, & Rohrer.
    Forget Obama Welch. So if Sam Rohrer is the deal why does he have 3 opponents? Christian, Scaringi, & Smith are credible people. All are running on principle. All probably know Rohrer well. Why is there not unity behind Sam? Perhaps they know the real Sam. These are good, credible, & principled folks yet they are opposing Sam. 4 conservatives in the race and 3 out of 4 don’t support Rohrer!

  6. Casey would certainly make Sam wear those votes around his neck like an anvil.

  7. So…Sam Rohrer votes as a Constitutional Conservative….except where it would personally benefit his pocketbook? (i.e. 50% pension bump and the payraise)

  8. @ JulianR- wow, provoked quite a reaction. I intentionally didn’t pontificate in my reply to you.
    I merely summed up your argument against “inexperience”.

    Read your reply, Think about what you said about Sam’s explanation on the pay raise (or better yet, I will go with the two I have heard Sam say himself). Sam’s explanation is worse than the vote on that issue. It doesn’t say much for standing against pressure from party leadership. Same goes with the pension explanation. He blames the figures and projections, even though the legislature was given stern warning from conservative think tanks about the pensions increases impact on PA. They chose to run with party leaderships projections and then turn around and blame them, or pressure, or whatever the excuse of the day is. Act 9, 38 and 40 are Sam’s problem in the general.

    When you choose to use a standard of measure, apply it equally to the campaigns. When I contacted the Rohrer campaign about the email they sent out about ten days ago describing PLC, and Sam being the only conservative in the race being a false statement, I received two responses from the campaign. One was that it was an error the other than it was missing the word tested. Yet, the campaign has never corrected or redacted the statement to their email list.

  9. Lifelong conservative Smith can win the primary & beat Casey in the fall! No other candidate other than Smith can beat Casey. Life ain’t fair. Get over the towel wringing -facts are facts. Face reality. Want to change Congress – vote Smith!

  10. The fact is, Tom Smith and Steve Welch have voted for Democrats year after year and pretend to be conservative.

    Sam Rohrer has been endorsed by conservatives, and is a conservative.

    Go Sam!

  11. My response to Tom Smith:
    “Facts taken out of context and shared half-truths do not a good senator make, Mr. Smith! Your mud-slinging mailer does not reflect well on you, sir. It makes you look desperate. Why not spend your millions on a mailer that outlines your plan of action if you are elected, or showing the voters your qualifications to be Senator? You’ve stooped low to attack your opponents. Shame on you! My vote will be going to a more principled man — Sam Rohrer!”

  12. The bottom line is that Tom Smith is a DEMOCRAT and he’s only voted in 19 primaries since he registered to vote (close to 42 years). If you’re bored Tom, go back to farming.

    Again, Tom Smith was overheard in hallways at forums and events saying that he contributed to everyone’s campaign and now it’s his turn. He WANTS THE BIG PAYBACK? Elections are not supposed to be up for sale in PA (although Leadership thinks they are), but even Leadership didn’t want Tom Smith. Look at his ad on his home page, and really look into his eyes and analyze his body language. It smacks of arrogance.

    In my book MONEY DOESN’T TALK!

  13. I will vote for Tom Smith in the primary! I know that Tom is the best man for the job. I will support whomever the candidate is in November.

  14. Mr. Julian R.
    I was wondering how I was going to address this mailer that smith put out to the electorate and then respond. Well, my friend you said it all with a very good wording. The most telling of all is the fact of smith choosing to give Sam Rohrer money for the campaign when running for the governorship of PA.
    Now smith is attacking Sam’s voting record with half truth’s. In my book of knowledge and many others that’s called flip flopping. Do we the people want smith in D.C. ? Don’t we the people have enough of those in the Senate ?
    Money will not buy this election this time, TRUTH
    WILL WIN. Lies might win for a small time but TRUTH WINS at the end of the day. May everyone that reads this have a Blessed RISEN LORD’S DAY, mark d.

  15. @John. Nope. I’m saying the best candidate is the best candidate, and Tom Smith doesn’t hold a candle to Sam Rohrer. If he did, he’d have a real message and a grasp on the issues rather than a bus, scripted commercials and an attack ad on the opposition. It’s fluff–expensive fluff, but fluff just the same. You may buy in, but then…

    You say you know Sam personally? If you know Sam so well, then you must know the real truth about the pay raise. If you know the truth about the pay raise then how in God’s name can you respect what Tom Smith has done with this mailer? Is he ignorant of the Constitution or is he a liar? It’s one or the other. Either way, whether he’s a liar or doesn’t know the Constitution, he doesn’t belong in the U.S. Senate.

    Perhaps you can school “Mr. Smith” about the basic fundamentals of the Constitution, but first, let me school you.

    The pay raise vote was characterized as *sneaky* because it was said to have occurred at midnight. Many voting sessions go on into midnight and some into the wee hours of the morning. This is not unusual. In fact, it’s quite common. That’s 101.

    The vote is mischaracterized as *self-gratifying* as though legislators are out of line for giving themselves a pay raise. The fact is legislative, judicial and top level executive-branch pay raises, may only occur by authority of the legislative branch. This is what is called for in the Constitution. Congress does it all the time and no one bats an eye. The concept that a vote at midnight, or that a legislator initiated pay raise is wrong, is a social construct that developed among the masses, who were ignorant of the realities of the 2005 pay raise vote.

    What was truly troublesome about the 2005 pay raise, and what most people fail to understand has two parts.

    First, the arrogance on the part of the leadership was inconceivable. Belligerent audacity set ablaze the sensation of the moment. The second part is the most egregious, but least known, aspect of the pay raise vote. Again, there is nothing unusual or unconstitutional about the practice of the legislative branch voting itself a pay increase. Relevant to the 2005 pay raise vote, however, the legislature took a subsequent step–a second vote, and it was *this vote* over which the real outrage was due.

    Constitutionally, the legislature must wait to collect on a pay raise vote until after the following election cycle. This gives the voters an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they feel the elected official deserves to collect on the pay raise. What this legislature did, that was both unethical and unconstitutional, was to vote on an additional provision that allowed the sitting state legislators to take the newly voted pay raise, *immediately,* in the form of unvouchered expenses. Sam expressed both outrage and opposition to this, and voted “NO” on the basis of its unconstitutionality. The unvouchered expense provision passed almost unanimously despite Sam’s vehement protests.

    There is a list somewhere of legislators who collected on those unvouchered expenses. The list also notes those who did and did not return the monies in response to public outrage (some had to pay back in installments over years). Sam’s name is not on the list because he is one of three or four who voted “no” on the unvouchered expense provision, and who backed it up by refusing to accept the monies. The pay raise never happened for the legislature. No legislator EVER collected on that pay raise. It was repealed, thanks to Sam and a few others, before it took effect.

    Why is this important? Because Tom Smith, KNOWS all of this, and yet he sent out a mailer that FLAT OUT LIED. He knew very well that Sam refused to collect on the unvouchered expenses. He knew that Sam led the repeal of the pay raise vote. And where he loaded up by saying that Sam had $14,000 in expenses, he also KNEW that Sam’s expenses were meager compared to the rest of the House. Sam’s expenses showed fiscal restraint while so many others showed flagrant spending. In fact, Tom Smith knew so much about Sam Rohrer’s integrity that he financially supported him in 2010. Now he thinks he’d make a better Senator? Now he’s attacking Sam Rohrer? Sam Rohrer has more integrity, class and honor in his little finger than Smith will ever hope to have. Smith is fooled by his ego, which is being fueled by a bunch of political gold diggers who are taking him and his bank account for a nice ride. He has no business in this race. I don’t care how much money he can spend or how many people he can buy. He’s not qualified, and he’s in the way.

    That said, while Rohrer is my pick, if Smith manages to buy the primary, I will admit, it will be entertaining to watch Casey eat him alive. Win Win.

  16. @JulianR. So you are making the argument that career politicians are preferable to.citizen legislators. Great argument!
    @theRocks. Yes, I know Sam. I like Sam and this race is too important to sound bite. I arranged events for Sam in this primary. I carried petitions for Marc. I had Marc in to speak. In fact, we had 5 US Senate candidates in for meet the candidate nights. I have also known Tom since 2009 with IAP, when he was their Chairman. Tom has given a quarter million dollars to conservative candidates and another quarter million to conservative causes. These are three good men. imo, Sam can’t win the general and we need to win this seat.

  17. John,
    Thank you for the detailed background and your obvious painstaking steps to keep it unbiased.

  18. Yes since Rohrer voted 120,000 times, and got four or five votes wrong, let’s forget the other 119,995 predictably conservative, constitutional votes and go with the coal miner who cashed in on a sale. Yes. Let’s go with the inexperienced and the unknown. Especially since with his “hit piece” he’s proving to be a quick study. He looks more like a career politician today than Rohrer ever has.

    John you pontificate much but say little.

  19. @Stephen Coran. I wish it was only one vote. But there were 4 votes that are at issue. The pay raise being the least of them.

    Sam Rohrer voted for Act 9 (Pension increase-2001), Act 38 (Cost of Living Adjustments for Pensions 2002) the following session and Act 40, changing the parameters of funding of the pensions (causing them to be underfunded because of overly rosy projections and the economic situation at the time, following 9/11).

    Those votes were very costly to the Commonwealth. Prior to the pension increases of 25 & 50% (50% for legislators, 25% for everyone else on state pensions) the PSERS and SERS were funded at approximately 125% of liabilities. With the changes of funding created by Act 40, the Colas of Act 38 and the assumption of a 8% return on investment by Act 9, these funds are now at roughly 60% of liabilities. And that is if you accept the current 7.5 and 8% parameters used to estimate assets to liabilities. In other words, they are most likely less than 60% funded, with baby boomers retired/retiring. Property taxes are going to have to go up to fund the underfunded pensions.

    Those three votes put the state in a fiscal position today that is disastrous and may end up being the cause of seniors and the poor to lose homes.

    It is also worth mentioning that this occurred under a Governor Ridges leadership.

    Sam is running on his record and his experience. Sam is a good man whom I respect. This is not pulling up dirt or trash talking Sam, these are political realities that will be heavily discussed during the campaign if Sam is the nominee for the party. They are not obscure votes that are being distorted.

    I accept the fact that Sam laments these votes, we all do. I accept his explanations of what he was told and why he voted for them. But he weighed the facts and voted for these bills. I regret this is an issue, but it is a legitimate primary issue in a US Senate campaign. It is one the primary voter has to serious weigh before they go to the polls on April 24th.

  20. “Sam Rohrer is the favorite and the only lifelong Constitutional Republican in this race.”

    What gall!

  21. Just another reason to vote Dave Christian. Not a politician, Not a Democrat.

  22. Sam Rohrer spent 18 years in Harrisburg and accomplished NOTHING. No property tax reform, no reduction in the size of the legislature, no significant spending cuts. He never even passed a bill! I’m glad Tom Smith is calling him on it because his claim that “I never cast an unconstitutional vote” is very disingenuous. And I’m also getting tired of his supporters acting like they’re on some kind of holy crusade to get him elected and that I’m a heathen for backing someone else. It is possible to be a REAL conservative and not like Sam Rohrer (or Ron Paul)!

  23. Look at the facts: Tom Smith has been a Democrat and voted Democrat all but this past year; Steve Welch jumped ship because he was disenchanted with the GOP, then voting for Obama. Sam Rohrer…1 bad vote out of 120,000…if that is all they can find, they truly are desperate and running scared. If I made only one bad decision out of 120,000 I would sprout wings. Thanks Sam…we need you in the Senate! You are a true Pennsylvania statesman.

  24. OH NOES- $14,000 A YEAR IN EXPENSES!

    Is Smith going to release his expenses from his business? Either way, I can’t wait for either dbag to get rolled by casey.

Email:
  • Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?


    • Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
    • No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
    • What's ByteDance? (0%)

    Total Voters: 30

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen