A top legislative leader in Harrisburg is once again providing the citizens of Pennsylvania with a civics lesson on how things work in Harrisburg.

The previous lesson began with the sneaky pay-raise vote of July 2005, which was approved at 2 a.m. with no advance public notice and no open debate. That controversial vote illustrated how lawmakers avoid public scrutiny when passing controversial laws. And the subsequent use of "unvouchered expenses" showed many lawmakers violating the clear language of the state consitution on when pay raises become effective, which is supposed to be after the following election, not immediately after a vote to boost their salaries.

Now, citizens and voters are getting a glimpse into how a powerful lawmaker spends campaign money.

Common Cause of Pennsylvania has charged that spending by House Speaker John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, violates campaign laws. The nonpartisan, good-government group wants the state Bureau of Elections and the state attorney general to investigate Perzel's use of campaign funds.

To those outside Harrisburg, at least, there is plenty to investigate. Following a review of records by a Pittsburgh newspaper, it has been learned that Perzel's campaign spending included:

• Two trips to the Super Bowl with his chief of staff and campaign manager and their sons.

• $1,319 worth of alcoholic beverages to entertain members of a Supreme Court committee.

• $71,500 in checks written over two years to reimburse a single staffer in Perzel's district office for "petty cash."

• $34,000 for six trips to Las Vegas for Perzel, his campaign manager, other lawmakers and their wives.

• $1,900 for take-out Chinese dinners and pizza delivered to Perzel's chief of staff and campaign manager.

• $41,109 for meals in Philadelphia, where Perzel and his staff live.

And because legislative staffers often do political work on what is classified as personal time, Perzel's records also show $700,000 of his $3.9 million campaign spending going to staffers for reimbursed expenses.

Clearly, as the most powerful lawmaker in the House, Perzel's spending is in a different league than that of the average lawmaker. But even veteran political observers are stunned by Perzel's use of campaign funds.

G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin &Marshall College and longtime political analyst, said Perzel's spending is "by far, the most wide, sweeping expansion of campaign spending I've ever seen."

Sara Steelman, chairwoman of Common Cause and a former House member, said she was "startled"by Perzel's spending of $1,349 to buy drinks for members of the Criminal Rules Committee of the state Supreme Court. She also noted that Perzel's 47 checks for petty cash totaling $71,500 were "far from petty."

Though most people would judge Perzel's spending to be questionable, if not inappropriate and unethical, it is unclear whether his spending violates Pennsylvania's campaign law.

The problem is that the law is vague, so vague that it appears possible to justify any expenditure. In fact, Perzel defends every expenditure, saying that each one was justified and met the requirements of the law.

Given that, most people would focus on the law and suggest it needs to be changed, since the current law only states that spending of campaign cash should be used to influence the outcome of an election.

So, the next logical thought is to suggest that the law should be more specific and more restrictive. But changing the law requires action by state legislators, the very people who wrote the law in the first place — and crafted it to be so vague and weak that just about any expenditure of campaign cash is permitted.

Once again, Pennsylvania's legislative leaders—in this case Perzel—are demonstrating arrogance and unaccountability, especially when it comes to spending other people's money.

And that is one more reason, along with the 2005 pay-raise vote and use of unvouchered expenses, for Pennsylvania voters to reject entrenched leaders such as Perzel, who clearly are out of touch with average citizens of the commonwealth.

Beyond offering examples of questionable expenditures, Perzel's $3.9 million campaign spending illustrates why it will be difficult to unseat him, and other entrenched incumbents. Once elected, incumbents have huge advantages when it comes to raising money for re-election.

But the defeat of 17 incumbents in the May primary elections shows that voters are paying attention and are not happy with what they are seeing. Voters have signaled a desire to send new people to Harrisburg — people who are more interested in serving their constituents than themselves.

And that attitude is something that Perzel and most other legislatve leaders seem to have forgotten.

Just like the pay-raise vote, Perzel's questionable spending could provide the catalyst for change. And for that, voters should thank him — and send him into retirement.