HARRISBURG -- A government watchdog group has accused state legislative leaders of trading funding for favorable Supreme Court rulings on issues important to legislators.

Common Cause/Pennsylvania dropped that bombshell yesterday in an expanded version of a federal lawsuit that it filed in October to block the pay raises the Legislature approved in July for itself, state judges and the governor's office. The raises were rescinded in November after a public outcry.

A spokesman for Chief Justice Ralph Cappy called the charges "preposterous" and "reckless."

Ex-legislator Edward H. Krebs, who served from 1991-2003, gave Common Cause a sworn statement about a meeting in June 1999 in which then-House Majority Leader John Perzel pushed Republican legislators to provide major funding for the court system so that two court rulings would go the Legislature's way.

"Majority Leader Perzel stated, 'We cannot afford to lose them,'" according to Mr. Krebs. The two cases involved an increase in the state gasoline tax and a workers' compensation case.

"An uproar erupted among the [GOP] caucus members" after Mr. Perzel's comment, according to Mr. Krebs' affidavit. "A large number felt that the action being contemplated was wrong and should not be adopted, and many members voiced concern ... that we were being 'blackmailed' by the Supreme Court."

The word "unsavory," Common Cause stated, "is insufficient to describe the mass constitutional [wrongs] potentially committed by officials at the highest level of this commonwealth."

The federal lawsuit alleges that General Assembly leaders, together with "one or more" Supreme Court justices, "negotiated legislation desired by the court in exchange for rulings favorable to the legislative leadership on cases then pending before the court." The court filing does not name any justices.

The Common Cause lawsuit refers to actions by Justice Cappy last year, as well as actions by unnamed justices on one occasion in 1999.

The lawsuit says Justice Cappy has conceded that "he was an active participant in secret negotiations drafting Act 44 [the pay raise] and the primary architect pegging state salaries, including his own, to the salaries of designated federal officials."

The 1999 case involved a lawsuit against an increase in the state gasoline tax and another over workers' compensation. Supreme Court justices, who were not named, "bartered their votes" in exchange for the Legislature agreeing to provide court funding, Common Cause claims.

Common Cause Executive Director Barry Kauffman said his group has sworn statements from three state legislators about the statements by Mr. Perzel in June 1999. Only Mr. Krebs is named; the other two were referred to merely as "John Doe A" and "John Doe B."

State House and Senate leaders couldn't be reached yesterday.

In its lawsuit, Common Cause claims it can establish "a kind and quality of judicial and legislative conduct and interaction [between legislators and justices] accepted as the norm in state government, but so far beyond the norms of democratic governance as to shock any observer."

Mr. Perzel, a Philadelphia Republican who became House speaker in 2003,, couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Mr. Kauffman said Common Cause has for several years "been discussing allegations that [Supreme Court justices] may have been trading outcomes on court decisions in exchange for legislative leaders producing desired outcomes on court-related legislation."

Such an arrangement, if true, "may have led legislative leaders to feel invulnerable from certain citizens' challenges" when they enacted the pay raises without hearings or public input last July, he said.

In the lawsuit, Common Cause asks the federal court "to prohibit state justices and judges from engaging in discussions with members of the legislative or executive branches on legislation, since they may have to rule on such legislation at future times."

Common Cause also asked the federal court to "prohibit state lawmakers from enacting laws in an unconstitutional manner," meaning without public hearings and without sufficient time for legislators to consider the merits of the bill, as was done with the July 7 pay raise.