Vitali vs Trombetta: The Debate Recap and a Moment That Demands More

A month ago I wrote that primarying Greg Vitali felt pointless without clear policy distinctions. After watching Friday's debate, I think I had it wrong & the correction matters.

If you missed Friday’s HD-166 town hall on Friday night because you had something better to do (lol)…understandable, but here is what happened.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ If you want to watch, click here.

A note before we get into it: I covered this race about a month ago and was skeptical of primarying Vitali. I figured there wasn’t much of a point without running on clear policy distinctions. After watching Friday's debate in full and reviewing both candidates' records more closely, I think that take was incomplete.

Two and a half weeks before the May 19th primary, incumbent State Rep Greg Vitali and primary challenger Judy Trombetta met for a League of Women Voters forum to make their cases to voters in Pennsylvania’s 166th District. It was very civil and respectful and the moderator was Jodine Mayberry, an LWV member. The format gave each candidate 90 seconds per question and some rebuttal opportunities. The League received questions from the audience in advance. I submitted a question for Vitali specifically — asking why he stopped working on campaign finance reform after 2008 and whether a legislator who has narrowed his policy focus to a single issue is the right fit for the current moment. That question was not asked, but it will be addressed in my write up below.

What a state rep actually does

Trombetta went first and made constituent services her focal point. She emphasized listening, introducing legislation based on community input, and connecting residents to resources, such as recycling events, SEPTA ID events, senior fairs. She drew on her background as a social worker and her previous role as chief of staff to a state senator.

Vitali listed his voting record. A hundred percent on women’s reproductive rights and on gun control. Strong support for public schools and the environment. The argument for himself is that he has been doing this for three decades and will keep doing it.

The contrast here is moreso what they think the job is. Vitali believes the most important thing a state rep does is vote correctly on issues, and his record on that is definitely strong. Trombetta believes the job is more than that, like listening, relationship building, and engagement with constituents matter as much as a vote. Both of those things are true, but I will say, there is a third dimension neither candidate directly named (Judy hinted at it), which is whether a legislator is willing to fight for things that will take a lot of work.

Education and affordability

On education, both candidates agreed. Vitali pointed to the weight of school taxes, his support for extending the property tax rebate, and the need to fund cyber charters appropriately instead of overfunding them. Trombetta mentioned her 2009 advocacy work on school funding, her support from Haverford Township school board members, and her commitment to ensuring schools have mental health counselors and education specialists.

On the affordability question Trombetta talked about investing in social safety nets, Medicaid, and the governor’s housing action plan. Vitali was pretty blunt “I don’t think it’s really within the province of the state legislature to have an enormous impact on the price of food or the price of gasoline.”

Vitali’s answer was honest and probably correct for the most part. It was also a telling window into how he thinks about the job. When a constituent asks what you can do about the cost of living, “not really within our province” is not an answer that inspires anyone to show up on Election Day. There’s more than just voting the right way. Make the issue front and center, infuse some energy, etc. The difference in energy was definitely noticeable here.

Voting rights and womens rights

Vitali has a 100% voting record on reproductive rights, his opposition to voter ID requirements, and his support for vote by mail. He called the Supreme Court’s recent punch to the Voting Rights Act “disappointing but not surprising”.

Trombetta talked about our states’ constitutional protections against gerrymandering and the need for a legislator willing to actively defend them. She also has experience expanding voting access in Montco, where they launched the first mobile voter services van in the state, opened eight satellite offices, and ballot drop boxes in 2024.

Trombetta’s hands on voting infrastructure work is very tangible. The substance of Vitali’s answer wasn’t bad or anything, but “disappointing, but not surprising” seems like the phrase of someone who has made peace with losing, instead of being willing to fight like hell to reverse the trend.

Campaign finance (my question)

I asked (2) questions, one for each of them.

Only Judy’s question was asked which was whether or not she would be willing to make campaign finance a central part of her campaign. Her response was that she believes in campaign finance reform, has declined meetings with special interest groups, and has over 230 individual donors from the community. She then mentioned the representative - “I know Representative Vitali will talk about his efforts around campaign finance reform, but I’ll just say proactively that this is a space where while he may have introduced legislation, it has not moved. And it hasn’t moved in part because we’re not seeing real advocacy around it.”

Vitali came back with: “This idea that you are now going to go into the legislature and by sheer willpower make this happen is just nonsense. Those who are in charge of changing the rules are profiting by the rules.” He brought up his early work forcing the state to put campaign finance reports online as a genuine accomplishment and at the same time, suggested Trombetta does not understand how the legislature works.

My question for Vitali was not asked. It was a question specifically asking him why he stopped working on campaign finance reform after 2008 and whether a legislator who has narrowed to a single signature issue is the right representative for a moment that demands someone fighting on every front.

For more than fifteen years, a legislator who built part of his early identity around governmental reform quietly dropped the issue and narrowed his focus almost entirely to environmental policy. The Republican Senate is of course a real obstacle & Vitali is correct about that. But the Republican Senate has been a real obstacle on the environment too, and he has not stopped working on that.. The question of why campaign finance became the issue he gave up on while the environment became the issue he kept fighting for has never been answered.

Trombetta’s point, that legislation does not move without continued advocacy, not just bill introductions, is 1000% correct. Vitali’s point that the Republican Senate is the wall and passion alone does not move it is also correct. But there is a difference between acknowledging the obstacles and using them as a reason to stop pushing. Vitali has been in Harrisburg for 34 years and the campaign finance system in Pennsylvania is definitely worse now than when he arrived.

Data centers and AI

Vitali said he has introduced legislation to eliminate the sales tax exemption that tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon currently get on equipment purchases and said he supports privacy protections related to AI.

Trombetta said that data center growth is inevitable but must be done responsibly, with local workforce investment, environmental protections, zoning authority, and input from the community. She criticized Vitali for not cosponsoring a data center bill.

Vitali pushed back on cosponsorship criticism saying, “to co-sponsor a bill, basically, you get a memo in your inbox. You just forward it to your staffer and say, put me on this. Bills that have zero cosponsors can get to the governor’s desk in a week, and bills that have 150 cosponsors can never get there.”

Trombetta countered that cosponsorship matters for relationship building; that it is how you show support to colleagues and build the coalitions that eventually move legislation.

This is very telling and a massive disagreement about legislative strategy. Both of their strategy is informed by experience. Vitali’s cynicism and Trombetta’s argument about relationship capital. Every time Trombetta raises a specific instance of Vitali not showing up on something, whether that is the data center bill, the PECO letter, or something else … his answer always seems to be about why showing up does not matter.

Utility rates and PECO

Trombetta noted that Vitali was not among the Delaware County legislators who signed a letter opposing PECO’s recent rate increase requests, which is a notable absence for someone whose signature issue is energy policy. She said she raised the issue at commissioner meetings and shared a constituent petition in her newsletter.

Vitali said the core issue is making sure data centers absorb the cost of their enormous electricity demand, and that he would support regulatory action to ensure that rate structure.

Gun safety

They both support the same measures here, but the difference followed the same theme. Vitali seemed defeatist, while Trombetta pushed back by citing the passage of medical marijuana after eight years of persistence and using Jenn O’Mara as an example of a legislator who moves legislation through relationship building & persistence.

Vitali’s repeated return to the Republican Senate as the answer to every challenge is the most revealing pattern of the night in my opinion. He is not wrong. But medical marijuana took eight years of people refusing to accept that answer. Paid family leave is moving right now because O’Mara refused to accept that answer. Structural obstacles are real, but pressure (including public pressure) must be applied. They are not an excuse to stop pushing.

Healthcare and Crozer

On the Crozer collapse and for profit healthcare, Trombetta said she believes healthcare is a right, and backed legislation giving the AG oversight authority over private equity healthcare firms. She said she supports movement toward universal healthcare.

Vitali said he is fully supportive of the governor’s efforts and any legislation that protects other hospitals from the same fate. His answer was brief.

The fact that she is voicing the fact that she supports a move to universal healthcare is amazing and obviously a MUST. Trombetta is showing more ambition here.

Open primaries

Vitali took the minority position…he opposes opening primaries to unaffiliated voters. His argument was that the purpose of a primary is to allow party members to choose their party representative, and that independents can already switch registration, vote, and switch back. He called the issue a bit overblown.

Trombetta said she fully supports open primaries and that making it harder for people to vote is the wrong direction regardless of the reasoning.

Vitali’s “just switch your registration” suggestion reflects a comfort with the current system that is difficult to square with representing a district full of people who find that system awful.

Environmental justice

The biggest thing here was Vitali’s closing point: “To suggest someone’s just going to walk in and be able to replace someone who has over three decades of experience is just not going to happen.”

Trombetta said she would support the bill and pushed back on the suggestion that she cannot get up to speed on complex technical issues. “I became an expert because I care enough about an issue and I work with people to learn more.”

Ehh… you don’t need to be a multi-decade expert on an issue to vote the right way. You can also surround yourself with the right people. The environmental expertise is real and I don’t mean to minimize it, but being a decades long expert on one issue isn’t a reason to stay in office.

And the delivery.. essentially telling a challenger that she is not qualified to do the job is the kind of thing that reminds voters why 34 year incumbencies sometimes need to end.

This is not a normal political moment. The federal government is dismantling voting rights, gutting healthcare, stripping reproductive freedom, and there are pushes at the state level to defund public education. State level districts need people who will actually show up, build coalitions to get things done, and refuse to accept the Republican Senate as the final word on everything.

The current moment is the biggest factor here imo. The moment demands more than a single issue…proven environmental expertise and a 34 year record that is genuinely great on the issues it covers, versus someone who is willing to show up and fight on every front in the worst political environment most of us have ever seen. She is running because she believes the moment demands more fight than what the district is currently getting.

Because the through line of this…the Republican Senate deflections, the absence from the PECO letter, the cosponsorship dismissiveness, the “disappointing but not surprising” framing of voting rights setbacks…is the kind of attitude one has when they make peace with the limits of what is possible. That peace is understandable after 34 years in office…but it’s also disqualifying in 2026.