skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm having second thoughts about one of the pay-to-play 'reforms' posted on Plainfield Today on Wednesday: Raising the contribution disclosure level from $300 (to $1,000 is suggested).
When ELEC's chairperson Jerry Fitzgerald English put forward his reform proposals in the agency's July newsletter (see here, PDF), I thought the proposals would go a long way to helping free New Jerseyans from the excesses of the corrupt pay-to-play atmosphere.
Now that it seems legislation may actually be put forward, by State Sen. Tom Goodwin (see story here), I am having second thoughts about the fourth of English's points, raising the disclosure.
English argues that because this is New Jersey, the limit is unrealistically low.
Upon reflection, it seems to me that this would be a major LOOPHOLE to any effective reform.
As things stand now, non-cash contributions up to $300 are exempted from the requirement that the donor's name, address and employer be reported.
The way many vendors get around the pay-to-play restriction is to have spouses, relatives, in-laws, employees and other make contributions to the $300 limit, meaning that the donor information will not have to be reported.
These contributions are often 'bundled' into one envelope presented to the candidate together, just so the candidate should understand exactly how much money has been generated by the vendor.
It's been a loophole all along.
Raising the limit to $1,000 would simply make it easier for it to continue to be an even more effective loophole, making it possible to raise larger sums without any reporting requirement.
A more gutsy 'reform', in my mind, would be to eliminate the exemption and simply require ALL contributions to be reported (as is the current situation with CASH DONATIONS, for whom the donor must be reported no matter how small the cash contribution).
Will somebody propose it?
Hey! This is New Jersey, what do you think?
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs has been hard at work for more than four years now trying to show her support for those who helped put her in office in the first place (Remington and Vernick comes to mind). But the favorite trick of Plainfield pols (and others) -- awarding highly lucrative contracts by the 'fair and open' process -- may be facing its demise.
In its July newsletter (see here, PDF), ELEC's chairperson Jerry Fitzgerald English argues that the 'fair and open' contract awards process should be dropped.
A huge loophole, 'fair and open' allows contracts to be awarded without public bidding to those firms on a list of vendors whose 'qualifications' have been solicited through advertising or on the municipal website, and which list has been adopted by the governing body. Although everything takes place (theoretically) in public view, there is no public bidding.
The lists of 'qualified' vendors just happens to include major donors to the politicians, and it is all legal though it stinks to high heaven.
At least up until now.
ELEC chairperson English wants to see several changes made --
- A SINGLE pay-to-play law covering state and local situations;
- Eliminate the 'fair and open' contract-awarding loophole';
- Lower the reporting threshold on contracts to $17.500 per year;
- Raise the contribution disclosure level from $300 (to $1,000 is suggested).
All of these would help to further cripple New Jersey's notorious pay-to-play culture, of which the 'fair and open' abuse is a leading example.
Let's hope the Legislature sees it the way ELEC does.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
Plainfielders who know anything about Chicago know that it is a hard-drinking town.
Just think of Studs Terkel and Mike Royko.
So, it is hardly any wonder amid the state's Blagojevich scandal that a Chi-town mixologist has come up with a new, and appropriately named, drink: the 'Dirty Governor' cocktail (get the recipe here).
I don't think Illinoisans have any kind of a lock on transactional politics. Some may even think we have local experience of same.
At any rate, I propose New Jerseyans take the new drink to their hearts, or maybe just to their lips, and rebaptize it the 'Dirty Pol'.
That could fit any office or officeholder you may think deserves it, from the Statehouse down to the local political club.
Here's mud in your eye!
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
Bergen County's top Dem, Joe Ferriero, is launching a personal campaign AGAINST pay-to-play reform, according to a report in the Bergen Record.
His timing is impeccable.
With Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Gov. Jon Corzine and Sen. Frank Lautenberg struggling to throw away tainted money from contributor Norman Hsu, Ferriero's assault on New Jersey's pay-to-play regulations may become front-page news in the coming days.
But probably not until after the Labor Day Weekend, a traditional pol-fest of activities.
Meanwhile, the national stories cite Hsu's contributions as having gotten through their 'vetting processes'.
Huh?
My experience of 'vetting processes' was this: You got the check. You deposited it. If it cleared (not always a sure thing), it was 'vetted'. -- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
Posts
