Pay-to-play changes backed in N.J.
Written by
JANE ROH
Courier-Post Staff
Discussions of government waste in Trenton since Gov. Chris Christie took office
have often centered on public worker compensation and benefits. But the real
jackpot in New Jersey arguably is found in contracts with private business
entities.
Despite news conferences and press releases from governors and lawmakers over
the years, little has been done to regulate the flow of contributions from
businesses that also old local government contracts, according to New Jersey’s
top watchdog.
“Such a system may have comported in some sense with New Jersey’s notion of
home-rule in that it vested local officials with nearly unlimited discretion in
contracting,” wrote Comptroller Matthew Boxer in a Sept. 15 report.
“In so doing, however, it permitted those officials to make contract-award
decisions, without oversight, that were contrary to the interests of the general
public.”
According to Boxer, well more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars annually is
given out in “unregulated” local government contracts.
The exact dollar amount is difficult to pin down, Boxer noted, because such
contracts are not uniformly monitored.
Harry Pozycki, founder of Metuchen-based nonprofit watchdog The Citizens
Campaign, agreed the current state of local pay-to-play reform — in which
counties and municipalities basically write their own rules — was not
acceptable.
“What we need is a comprehensive local law,” he said.
“We have one in the Legislature — it’s just that the governor and leaders of the
legislature have to have the will to make this happen.”
Following the comptroller’s report, Christie scolded the Democratic leadership
for failing to advance campaign finance reforms, including a bill that would
“eliminate the ‘fair and open’ loophole in the state’s pay-to-play law.” But
some observers wonder if flushing contractor cash out of the system is a
realistic, or even fair, goal.
“The problem is going to be you are eliminating a class of people from
contributing,” said Paul J. Josephson, an election law expert at Hill Wallack
LLP. “When you take the contractors out, the only guys left to write the big
checks are the unions.”
The tension between Democrats and Republicans across the country on campaign
finance reform often boils down to treating corporations and unions equally.
Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, introduced the bill described by Pozycki last
December, but it did not include language applying restrictions to labor unions,
a likely deal-breaker for Christie.
Pozycki also noted that courts in New Jersey and across the country view
campaign contributions through a First Amendment lens and that it is all but
impossible to discern motives behind a donation.
“I don’t like barring people from contributing based on who you are. Let’s go
with limiting contributions across the board,” Josephson said.
Josephson believes meaningful reform will be possible if donations are capped at
reasonable amounts — say, $5,000 instead of a maximum of $25,000.
“What offends people is when someone writes a $30,000 check to a county party.
It doesn’t sound right,” he said. “If you stop people from writing $30,000
checks, that solves the problem.” Josephson did agree with Boxer’s contention
that a state law was required to replace the “hodgepodge” of municipal and
county ordinances across New Jersey.
“Right now we have a system in which you can write a check up to $300 in some
places and in other places you can’t write a check for anything,” he said.
“We’ve got 566 municipalities and they all have different attorneys. It’s
crazy.”
But the surfeit of government entities in New Jersey ensures that contracts
remain the most lucrative game here, said Pozycki, who helped draft Weinberg’s
bill. “Contractor cash is the easiest cash for politicians to collect,” he said.
“When you collect from individual citizens, you have to persuade them you have
the right policies. To get businesses to contribute, all you need to do is wave
government contracts at them.
“That forces up the cost of the contracts. It also forces the poor enforcement
of the contracts, which costs the taxpayers more money.”
At the end of the day, no law will ensure influence-peddling never happens in
New Jersey, said Dan Douglas, director of the William J. Hughes Center for
Public Policy at Stockton College.
“You have to rely on good behavior by the people involved. Sometimes that’s
problematic.”