Allegations of campaign finance violations fly in Evesham

by: Jason Springer

Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM EDT

A June 10 story in the Burlington County Times prompted Evesham Councilman Mike Schmidt, who lost his re-election bid, to call for an investigation into whether recently elected Republicans Kurt Croft, Joe Howarth and Deb Hackman violated laws which prevent "purposely concealing campaign donations."

In addition to the story, which talked about how the GOP outspent the Democrats, Schmidt pointed to a fundraising solicitation for the Croft, Howarth, and Hackman team which requests donors to make contributions to any or all of four continuing PAC's, the Evesham Republican Club, the Evesham Municipal Committee, the Evesham Federation of Republican Women and the Evesham Young Republicans. But there were clear instructions on what you could give and to whom:

*Checks to each account should not exceed $300.

"Furthermore, $300 is the maximum contribution a candidate for office in Evesham can accept from individuals looking to receive contracts from our government.  Therefore, an individual who donated $250 to all four PAC's would be in violation of our local pay to play law.  The fact that they specifically asked donors to keep the donation under the reporting limit shows a blatant attempt to conceal the nature of their fundraising efforts."

I am officially requesting that the New Jersey Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) investigate the campaign activity of Kurt Croft, Joe Howarth and Deb Hackman - candidates who successfully sought municipal office in Evesham, New Jersey during the May municipal election cycle.

It is my belief that these three candidates - who all ran under the joint candidate committee Friends of Croft, Howarth and Hackman - committed the following offences.

Violated N.J.S.A. 19:44A-9h(1) which states that no candidate shall establish, authorize the establishment of, maintain, or participate directly or indirectly in the management or control of, any political committee or any continuing political committee.  As ELEC has noted in previous opinion and decisions;

The above-quoted prohibition (hereafter, Section 9h) promotes uniform application of contribution limits. It limits a candidate to fundraising through a candidate committee, joint candidates committee, or both, and prohibits the candidate from direct or indirect participation in a political committee or a CPC. If a candidate were permitted to participate in the activities of a political committee or CPC, which committees can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, that candidate would be in a position to receive direct benefits for his or her candidacy, such as CPC purchase of advertising that has a favorable impact on the candidate?s campaign. Such a candidate would obviously be in an advantageous position over a candidate receiving only contributions subject to contribution limits through a candidate committee, or joint candidates committee. The legislative purpose therefore of Section 9h is to prevent circumvention of contribution limits by prohibiting the establishment and use of CPCs that have the appearance of being independent of a candidate but effectively serve as a surrogate for the candidate's campaign committee.

Violated NJSA 19:44A-20 which states:  No contribution of money or other thing of value, nor obligation therefor, shall be made, and no expenditure of money or other thing of value, nor obligation therefor, shall be made or incurred whether anonymously, in a fictitious name, or by one person or group in the name of another, to support or defeat a candidate in an election or to aid the passage or defeat of any public question or to provide political information on any candidate or public question or to seek to influence the content, introduction, passage or defeat of legislation.

Violated 19:44A-11.3 which prevents committees from accepting contributions over a certain dollar amount.

Actively sought to "wheel" money through third party organizations such as registered and non-registered Continuing Political Committees to avoid campaign contribution limits.

Sought to circumvent a local pay to play ordinance by "wheeling" money through registered and non-registered Continuing Political Committees.