AC Press on Christie's Slush Fund group: An end around campaign finance laws

by: Jason Springer

Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:54:42 PM EDT

The criticism of Chris Christie's Slush fund, otherwise known Reform Jersey Now continues to pile up. Following the scathing editorial by the Asbury Press, the AC Press today is out with their take:

It becomes more obvious by the day that this group - like others before it - represents an end-run around campaign-finance laws and was clearly formed to promote the governor's political agenda. At the very least, the public should know who is providing the money.

On the flaunting of the fact that they can avoid state laws and regulations, the Press referred to the invitation wording:

"Reform Jersey Now contributions are not affected by the pay-to-play statutes ... or by applicable executive orders," one recent solicitation reads. "Reform Jersey Now may lawfully accept donations from any source - corporate or individual - in unlimited amounts."
In other words, let the money flow. Including, possibly, money from businesses seeking state contracts from the administration whose agenda the group is promoting.

They then took on the ridiculous talking point the Governor has tried to throw out that it's ok for his slush fund to evade playing by the law because other groups like unions have attacked him before:

But there's a big difference between unions and Reform Jersey Now: It's clear where unions get their money. Voters have no way of knowing who is behind Reform Jersey Now.

And that's the problem, Christie's slush fund is competing with his administration to see which has less transparency. The group says they'll disclose their donors eventually, but the Press has a better idea:

Disclose them now.

They also suggested the Governor take a different approach than trying to justify and avoid responsibility for the group:

Christie - who has touted his support for pay-to-play and other campaign-finance laws - should tell his pals to let the public know now who the money is coming from.

And until Christie and his group disclose, the media should stay on top of this shining a light on the glaring ties and connections between the Governor and his slush fund.

Jason Springer :: AC Press on Christie's Slush Fund group: An end around campaign finance laws

Tags: Reform Jersey Now, Chris Christie, slush fund, pay to play, transparency, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

AC Press on Christie's Slush Fund group: An end around campaign finance laws | 4 comments

101.5 (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if Christie's bottom feeders on 101.5 will ever have anything to say about this.

I wouldn't hold my breath. They're too busy beating up on unions and working people. Which is why nobody listens to them except shut-ins and anybody else who doesn't have to live from paycheck to paycheck.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

by: ken bank @ Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 19:04:41 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Remember the SC ruling? (0.00 / 0)

Free speech = money. Citizens, and companies are equally entitled to exercise their right to free speech.
.
We-the-people have the right to exercise that freedom also with the right to assemble and form groups.
.
These rights are ours WITHOUT the government taking names at the door to check on who is supporting what. That data would be abused by political opposition to try to smear people. That tactic is one the public is fed up with.
.
When you dem's attach ANY group collecting money to speak out against YOU, you are also shooting yourself in the tootsies.
.
As an individual citizen I have the right to go to my neighbors and collect donations to support ANY issue I like. YOU do not have the right to know which of my neighbors support me and which don't.
.
We have a legal system. If an "entity" is suspected of breaking a law then the LEO's must take probable cause to a judge and get a warrant before they can go in and "take" someone's records.
.
Any infringement on the liberty of groups to assemble, collect support, and speak out for an issue diminishes American. That is why the ballot box is SECRET, so you DON'T know who is against you and you can't then go attack them.
.
The PAC's are just another way the public can vote with their money. You do NOT have a right to have names published. It's none of your business.
.
Your business is your supporters who funnel money to promote issues you feel are important. The GOP has no right to your member lists either.
.
Liberty = privacy = secrecy in the ballot box. Dem's need to realize that we independents who side with you on school choice and equal domestic benefits for alternative couples, will NOT side with you when you get on a hobby horse to take our liberty away.

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:42:37 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You can't have it both ways (0.00 / 0)

Since the activist Supreme Court has legislated that a corporation has the same rights as a person, it follows that the corporation has the same responsibilities. Current law requires that my personal contributions to political candidates be disclosed. Hence, corporations' contribution to secret PACs must be disclosed also.

If you disagree with this, fine. Then you should be lobbying to repeal the law that requires my personal contributions to be disclosed. But, remember, if that passes, then it is perfectly OK for the Chinese, Taliban, or Nazis to donate in secret to political candidates.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 13:06:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Convoluted logic. (0.00 / 0)

you said "Current law requires that my personal contributions to political candidates be disclosed. Hence, corporations' contribution to secret PACs must be disclosed also."
.
You forgot to draw that essential middle point. A Pac is equal to a candidate. Since the B of A+B=C is not true then your "C" is false.
.
A PAC is a corporate entity who's business is educating the public on issues. Members pay for the service. A PAC is not running on any ballot. A PAC explores ideas.
.
That definition could apply to a wider range of targets than this one little group that has the Dem's tail feathers all aflutter.
.
A PAC is not a candidate, therefore rules for candidates do not apply to PAC's or any other corporate entity or individual. Privacy laws apply. Not election law.
.
Some may call that splitting hairs. But a hair is a very fine line. We let the government CROSS that fine line and the camels nose is in the tent, full body wiggling after.

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:14:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]