( - promoted by Juan Melli)
Update: Mayor Moriarty responded by email. Our brief exchange is posted below the fold, with permission. We report, you decide?
Washington Township (Gloucester County) resident Josh Aronovitch last week submitted 1,700 nearly 1,800 petition signatures - almost 400 500 more than required by law - to place a pay-to-play ordinance on this year's ballot. Washington Township mayor and Assemblyman Paul Moriarty has opposed the effort and told the Courier Post: "I agree that we need to reduce the influence of money in the political process. This latest proposal, although well-intentioned, is seriously flawed since it does nothing to reduce the influence or contributions of special interest groups."
This is so disingenuous. Mayor Moriarty introduced and passed pay-to-play legislation in 2005 which by his own logic is "seriously flawed", but he's doing nothing to fix the flaw except criticize this citizen effort. If the mayor wanted to, he could easily introduce a real, comprehensive and effective ban on pay-to-play, but that doesn't seem to be his priority. Like dozens of municipalities before them, Washington Township is going to have to be shamed into action. Keep up the good work, Josh. |
| Juan,
For the record, I have never opposed pay-to-play legislation. Please remember that within weeks of being elected Mayor, I instituted such a measure in Washington Township, and I can assure you that it has worked. Just this year, a Democratic Party contributor was barred from doing business in our town because his engineering company made contributions that exceeded our $400 limit. Can you point to any other examples in New Jersey where a pay-to-play ordinance has actually led to sanctions?
My criticism of Mr. Aronovitch's crusade is basically that he has presented his pay-to-play law as a "model" ordinance, as if to say that it is perfect, which it is not. He has also consistently suggested that this administration has done nothing on pay-to-play, when he knows that we have (see above paragraph).
Additionally, as I have pointed out, his so-called "model" ordinance does nothing to limit the influence of specific special interest groups, whether they be environmentalists, builders, or unions. That being said, you are correct that our township's current pay-to-play ordinance is silent on that issue as well. Clearly, there is room to do more.
Furthermore, I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Aronovitch, and work on an ordinance that is truly a model for reducing the influence of money in the political process. All he need do is contact me.
Sincerely,
Mayor Paul Moriarty
----------------------
Paul,
I wasn't sure if you wanted this to be posted as a response on Blue Jersey or if it's intended to be private.
Regardless, you say the proposed ordinance is not perfect, so which of the components of the proposed pay-to-play ordinance do you disagree with and would you remove? What would you add to it to make it more effective?
If you think there is more to do on pay-to-play, with all due respect, you have the power to write whatever legislation you think is appropriate and propose it to the council.
Best regards,
Juan Melli
----------------------
Juan,
Feel free to post it.
As for your specific questions, again, I do not disagree having a strong pay-to-play ban. I did propose what I felt was appropriate legislation and we got it passed. If we can craft something that strengthens the ban without violating the rights of individuals to support their preferred candidates, and without overstepping the legal boundaries of our Municipality, then I'm all for it. I just do not happen to think that Mr. Aronovitch's proposal does that. It restricts free speech and oversteps our town's authority, and does so for a town in which pay-to-play is not an issue due to the steps we've already taken.
Thanks.
Paul |
