For the record, I have never opposed pay-to-play legislation
Mayor Moriarty has opposed our ordinance from the start. In all fairness, while technically incorrect, he probably means by this that he does not oppose pay to play legislation in general, as opposed to opposing specific examples of it.
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.
The biggest flaw in the township's ordinance is that it allows "wheeling", where contractors contribute to the county party and the county party contributes to the local candidates, skirting the intent of pay to play restrictions. The fact that one contractor didn't get the memo to give through the county instead does not mean that the current ordinance is working. If Mayor Moriarty were truly opposed to pay to play, I'd think he would be eager to include wheeling in the ban. In a conversation after the July 26 town council meeting, Mayor Moriarty expressed his belief that campaign donations should be completely unrestricted and fully disclosed. This is an intellectually honest and defensible position (though I disagree with it strongly) but it is not consistent with the Mayor's other comments regarding pay to play.
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.
I have never claimed that the Center for Civic Responsibility's model ordinance is perfect. In fact, I have stated at council meetings and been quoted in the press that progress, not perfection is the goal. I view this ordinance as a vital first step in the quest for open honest government, and not as the end all be all. I refer to the ordinance as a model ordinance because it is the Center for Civic Responsibility's Model Ordinance, drafted by a team of legal and governmental experts to be used as a model throughout the state, and already adopted in 52 of the 566 municipalities in New Jersey.
He has also consistently suggested that this administration has done nothing on pay-to-play, when he knows that we have (see above paragraph).
This is simply not true. In my initial presentation to the Washington Township council in March and in my March 20 op-ed on the issue I made it clear that Washington Township had a ban on pay to play on the books, but that it had loop holes which prevented it from stopping the flow of money and the flow of contracts to contributors. I specifically compared provisions of the current ordinance with our proposed ordinance. We have never ignored the fact that the Township has a pay to play ban in place (albeit a weak one). Mayor Moriarty in his state of the Township address called Washington Township's ban one of the strongest in the state but legal experts at the Center for Civic Responsibility consider it one of the weakest.
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.
The model ordinance we have introduced and collected signatures for deals with pay to play in the area of professional service contracts only and does what I think is an excellent job on this issue.
Developer pay to play is not open to initiative and referendum according to state law. If the Mayor is sincerely interested in closing this loophole, the Center for Civic Responsibility has a model ordinance for this as well.
Restricting donations by union members does implicate freedom of speech. Restricting contributions by union members (such as teachers and police) is not only illegal, but also undesirable. These are regular citizens not firms getting public contracts in return for contributions. In pay to play, because we can't restrict contributions, we restrict the town from contracting with contributors. The restriction is on the town, not the contributor. This approach would not work on union members, because the town can't not contract with teachers or police. If this is a true concern of the Mayor's and not a pretext for opposing pay to play reform, I wonder why he has not introduced any measures to this point to address the issue at the local or state level.
As far as the undefined "special interests," contributions to PACS that regularly contribute to local candidates are covered under our proposed ordinance. What more does the Mayor feel needs to be done here?
The Mayor's stated freedom of speech concerns and his purported concern about the corrupting influence of special interest and union money seem to conflict. This, combined with his original position that the current ordinance was working fine and with his stated belief in unfettered political donations across the board, suggests to me a less than genuine commitment to reform, and an attempt to see what arguments stick against an effective ban on pay to play.
Clearly, there is room to do more.
I am forced to wonder why it has taken months of effort, almost 1800 signatures collected in 90 degree heat, and numerous articles and editorials before the Mayor has come to this realization.
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.
I have spoken with Mayor Moriarty at numerous public meetings and he has not once asked me to sit down with him to work on an ordinance effectively banning pay to play. An effort by a mutual friend to set up a dinner meeting was rebuffed by the Mayor. In fact, his comments up until a few weeks ago suggested that he viewed the current ordinance as working fine and no need for anything else. His recent implication of freedom of speech, and limits to municipal power suggest opposition to directly or indirectly banning wheeling, or at least limiting the municipality from contracting with large county contributors, as the model ordinance does.
His confusing of the issue with attacks on unions also suggests his opposition to real reform. That being said, if we have simply mis-communicated and he does truly want to curb the corrupting influence of money on politics, I would be glad to sit down with him and work toward solutions. "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, I just do not happen to think that Mr. Aronovitch's proposal does that. It restricts free speech and oversteps our town's authority" The Center for Civic Responsibility approach of limiting contracting by the town (rather than contributions by the contractor) has never been successfully challenged on free speech grounds or municipal authority grounds. As stated above, it has been adopted in 52 towns and was drafted by a team of lawyers well versed in these issues. Challenging the legality of the proposed ordinance won't fly.
and does so for a town in which pay-to-play is not an issue due to the steps we've already taken.
I don't want to get into a blame game by pointing out the many engineering firms, lawyers, and other professional service providers that have gotten contracts with Washington Township after making substantial contributions to the Gloucester County Democratic Party. They are as much victims in this as the tax payers and are tired of being shaken down for campaign cash. But suffice it to say that a few hours browsing the ELEC reports shows that pay to play is alive and well in Washington Township, and throughout New Jersey.
I am a life long Democrat. This is not a partisan issue. I am convinced that pay to play would be just as rampant if Republicans were in power. There would only be a different name on the checks. Even if pay to play was not occurring in Washington Township, this ordinance would be necessary because the law in place allows it. Whether the money has to filter through a county party committee first or can flow directly to local elected officials, it is still cash for contracts and it is unseemly, unethical and should be illegal.
I have a few questions for Mayor Moriarty:
Do you believe "wheeling" should be restricted?
How would you combat the influence of unions and special interests that you decry?
If this model ordinance does not curb pay to play well enough, what do you propose instead?
Will you introduce a ban on developer pay to play, whether based on the Center for Civic Responsibility Model Ordinance or otherwise?
How do you reconcile your belief in unlimited campaign contributions with your purported support for strong bans on pay to play?
Thanks. |
