Clean Elections 
|
|
Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:28:31 PM EDT
|
|
There has been much support on Blue Jersey for the removal of pay-to-play, cronyism and corruption in state elections. In 2007 New Jersey will try the Clean Elections Program in three Legislative Districts. Of the three, the Democratic candidates in the very Republican 24th District have the greatest challenge.
To become certified as Clean Election Candidates, Democrat Ed Selby -- who is running for State Senate -- and his two running mates for Assembly, Toni Zimmer and Pat Walsh, must each receive a minimum of 400 individual $10.00 contributions from registered voters in the 24th District. In exchange, they will each receive $50,000 for their campaigns.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 333 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:51:41 AM EDT
|
(happy saturday! - promoted by Jay Lassiter)
If you missed the live edition of Blue Jersey radio this week, with our special guest, Tom Wyka, Click here for the podcastable dish! The subject of publicly-funded campaigns - a.k.a. "Clean Elections" - is one that is dear to many progressive hearts. But, how well do you really understand this year's New Jersey Clean Election Pilot Program 2.0? Loyal Blue Jersey readers already know that there are three legislative districts eligible to participate in the Program - the 14th, 24th and 37th Districts. And, our readers ought to know how these districts were chosen (the 24th because of its strong Republican leaning, the 37th because of its strong Democratic leaning, and the 14th because it is a "split" district). But, do you know how much public funding qualifying candidates are eligible to receive? What obligations come with accepting public funds? And, how exactly candidates go about qualifying for the money? For example, did you know that candidates have until September 28th to file their Declaration of Intent to seek certification. If you did, you would know that misleading stories like this one can be ignored. And, could you explain to New Jersey's tax-weary non-political-junkies why publicly funded campaigns are good for democracy? You might need to. You can slog through all the gritty details about the Clean Elections Program on ELEC's website, or better yet, TUNE IN EVERY SATURDAY MORNING at 10:30 a.m. to Blue Jersey Radio, when we'll be joined by 2006 (and future?) 11th District Congressional Candidate Tom Wyka talking about the Clean Elections Program, and taking your questions. We'll also be previewing next week's primary races, and as always, dishing the latest Trenton news, buzz and gossip. Join us live this week and every Saturday at 10:30 a.m., or listen to the podcast anytime. UPDATE: Thank you listeners! You helped make Blue Jersey Radio one of this week's featured programs on BlogTalkRadio.
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:58:27 AM EDT
|
|
From Politicsnj:
"Afraid of a sneak attack by the BCDO?"
"Possibly afraid of a sneak attack by the Bergen County Democratic Organization, 37th district incumbents Loretta Weinberg, Gordon Johnson and Valerie Vainieri Huttle did not file to participate in the Clean Elections public financing program. Their GOP opponents did. In the heavily Republican 24th, the three Democratic candidates filed; Republicans oppose public financing there.
All six candidates in the politically competitive fourteenth district filed."
Sounds fishy to me. The 37th folks are on the BCDO team. They talk the talk on clean elections but won't walk the walk. Why would the BCDO try to sabotage their own line? It seems to me that the 37th team is always saying one thing to deflect attention away from what their true intentions are.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:39:56 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by jmelli)
Coinciding with Governor Corzine's rehab - I'd like to suggest it's time to start a similar painful, but necessary process for our very own democracy. What's ailing it? Corruption and the incessant chase for big money to fund political campaigns. Believe it or not - the rehab cycle for this might be just as painful if not more than the Governor's.
Tuesday night I attended one of the first strategy meetings of the candidates for NJ State Legislature for the 24th district (Ed Selby for Senate, Toni Zimmer and Pat Walsh for Assembly). Megan Ward and Rick Ecke were also there along with several key volunteers from SCDC. The key campaign leaders were fresh back from their seminar on Clean Elections and the rules of the program are now well understood. Now comes the hard part - getting the patient out of bed.
First steps? Very simple - Making it work. Flexing grassroots muscle, enduring the pain of atrophy from an electorate that's long forgotten neighbor-to-neighbor politics. Growing back new muscle by expanding the party and other progressive networks. Enduring criticism from indifferent pundits and some anti-big-government conservatives, some who hold office, thrive on the current system and would love nothing more than for the patient to just stay in bed.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 864 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:07:23 PM EDT
|
|
Money is the issue.
It's the main reason that Republicans were pushing the 12th District as this year's clean elections test case -- and the main reason that state Sen. Ellen Karcher, a 12th District Democrat, was prepared to participate.
The state clean elections selection committee saw things a bit differently. They selected the 14th District as the test case -- a decision that has been criticized as partisan by the GOP.
But the 14th, as I've written elsewhere, has always been the most logical choice.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 328 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:04:26 PM EDT
|
|
The Clean Elections District Selection Committee met today to decide between the 12th and 14th legislative districts as the split district to participate in the clean election system. Republican leadership had wanted the 12th, while Democrats and Assemblyman Bill Baroni preferred the 14th. The AARP also supported choosing the 14th. The debate today was contentious, but ultimately the 14th district was selected by the panel.
Assemblyman Bill Baroni (R) and former Rate Counsel Seema Singh (D) will run for the Senate seat being vacated by Peter Inverso (R). Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein (D) will run with IBEW union leader Wayne D'Angelo (D) for the Assembly against Jamesburg Councilman Adam Bushman (R) and Hamilton Councilman Tom Goodwin (R).
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:59:10 AM EDT
|
|
You already know about Bergen County and Imus stories, so this newsroundup features other stories.
The CWA union ballots are being counted now to approve or reject the state workers contract. Voter turnout at 63% was double the usual.
Jim Florio is the head of a committee that will decide whether LD12 or LD14 will be the test clean elections district. The law required a former governor to head the panel -- I wonder why they didn't pick McGreevey?
State Senators Steve Sweeney and Shirley Turner called for a state constitutional amendment to mandate increases in funding (taxes) to match any benefit increases and/or adequate payments into the pension fund after a briefing. Senator Bernard Kenny is against the idea. In an interesting turn, State Treasurer Bradley Abelow said he would not want money from leasing assets to go to the pension fund. (He wants to use the money for something else.) Sweeney compared selling the Turnpike to a family in financial trouble selling its Shore House. I think it's more like selling your driveway and then having to pay someone else to park for the rest of your life. Finally, the New York Times has the best description of the meeting yesterday:
State senators from both political parties said at a hearing on Wednesday that they had been shocked to learn that they had voted again and again in recent years for measures that had left the state pension in great distress
The Daily Targum has an excellent article on data-mining research conducted by Rutgers and other universities that is aimed at literally spying on everyone to identify terrorists. At least, we can note:
[Professor Fred] Roberts emphasized Rutgers University will not be working on "sentiment analysis," which is extracting and summarizing information about feelings and beliefs from free text. The center at the University of Pittsburgh emphasizes sentiment analysis research.
A new student organization called "Off Our Campus Coalition" plans to protest:
"We're talking about the same government that has open abuse with the NSA wiretapping program," said Andrew Spina, one of the organizers of the meeting. "Taking their word and trusting them? You can't let that stand, especially on your university."
Keyport in Monmouth County may ban smoking in cars with "children". In this context, children are 17 or younger.
A former employee of Burlington County is now alleging that there is a secret $3.5 million insurance fund. The county "vehemently denies Mr. Linneman's claims and will vigorously defend itself against his unfounded allegations."
Remember the nerve gas? Instead of going to South Jersey, it'll go to Texas.
Senator Menendez praised passage of the stem cell research bill, called for U.S. leadership in Darfur, and presented a report on the subprime mortgage collapse:
"What we are facing is a tsunami of foreclosures. Just a few short years after home ownership levels soared to record highs, the harsh reality brought on by unreasonable mortgages has come crashing down on millions of homeowners. This report digs past the overall story to detail the devastation in America's communities. It is clear that a number of New Jersey communities have been hit hard, as have many others from coast to coast, and I am working in the Banking Committee to solidify the mortgage system. I applaud Chairman Schumer for shedding additional light on this widespread problem."
Senator Lautenberg got an extension for New Jersey to comply with a new, burdensome housing accounting system and condemned Libya's failure to settle the PanAm 103 and other terrorist cases.
This is an open thread, so please comment on these or any other stories...
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:28:46 PM EDT
|
|
This seems pretty simple. The state has finally approved a new clean elections law that will provide public financing for three legislative districts.
The districts will be chosen this way:
-- one safe GOP district to be chosen by the GOP;
-- one safe Dem district to be chosen by the Democrats;
-- and one split district to be selected jointly.
|
|
There's More...
:: (16
Comments, 295 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:16:12 PM EDT
|
|
The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) has released the dollar amounts needed for the Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Program. There will three districts chosen for the program: One represented by three Democrats, an entirely Republican one, and a mixed district. According to the Courier-Post:
Candidates in one-party districts would get $100,000, but those in split districts would be funded based on the average of the last two Senate and Assembly races in their districts. ELEC released those figures Friday, ranging from $282,275 per candidate in the 7th District, which covers parts of Burlington and Camden counties, to $534,375 per candidate in the 14th District, which includes parts of Mercer and Middlesex counties.
According to the article, there is criticism that the numbers are too high.
Here's what Speaker Roberts said in a press release:
"The last thing the public needs is to experience Clean Elections sticker shock," said Roberts (D-Camden). "I am happy ELEC today expressed willingness to allow clean candidates to voluntarily agree to lower spending thresholds. The point of Clean Elections is to wean candidates off big money and allow them to run real grassroots races. Candidates should not be forced to wage high-priced campaigns with public money simply because funds are available."
What do you think? Should the public put up over a million dollars for LD14? Is that just encouraging spending? Or is it a necessary cost of having fair elections?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:46:53 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by jmelli)
St. Gregory's Episcopal Church here in Parsippany holds a "Films for Thought" series about once a month. At the Church last November, my wife and I finally got a chance to see "An Inconvenient Truth", after a long, busy campaign season. It was funny how most of the folks I associated with throughout the campaign, including my campaign manager, had seen the movie, and being a candidate - there was no time to even absorb a good book or even an article, let alone a good movie. In fact, Al Gore was sort of a bookend to my campaign in a sense as my first attempt to reach a group of potential supporters was to stand outside the Drew University field house with a few loyal helpers and pass out fliers about my campaign. That night at Drew - I only caught a few minutes of the tail end of his lecture - so it was great to finally see all the content so many months later.
"Films for Thought" includes a discussion by a panel of subject matter experts after the film (in that particular case only one could make it - Rich Hoffman, a local environmental scientist). When the discussion got around to possible political action/activism, Rich prefaced his comment - "Well - you're not going to see much change in the government unless we get publicly financed campaigns". My wife and I have to look at each other and chuckled loudly since it was a central theme of my campaign.
Why is it that most progressives I talk to see this as the lynch-pin of solving so much of what's wrong with government?
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 427 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:28:23 PM EDT
|
|
Though the Assembly passed revised Clean Elections (A-100) legislation by an overwhelming 67-11 margin, Senate Republicans today prevented passage. Of 18 Republicans, 7 voted against the legislation while the rest refused to even vote, giving the legislation just 17 votes - all from Democrats.
Republicans are upset that the legislation does not include primaries - a valid complaint - except that the Office of Legislative Services has already explained that it wouldn't be possible to set up the system in time for this year's primaries.
Assemblyman Greenwald, a sponsor of the legislation, thinks there's more to it: "The Senate GOP had no issues when it passed an initial Clean Elections law with tougher requirements, more stringent rules, and which applied only to Assembly campaigns. Now that we are on the cusp of enacting reforms to better ensure the success of the Clean Elections experiment in both houses, it is ironic that the Senate Republicans would rather keep playing by the old rules."
Assembly Speaker Roberts is still holding out hope that the legislation will pass: "Today's vote was disappointing, but hopefully just a temporary setback. Because of the Thursday session, I remain hopeful that Republicans will join with the majority of Democrats to save this vital program."
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM EST
|
|
The state Senate may not be ready for publicy financed elections, but at least one town in the state appears ready to give it a try.
Lawrence Township was scheduled to introduce an ordinance last night creating a public-financing commssion to study whether a system of taxpayer-financed elections can be implemented in the Mercer County town.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 375 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 07:52:16 PM EST
|
|
Crossposted from Channel Surfing:
I am getting the distinct impression that the folks who control the state Legislature do not want public financing of elections to actually work.
Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) has introduced legislation that would expand state's clean elections pilot program for the 2007 election to a third legislative district and lower the seed-money threshold, but he has kept a tight leash on the program -- though you wouldn't know it from Tuesday's story in The Star-Ledger:
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 386 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 04:11:36 PM EDT
|
( - promoted by jmelli)
For a campaign that has run on "ethics" despite evidence to the contrary (UnitedHealth, Horizon payoffs, casino payoffs, Kissingergate, etc.), Tom Kean Jr.'s senate run is long on rhetoric but short on verifiable actions for ethics and clean elections. The latest example comes from the Public Campaign Action Fund, which works for clean elections and has asked Junior to sign a petition that works to "1) make elections fair, 2) restore accountability, and 3) protect voters' right-to-know."
What the Public Action Campaign Fund is calling for isn't controversial: they merely want elected officials to pledge not to take money from lobbyists and special interest groups without making such information public, to stop taking gifts from lobbyists, and to make elections transparent and publicly funded. Kean Jr. hasn't signed the petition, but Bob Menendez, who he often falsely accuses of ethical breaches, has already signed it.
What is Junior hiding? Is it his connection to Big Oil, where he holds hundreds of thousands in stocks, or is it his "quid pro Kean" votes in exchange for specific votes while a state legislator? For someone who supposedly holds ethics in such high esteem, Junior is once again not following rhetoric with action.
http://ga3.org/campaign/keanjrpledge
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.gif)
