With legislative campaigns looming this fall, county party committees jointly have $1.0 million in reserve after raising nearly $1.1 million during the first three months of 2011, according to quarterly reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
Reports show Democrats outraised Republicans during the quarter, but GOP committees reported a higher net worth, meaning cash-on-hand adjusted for debts owed to or by the committee. Numbers should be treated as preliminary because four county party committees had yet to file reports through 5 p.m. Friday, April 29.
Between the two parties over a million dollars were spent in the last three months. The Republican but especially the Democratic numbers are way down compared to 2007: Recession? Tougher pay-to-play laws? No Jon Corzine?
These are taxpayer-funded events organized and promoted by the taxpayer-funded governor’s office. If the governor sticks to public policy, that’s fine. But if the governor wants to campaign, he must dip into his own wallet.
I agree with you 100%
These so-called “Town Hall” meetings are, in fact, political rallies to benefit the Governor’s political agenda, characterized by:
The events are purportedly open to the public, but appear to be planned in stealth and supporters are notified in advance. Public notice is typically two days before the event.
It appears the non-supporters have been identified and purged from the Governor’s email list.
The events are always held during the day, on a weekday, making it difficult or impossible for working people to attend, and all but ensuring a homogenous pro-Christie crowd.
The Governor typically makes a show of referring at least one of the questioners to his Constituent Relations staffer to make the event appear to be non-political.
In light of the above, and other examples not listed of which you are certainly aware, I respectfully request that you initiate in the Assembly, hearings and investigations of possible violations of the Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-1, the Personal Financial Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 19:44B-1, and the Legislative and Governmental Processes Activities Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:13C-18, for the purposes of filing a complaint with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission ("ELEC") on behalf of the taxpayers of New Jersey.
Thank you for considering this request and your consistent excellent service to your constituents in the 4th Legislative District.
Last week the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) released data indicating lobbying expenditures jumped 14% to $65 million in 2010. (Currently only lobbying of state officials is subject to disclosure.) Notable was the increase in education lobbying, particularly on communications (primarily TV, radio, and printed mailers.) As Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of ELEC points out, "The center of lobbying activity seems to be shifting away from more traditional personal lobbying to grassroots lobbying ... to get public opinion on your side." Much attention was focused on NJEA which reported the highest communications outlays of $6.6 million, as well as Reform Jersey Now which was the 4th highest spender at $403,000.
E3, its Executive Director Derrell Bradford, and its 2009 lobbyist Henry Levari worked strenuously for bill S1073 (A355) to establish an interdistrict public school choice program, which was signed into law by Governor Christie last year. They are now lobbying for S1872 (A2810) "Opportunity Scholarship Act" which would effectively create New Jersey's first private school voucher program. The bill passed an Assembly committee but there remain differences with the Senate version. Strong supporter Governor Christie also appointed E3's Derrell Bradford to the nine-person Educator Effectiveness Task Force which on March 3 made recommendations including a new teacher evaluation system and principal evaluation system.
Frustrated parents, concerned educators, lobbyists, consultants, and for-profit companies seeking to increase their education portfolio are forming a powerful phalanx. My experience with charter schools has been limited to interactions with a non-profit group over a 12 month period which was seeking to open such a facility. In this instance I was surprised how little discussion there was regarding curriculum and quality and how much attention was focused on financials and the opportunity to generate income for the parent organization. Not all charters are founded on the same principle, but the predominance and preemininence of public school education are increasingly under severe challenge by well-heeled advocates for a new business model.
How about a moratorium on reporting on Governor Christie's so-called "town hall meetings" until one or more is held in the evening or on a weekend, when working people can attend? Now, if you are not on the Governor's coveted mailing list, you must scour the news websites for announcements, which typically come out with 1-2 days notice. By then, the Faithful have already been tipped off, and can make arrangements to attend, while the rest of us must either miss the event due to work, or jeopardize our jobs by calling in sick. There is a "town hall" scheduled for Woodbridge Tuesday morning. NJ.com dutifully announced the event on Thursday but managed to leave out the date and location. This has since been corrected in later versions of the post.
I have been to one of these, and from what I witnessed and have read about subsequent town hall meetings, they are routine, the same tired stories. The same script.
The Governor approaches the stage to wild applause, talks about "reform" (since when did "reform" become a synonym for "dismantling"?), blasts the usual scapegoats, the Legislature, public workers, and reminds us that his beef is not with teachers but the NJEA.
Then comes the Q&A, which may result in a "YouTube" moment, followed by his closing remarks, a heart-wrenching story about visiting his cancer-stricken mother on her deathbed, where she tells him to get back to work because "there's nothing left unsaid between us". Every town hall ends with this story, and there is barely a dry eye in the house.
Now, I am not in any way mocking Mrs. Christie's untimely death, but I cannot help but wonder, if she was the tough cookie he often describes, would she approve of her son cynically exploiting this intimate mother-son moment to score political points? I am sure my late mother would haunt my ass, big-time, if I pulled a stunt like that.
Is it time yet to post a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that these "Town Hall' meetings are really political events and should be funded by Christie's shadow campaign organizations instead of the taxpayer?
Good question. As long as these events continue to be held at a time to maximize a pro-Christie crowd, when it is difficult or impossible for working people to attend, the question remains, are they really "town hall meetings" or partisan campaign events?
New Jersey has at least two such Republican shadow groups: Reform Jersey Now, which says it ceased its operations after raising $624,000, and The Center for a Better New Jersey which is still operating. Both hew close to Governor Christie's agenda, and the latter seems most active in influencing a favorable Republican outcome in the current redistricting process. Both groups gain the advantage of not having to disclose their donors while they operate at the margins of two IRS requirements and wreak havoc on our pay-to-play laws.
According to an article by Matt Friedman/Statehouse Bureau in the Record and Star Ledger, "Private donors are helping Republicans bankroll their efforts to revise political maps that could determine which party controls the Legislature and the New Jersey delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives over the next decade." In the article Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union) identifies the fundraising organization as the Center for A Better New Jersey. This group seems to be a "reincarnation" of Reform Jersey Now, a 501 (c) (4), which raised funds in 2010 to promote Governor Christie's agenda and then appears to have closed shop.
In Hoboken's 4th Ward, candidate Michael Lenz today filed a complaint and order to show cause with New Jersey Superior Court, charging that voters were paid to cast Vote-by-Mail ballots - essentially paid for their votes - according to a Lenz campaign release in The Hoboken Journal.
Working through the details of this:
3 residents of Ward 4 swore out affidavits saying they were offered "$40 as an incentive to vote absentee" (read them here, beginning page 84)
In Occhipinti's 10/25 ELEC report, there are a series of $40 payouts in two sequential groupings. Under Schedule 1(D) - Disbursements, there are 36 payouts of $40 each to individuals beginning on page 13 of 37, then another group of $40 payouts to 43 people begins on page 21 of 37. Each recipient of the $40 is categorized: ADMIN: PERSONNEL/SALARY/TAXES - CAMPAIGN WORKER. Addresses are at or near Housing Authority residences, where some of the city's poorest live.
Crossing the list of those getting $40 payouts with the list provided by the county of vote-by-mail records show 79 of 80 campaign workers have indeed voted by mail. Occhipinti spokesman David Cruz calls this an "anomaly".
Two long-time Hoboken political players are named in the affidavits as involved; Matt Calicchio, and Frank Raia. Raia has denied wrongdoing. Occhipinti spokesman Cruz says their campaign did have people sign affidavits but they were in essence employment contracts for such services as wearing campaign tee-shirts, handing out flyers and "talking up the candidate."
The finger-pointing goes both ways. Yesterday, the Occhipinti campaign released a statement accusing Lenz of taking $1,000 in campaign contributions from two developers in exchange for a favorable vote on a zoning variance, according to nj.com. Occhipinti has called for an investigation by both Attorney General Paula Dow and US Attorney Paul Fishman. Lenz wrote to Dow two weeks ago asking her office to supervise the election to avoid ballot fraud.
For anyone outside Hudson County, this all seems like madness. For anyone inside Hudson County, it may feel maddeningly familiar. This may end up having to be untangled by the Attorney General or the court. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the fact both campaigns are hurling accusations doesn't mean they're both dirty. If you were running a dirty campaign, and word was out, what's the first thing you'd do? Right. You'd sharpen up that finger and get it ready to point.
Luminaries and big time Christie donors appear on the website as members of the Advisory Board. From information on the site and the AG's Charitable Registration Section additional names can be unearthed. As with other 501 (C) (4) groups it was possible to dig into specific records. Some statements on RJN's site seem at odds with reality. As a (501 (C) (4) it can do extensive lobbying, engage in political campaign activity, and accept donations from any source - corporate, individual, or foreign - in unlimited amounts, including from state contractors, without disclosing the names of its donors.
The RJN website unsurprisingly features photos and videos of Christie and promotes his policies. In the donation section the site says recent contributions were "dedicated to its public policy purpose." It also indicates, "Information filed with the Attorney General concerning this solicitation and the percentage of contributions received may be obtained from the N. J. Attorney General." However, RJN's AG file (Charity Registration Number: CH3286200) indicates no reported income nor expenses. The file does provide an RJN address which turns out to be the home of Ronald Gravino, another nominee for a state commission, who served as Treasurer for Christie's campaign. Further checking with N. J. Election Law Enforcement Committee's campaign financing and lobbying disclosure site and Guidestar's IRS data site provided no reporting of financials nor any records for RJN.
ELEC put out numbers late last week showing that county party committees around the state have spent more than $2.3 million during the first six months of 2010 and have $2.6 million in the bank. Here's a summary:
RECEIPTS THROUGHJUNE 30, 2010
SPENDING THROUGHJUNE 30, 2010
NET WORTH ON
JUNE 30, 2010
DEMOCRATIC COUNTY PARTY COMMITTEES
$ 1,207,485
$ 1,570,812
$ 1,539,946
REPUBLICAN COUNTY PARTY COMMITTEES
$ 863,096
$ 756,350
$ 1,054,776
TOTAL - BOTH PARTIES
$Â 2,070,581
$ 2,327,162
$2,594,722
I'll put the break downs of the totals by county below the fold. On the Democratic side of the aisle, four committees including Bergen, Camden, Passaic and Union had more than $100,000 in reserve as of June 30, while Burlington and Hudson were in the red. On the Republican side, just one county party in Burlington has over $100,000, but none of them are in the red.
In their monthly ELEC-Tronic newsletter, ELEC Chair Jerry English talks about proposals for legislative reforms to improve bans on pay to play and offers this take on the current pay to play law:
The current Pay-to-Play law is very confusing. Because of the "Fair and Open" provision at the local level of government a different set of rules may apply at the local level than at the State level.
Those different rules lead to loopholes in the law:
"Fair and Open" allows municipal and county governments to forego the Pay-to-Play rules provided bids are publicly-advertised.
Compounding this situation is the fact that the current Pay-to-Play law allows for municipalities and counties to pass their own ordinances "as long as they are consistent with the theme of Pay-to-Play." This phrase has caused confusion in terms of whether local ordinances are to be more restrictive or can be less restrictive than State law.
Finally, besides State law and over 50 local ordinances, executive orders have been issued dealing with contracting at the State level.
It's clear there are still plenty of holes in the system. Follow me below the fold for recommended changes ELEC is proposing to the pay to play laws. They say these changes would standardize and simplify the process, eliminate a loophole in the system, and strengthens and enhances disclosure.
For people that aren't regular followers of politics and campaigns, they may not know about the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). Richard Lee, Director of Communications with the Hall Institute interviewed Jeff Brindle, who provided a pretty good overview of the organization's responsibilities and then got into some specifics of election law in New Jersey:Having run campaigns in the past, I'm very familiar with filing deadlines and reporting requirements. They are a non-partisan agency that serves as the watch dog regulating the flow of campaign monies to candidates and committees. Brindle also talked in the interview about changes they would like to see made to the system going forward to close the loopholes that still exist. Though they are non-partisan, members are appointed by the Governor, who is in the process of remaking ELEC. Unfortunately, he has once again stumbled over the whole transparency thing in the process.
In the interview, they also talked about the recent Citizen's United case and how that might impact the campaign finance system. It's interesting that Brindle pointed to the fact that the court actually came out strongly for strengthening the requirements for disclosure over what New Jersey currently has. They also covered our Gubernatorial public financing model as well. If you're at all interested in the financing of elections, the interview is worth a watch. You can find more information on ELEC's website as well.
A public hearing is scheduled to commence at 11:15 a.m. concerning administration of the 2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Public Financing Program. The hearing will be conducted as part of the Commission's review and analysis of the public financing program and is intended to obtain witnesses' recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes.
Currently, the state's public campaign financing program provides 2-to-1 matching funds for candidates who raise more than $340,000 and agree to limit their spending to $10.9 million in the general election.
In the past election, Jon Corzine opted out while Chris Daggett and Chris Christie participated and received public funding. Christie received the maximum of $3.1 million in the primary. During the campaign, Daggett suggested a "luxury tax" on gubernatorial campaign spending over certain levels. If you have anything to say regarding the future of public financing in New Jersey, this may be a good opportunity as they look back. What suggested changes would you have for the commission?
ELEC released their summary of 2009 lobbying efforts today, which showed that total lobbyist spending was up about 1.3% last year to $56,390,613. In the same time period, the report showed a 56% drop in the in benefits lobbyists gave to state legislators Here are some other numbers of interest:
The average number of lobbyists fell 4%
The number of clients fell 5.2% marking a second year of declines.
We saw a 56% decrease in total spending on benefits to state officials. This follows on a 29% decline last year and 30% decline the year before.
Communications for lobbying firms saw 53% increase, while all other categories saw a decrease.
You can view ELEC's full annual report summaries here. Many of the benefits to state officials were meals. The increase in communications spending was driven by television advertisements during the gubernatorial campaign from NJ Progress and the Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund.
"The recent increase in communications expenses reflects the changing nature of the lobbying business. It has become more multi-dimensional since the State's original lobbying law was enacted in 1964. This is partly as a result of the growth in government,'' Brindle said.
They also mentioned the increase in grassroots efforts to help mobilize the public for or against issues. It's been said many times that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the decrease in spending on state officials would indicate they are beginning to get the message. But the report continues to sohw that private groups and organizations often have the ability to raise and spend more than individuals getting them more access and attention. This trend will be necessary to watch given the recent Citizens United decision to see whether it or subsequent rulings eventually have an impact on state lobbying efforts.
If you violate your public office and are charged with a crime, the NJ Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday affirming ELEC's decision that you can't use campaign funds to pay for a defense. That led to this quote from Justice Barry Albin:
"Despite blaring headlines that announce the most recent prosecution and conviction of a public official, we have yet to reach the point when it can be said that defending against a federal or state criminal indictment alleging corrupt practices is an 'ordinary' expense of holding public office,"
Good. You shouldn't be able to use money you raise from people to represent them for defending yourself after doing wrong by them.
I'm all for making more information available to those who seek to find it when it comes to the financing of campaigns. So it was good to see ELEC annouce yetserday that they have published municipal campaign contrubutions for the first time online at the ELEC website:
Initially, more than $5.5 million donated to 377 different primary fundraising committees last spring can be analyzed electronically. More than $11.5 million in general election funding will become available early next year.
Jeffrey Brindle, ELEC's executive director, said the new tool is part of the office's mission to provide "the fullest possible disclosure of candidate fundraising."
"More complete disclosure of municipal and county donations will enhance enforcement of pay-to-play laws, laws that are intended to discourage undue influence by public contractors," Brindle said. "If someone receives a public contract, any citizen can simply key in the person's name and a list of his or her contributions will appear."
Their analysis of the contributions and filings showed that five places saw fundrasing exceed $200,000:
Location
Receipts
Disbursements
Edison Township
$587,853
$590,837
East Orange
$408,725
$379,597
Atlantic City
$251,303
$248,142
Middlesex County
$234,216
$235,938
Bergen County
$228,245
$198,658
And eleven other places in the state saw over $100,000 raised for campaigns:
Location
Receipts
Disbursements
Ocean County
$183,269
$188,602
Englewood
$177,963
$163,162
Morristown
$160,981
$152,362
Atlantic County
$157,042
$124,185
Camden County
$152,874
$142,567
Plainfield
$129,128
$148,998
Burlington County
$124,300
$124,300
Gloucester County
$117,032
$97,463
Passaic County
$114,354
$86,837
Brick Township
$110,593
$29,095
Secaucus
$107,889
$106,561
ELEC says they are working to provide more information including general election numbers, school board, May and June Municipal races and fire commission in the near future. Safari and Firefox users are hoping fixes come for them too so they can find all this additional information. You can search for information about contributions, candidates and contributors by visiting ELEC's website.
The Election Law Enforcement Commission announced the appointment of a new Deputy Director yesterday:
Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC), today announced the appointment of Joseph W. Donohue of Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, as Deputy Director of the Commission.
"Joe Donohue brings to this position a wealth of experience in campaign finance issues and a reputation for fairness that will greatly assist the Commission's efforts to protect the integrity of the State's election finance system and to encourage a more engaged electorate," said Brindle.
Donohue had been a Statehouse reporter for more than two decades with the Star-Ledger and The Press of Atlantic City. His career included extensive coverage of campaign finance issues, lobbying trends, and statewide campaigns. He received 13 national and state awards for his journalistic efforts. Since October 2008, Donohue has served as an Assistant Treasurer for the New Jersey Department of the Treasury.
Donahue will begin on November 9 and he'll handle the communications, legislative outreach, and development of "white papers" on campaign finance trends. Donahue replaces Jeff Brindle who became the Executive Director of ELEC after the previous director Fred Hermann retired in June.
ELEC reports today that even less money is being raised and spent on Assembly races this cycle than they anticipated:
Candidates for the General Assembly have raised $14.6 million and spent $10.2 million, according to 11-day pre-election reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission for the 2009 General Election.
"These figures represent an even more dramatic decrease in financial activity from four years ago than was reported at the 29-day reporting period," said Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the Commission.
In 2005, the last time there were contests for Governor and Assembly, Assembly candidates had raised $19.4 million and spent $14.9 million by this time.
While they say that the Governor's race and tough economy have helped contribute to the 25% drop in fundraising and 32% drop in spending, they credit pay to play laws as an additional factor:
"What we have witnessed since Pay-to-Play laws were enacted and executive orders issued is a slowdown in campaign financial activity, culminating in the dramatic decrease at all levels this year," said Brindle.
"Potential donors are hesitant to give, fearing being in violation of the law, forfeiting a public contract, or being prohibited from negotiating and bidding on a contract."
"It is safe to say that Pay-to-Play laws are working with regard to reducing the amount in contributions going directly to candidates," he said.
Overall, the Assembly Democrats have more than their opponents:
Democratic candidates raised $10 million, spent $7.2 million and have $2.8 million cashon-hand. Republican candidates have raised $4.5 million, spent $2.9 million and have cash-onhand totaling $1.5 million. Independents have reported $118,081 raised and $60,971 in expenditures. Cash-on-hand for Independents amounts to $56,929.
They said that even in prior tough economic times, campaign spending would still increase and sometimes significantly, seeming to discount the economy's influence. Do you agree with their assessment? What do you think has caused the drop in fundraising and spending?
Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) said today that "Governor Jon S. Corzine, Republican candidate Christopher J. Christie, and Independent candidate Christopher J. Daggett have raised $37.1 million and spent $33.6 million."
"Together," added Brindle, "the candidates have raised 15 percent less and spent 23 percent less than 2005 candidates Corzine and Forrester, who reported raising $43.8 million and spending $43.6 million at this time in the contest." The two major candidates in 2005 were self-funded.
But the Governor is outspending almost 3-1, the bulk of that coming from his own personal funds. Corzine is free to spend because he did not participate in the public financing program binding both Christie and Daggett to limits on raising and spending. Christie has already received the maximum $7.3M in public matching funds; 62% of funds raised. Daggett has received $726,876 in matching funds, 54% of his funds raised.
By contrast, Corzine raised $24.1M, $22.6M comprised of contributions or loans from Corzine himself to the campaign. He reports spending $23.6M. As the campaigns go into the final flurry of persuading and delivering voters, Corzine's advantage could prove a huge wallop.
These totals don't include spending by outside groups - like the Republican and Democratic Governor's associations - or money raised/spent by the candidates after October 20. Outside the Big 3, the report shows that combined the remaining candidates raised $44,802, and spent $26,305 in the general election.
Tomorrow, ELEC is scheduled to release 11-day pre-election financial reports for the statehouse candidates. ELEC Gubernatorial reports are here.
New Jersey's Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) has put out a new report on spending by Assembly candidates this year:
Candidates for the General Assembly have raised and spent significantly less money thus far this year than at the same time four years ago, according to Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC).
The 29-day pre-election reports show Assembly candidates have raised $9.7 million and spent $5.2 million thus far in the 2009 campaign. Brindle said "these figures represent a 21 percent drop in fundraising and an almost 19 percent decrease in spending."
Democrats have a major money advantage:
Democratic Assembly candidates raised $6.8 million and spent $4 million compared with Republican Assembly candidates who raised almost $2.9 million and spent $1.2 million. Independent candidates have raised $84,000 and reported minimal spending. According to the reports, Democratic candidates have reported over $2.7 million as cash- on-hand and Republican candidates reported a balance of over $1.6 million.
Reporters are available at the ELEC website and to my surprise I was finally able to view them using my Mac. Hooray! I did have to allow Java unrestricted access which seems unnecessary.
