ELEC 
|
|
Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 07:19:00 PM EDT
|
The stakes may be stratospherically high in Campaign 09, but the money being raised and used to slug it out is actually less than in the last Governor's race in 2005. ELEC Executive Director Jeff Brindle:
The three major candidates, Governor Jon S. Corzine, Republican Candidate Christopher J. Christie, and Independent Candidate Christopher J. Daggett, have raised 10 percent less and spent 20 percent less than candidates Corzine and Forrester did at the 29-day reporting deadline in 2005.
Brindle pegs the difference on the fact that both candidates in 2005 - Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester - opted out of public campaign financing, and largely paid for their campaigns themselves. The public's sharper understanding of pay-to-play laws may be making potential donors hesitant, says Brindle, and the country's overall economic conditions may also be contributing. Or, not contributing, as it were.
The campaigns are hardly austere, even given the decline in spending. The report - a financial snapshot of the campaigns 29 days out from Election Day - show Corzine, Christie, and Daggett have raised $27.5 million and spent $23.1 million. In 2005, the two major candidates had reported raising $30.7 million and spending $28.9 million in that 29-day report. Combined, all the other independent govy candidates raised $28,582 and spent $12,227.
Of course, the Republicans started spinning this pronto. Witness two competing headlines at pnj; the factual report by staffer Matt Friedman and then the spin quote from Christie campaign manager Bill Stepian. H/t huntsu for that little nugget.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:28:05 PM EDT
|
ELEC met this afternoon to talk about a request by NJN to move one of the scheduled debates to ensure participation from the Governor:New Jersey Network lost a bid to move the first gubernatorial debate from October 1 to October 22 after a New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission vote was deadlocked 2-2 along party lines.
About an hour after ELEC's meeting concluded, Gov. Jon Corzine's campaign indicated that it would be willing to participate in both of the commission's debates regardless of the date.
"The Corzine campaign reiterates its position that the public is better served having the two gubernatorial debates later in October," said Corzine spokesman Sean Darcy. "Our position notwithstanding, we are prepared to participate in both ELEC sanctioned debates regardless of whether or not the NJN debate is rescheduled for October 22nd." I guess the scheduling conflict wasn't that bad for the Governor. Both Christie and Daggett had taken issue with the attempt to move the debate. While not moving the date, ELEC did make a change in debate format:Elections officials also agreed to scrap a 15-minute debate segment in which the candidates question each other and instead take questions from viewers. ELEC also made news regarding newspaper endorsements today:The seven newspapers owned by the Newhouse family's Advance Publications and the two owned by the Borg family's North Jersey Media Group must hold off on endorsements of candidates for governor until after a candidate debate co-sponsored by the Star-Ledger and The Record, according to the head of the commission that regulates New Jersey campaigns.
Sponsors of the debate agreed to withhold endorsements of gubernatorial candidates until after the debate when they applied in July.
"It is our opinion that the prohibition would apply to the other papers and media outlets," Jeff Brindle, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, told PolitickerNJ.com today.
[snip]
The six daily newspapers operated by Gannett New Jersey, as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer, which are co-sponsoring a second gubernatorial debate sanctioned by ELEC, must wait until after their debate before endorsing a candidate for governor. So in summary, the Debate will be October 1 in all likelihood, with all 3 candidates not asking each other questions, but taking them from viewers and the newspapers will have to wait to make decisions until after all the debates are done.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:33:28 PM EDT
|
Joe Cryan wants an an immediate investigation by ELEC into Christie's failure to disclose a personal loan of $46,000 to Michele Brown, currently the first assistant to the United States Attorney, promoted since Christie's resignation. "Christie continues to fail to live up to the ethical standards he sets for others," said Cryan. "He is running for Governor -- failing to report a personal loan to a close colleague is a serious transgression and breaks both federal and state ethics rules. Christie, of all people should know - he has prosecuted public officials for similar offenses, yet, he dismisses his own unscrupulous behavior as a simply an 'oversight.' This situation demands an immediate and thorough investigation."
[snip]
"Christie also must come clean about the questions this blatant conflict of interest raises - does he discuss his campaign with Brown?" said Cryan. "How have their financial ties affected his candidacy? It raises serious concerns about the stark contrast between what Christie says and what he actually does. Despite Christie's dismissal of this serious violation he is not above approach and just like any other New Jerseyan who violates the law Christie must be held accountable for his actions."
And while Cryan pursues action on the state level, Congressman Bill Pascrell wants a federal investigation to ensue:"Add this to the growing list of Christie's capers," said Pascrell. "Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Christie's personal life is again in conflict with his public obligations? A prosecutor at his level should know that once he gave that loan, no matter how well-intended it was, it changed the relationship between Mr. Christie and Ms. Brown. We have a right to know to what extent it changed. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest." The Governor for his part has stayed focused on the Rove ties to Christie, stressing that he thinks the Hatch violations are the most serious. But his campaign did comment on the situation and tied it to their larger request for information that still hasn't been met:"Serious questions remain about the loan Chris Christie gave to Michele Brown. Chris Christie had at least four opportunities to comply with the law and disclose this loan, yet he failed to do so each and every time. There seems to be no mystery that he was determined to keep it secret. The question is, why?"
"Christie and the U.S. Attorney's Office need to begin providing answers. They can start by immediately providing the specific dates of the promotions and salary increases Christie gave Michele Brown. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act request requesting this information, but our previous requests for such basic public information have been bottled up by Christie's friends for more than five months. The public shouldn't have to wait a day longer."
"Finally, as the number two in command in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Michele Brown must be objective about pursuing criminal cases in New Jersey in a non-partisan manner. But how can she possibly be objective when she remains indebted - literally - to the Republican candidate for governor? U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra is also reportedly facing questions about whether he inappropriately helped Christie's campaign. This whole episode raises grave questions about impartiality in our justice system, and the public deserves answers." It's clear that the Democrats smell blood after the most recent weeks news and that's a question they will keep asking. The more they broaden the issue to show how connecting all of the dots continues to undermine who Christie wants people to believe he is, the more effective it will be I think.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 10:45:00 AM EDT
|
Chris Daggett was ready to pick up the check after he qualified for matching funds, but the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission has said not so fast:Although he raised the $340,000 necessary to qualify for two-for-one matching funds from the state and was approved by ELEC, independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett has not yet received the money because he has yet to choose a running mate.
The problem is that, in order to receive public funds, state law requires both the gubernatorial candidate and his or her running mate to file paperwork with ELEC stating that they are willing to participate in the required public debates and disclosing whether they've ever been involved in an issue advocacy organization. The problem is that no one knows what the Lieutenant Governor position really means. They don't know what it means for the campaign or for governing after the election. ELEC says they are abiding by the strict interpretation of the law to protect funds:"The law says that both [candidates] - governor and lieutenant governor - must file these reports before receiving funds," said Brindle. "We're very protective of public money." In fact, the Secretary of State's office won't even say he can run yet if he doesn't choose a running mate:It remains unclear whether gubernatorial candidates can still run if they have not picked a running mate by the Monday deadline. The Secretary of State's office has yet to make the determination.
"Right now it's a hypothetical question and it will need further legal review," said spokeswoman Susan Evans. We knew they'd be breaking new ground with the creation of the position, but if Daggett doesn't choose a running mate, then what? Obviously the Monday deadline will have to come and go without an announcement to make the hypothetical a reality, but these are questions that will need answers as we adjust to the new office that has been created.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:22:45 PM EDT
|
|
Hoping for his chance to be a viable alternative to Jon Corzine and Chris Christie in November, independent candidate Chris Daggett has filed with the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) for matching funds, saying he has met the $340,000 threshold to qualify.
If approved, this brings Daggett taxpayer matching funds equivalent to $2 in public money for every $1 he can raise, to a total of $10.9 million. Daggett says he expects to raise that maximum.
Chris Christie is also participating in the matching funds program. Corzine, a multi-millionaire who can draw on his own funds, has no spending limits.
And waiting in the wings for Corzine is the Democratic Governor's Association (DGA), which announces today it raised $11.6 million in the first half of 2009, with just two races this year - New Jersey and Virginia - in the schedule. The Republican Governors Association (RGA) reports raising even more at $12.2 million, with a record $20.4 million cash on hand.
Daggett, the former state Environmental Protection Commissioner running as an independent, with no equivalent national infrastructure behind him, will have no similar resources to draw on.
But this makes the race a little more complicated. I think the greater impact - and pressure - is on Corzine, as both the incumbent called on to defend his record during harsh economic times, and as the candidate consistently trailing in the polls.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 189 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:15:00 PM EDT
|
The other day, I wrote about the fundraising allegations against the Evesham council candidates trying to direct people around the pay to play laws to get funding. Council candidate Joe Howarth decided not to take the tact of saying everything was legitimate. He also decided not to say that if there were any issues, they would take a look at things. Instead, we got this:Howarth acknowledged that donors were given that direction -- outlined plainly on an invitation to a "victory party" for the candidates held in early June -- but said it was in an effort to comply with the pay-to-play law, not circumvent it.
As to whether some firms might have given more than one $300 contribution to different PACs, Howarth said he had no idea who gave what to the committees. He noted that firms seeking contracts with Evesham must disclose their campaign contributions when they submit their bids, and said those contributions would come to light during that process.
"It's up to the professionals," he said. "I have no control over that. It's not my job." Ah, it's up to the firms who want the contracts to say they gave more money than makes them eligible to get them. He's either misleading or misinformed because under the local pay to play ordinance, all vendors are required to do is disclose that they are in conformance with the law. There is no provision for disclosing what they give.
He wants you to believe that in an effort to comply with the law, he said to give under the reporting limit to multiple committees rather than a lump sum to him directly. Then in the same breath, he says he has no control over who contributes to his campaign and then applies for contracts. Both parties are generally keenly aware of financial reporting and limits. If he doesn't have control over who he takes money from and isn't aware, then who does? He is the one who signed his campaign filing and the one who will vote on the contracts. This seems more like willful blindness than true lack of knowledge.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM EDT
|
|
In the May "non-partisan" elections, Democrats lost all three seats for council in Evesham. The result raised many eyes, but the news to come out since may raise a few more.
A June 10 story in the Burlington County Times prompted Evesham Councilman Mike Schmidt, who lost his re-election bid, to call for an investigation into whether recently elected Republicans Kurt Croft, Joe Howarth and Deb Hackman violated laws which prevent "purposely concealing campaign donations."
 In addition to the story, which talked about how the GOP outspent the Democrats, Schmidt pointed to a fundraising solicitation for the Croft, Howarth, and Hackman team which requests donors to make contributions to any or all of four continuing PAC's, the Evesham Republican Club, the Evesham Municipal Committee, the Evesham Federation of Republican Women and the Evesham Young Republicans. But there were clear instructions on what you could give and to whom:
*Checks to each account should not exceed $300. Hmm, how convenient that they get all this money just under the state reporting threshold. But Schmidt, who authored the local pay to play ordinance, pointed to further potential issues:"Furthermore, $300 is the maximum contribution a candidate for office in Evesham can accept from individuals looking to receive contracts from our government. Therefore, an individual who donated $250 to all four PAC's would be in violation of our local pay to play law. The fact that they specifically asked donors to keep the donation under the reporting limit shows a blatant attempt to conceal the nature of their fundraising efforts." According to ELEC, the Republican women PAC was created the week before the election. Follow me below the fold for more of the story as late last week, Schmidt officially filed his complaint with ELEC spelling out his allegations.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 459 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:30:00 AM EDT
|
When Frederick Hermann retires on June 30th, he will be replaced by a long time staffer as the eyes overseeing state fundraising:The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission has named Jeffrey Brindle, an ELEC staffer since 1985, as the new Executive Director. He will replace Frederick Herrmann, who is retiring after 25 years in office. He becomes the fifth ELEC Executive Director, following David Norcross, Lewis Thurston, Scott Weiner and Herrmann.
Brindle was active in Republican politics before taking a post at ELEC. He worked as a political consultant in the 1970's, served as New Brunswick GOP Municipal Chairman, worked on the legislative staffs of State Sen. John Ewing and Assemblymen Walter Kavanaugh and Elliot Smith, and as Deputy Somerset County Clerk. He was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 17th district in 1977, but lost the general election to Democrats David Schwartz and Joseph Patero. He joined state government after Thomas Kean's election as Governor and was the Communications Director at the Department of Community Affairs from 1982 to 1985. He's been with ELEC for almost 25 years now. The Star Ledger had more about his reputation and work there:Brindle earned a reputation as a prolific writer of reports, articles and white papers on campaign financing, public financing, lobbying and other topics. He also was responsible for budget, personnel and purchasing decisions as well as interacting with the Legislature and campaigns.
[snip]
ELEC chair Jerry Fitzgerald English said Brindle "combines a concern for bringing about necessary reforms with an interest toward encouraging people to become informed voters and involved in the electoral process." Here's a suggestion, work on the website so that people can actually access the reports and information you collect. Best of luck to him in the new position, it's an important job.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:03:41 PM EDT
|
When Senator Bryant requested to use his campaign fund to pay for his criminal defense, ELEC said no. That decision was backed up by a state appeals court and ELEC made the rule change official yesterday: The rule enacted yesterday clarifies the original commission opinion, saying that legal fees and other expenses for a candidate or officeholder's criminal defense are not "ordinary and necessary" duties. The commission will notify the state Supreme Court -- which is considering Bryant's appeal -- of the changes, said executive director Frederick Herrmann.
But the new rule does not apply retroactively, Herrmann said. Well it shouldn't be a part of the ordinary and necessary duties, but with all the recent stories I'm sure plenty of people are wondering how rare an occurrence this situation really is. I'm glad ELEC made the clarification and rules change so that this won't be an issue going forward. If people choose to profit from the public trust, they shouldn't be able to benefit from the financial support given to put them in the position when questions about their actions are raised. They can use the profits they made to defend themselves.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:10:32 AM EDT
|
Matt Friedman points us to a press release put out by ELEC yesterday:(Emphasis Mine)The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (the Commission) will have a special telephonic meeting at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at the Commission's offices at 28 West State Street, 12th Floor, Trenton. This special meeting is being held pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-9 and is necessary to deal with an urgent matter of importance and of concern to the public interest about the 2009 primary election Gubernatorial Public Financing Program. A delay for the purpose of providing adequate notice might result in harm to the public interest. The Commission could not have foreseen the need for this meeting at a time when adequate notice could have been provided. The special meeting will be limited to discussion of the matter of importance. The Agenda* is as follows:
1. Open Public Meetings Statement.
2. Executive Session.
*Formal action may or may not be taken on the items listed above and on items not listed above that arise after publication of this notice. Friedman had this observation:The commission used the exact same phrase - "an urgent matter of importance and of concern to the public interest about the 2009 gubernatorial election" - regarding its meeting last month about whether Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan should be disqualified from receiving matching funds because he failed to disclose his former status as a Lobbyist for the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity. Ultimately, ELEC decided to take no action against Lonegan. We'll see Tuesday whether they take action where they chose not to last time. I wonder if this has to do with the previous Lonegan matter or involves something else entirely. Only Lonegan and Christie have taken public matching funds. Oh the suspense.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:30:00 AM EST
|
Updated by Jason: From PolitickerNJ:The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission will not seek to deny public financing to Republican gubernatorial candidate Steven Lonegan, but will not make a public statement today regarding a private meeting today to discuss an unspecified issue that was believed to be related to the Lonegan campaign.
"If we were issuing a compaint in this matter we would be going public," ELEC Executive Director Frederick Herrmann told PolitickerNJ.com. This is definitely a win for Lonegan as he will now get the matching funds he was seeking.Steve Lonegan wants matching funds. ELEC will meet today to decide if he gets them: The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) will hold a special meeting - not open to the public -- tomorrow which could change the course of the Republican gubernatorial primary. While ELEC has declined to disclose their agenda item, it is widely believed that they will discuss issues pertaining to the public financing of Steve Lonegan's campaign. Lonegan acknowledged last week that he has provided ELEC with answers to some questions concerning his affiliation with Americas for Prosperity, an anti-tax issue advocacy group.
The ELEC investigation is the result of an Associated Press story that suggests the former Bogota Mayor was obligated to disclose the details of his relationship with Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax lobbying group for whom he served as New Jersey Director. State law requires candidates to disclose their connection to issue advocacy groups to avoid a conflict, such as avoiding spending limits that come with the public financing of gubernatorial elections. The head of ELEC wouldn't confirm that the Lonegan situation would be heard, but certainly narrowed the possibilities of what could be on the agenda:Election Law Enforcement Commission Executive Director Fred Herrmann on Tuesday confirmed there will be a closed-door meeting Thursday to discuss "an investigative matter" regarding the 2009 gubernatorial campaign. He would not confirm that Lonegan is the target or provide other details. The decision amounts to almost $140,000 in matching funds for the Lonegan campaign. While he's already facing an uphill climb against Chris Christie, denying the funds would be a pretty severe blow. The track record of the campaign says that if ELEC finds against Lonegan, we can expect to see a scathing attack as that has been their typical response to news that isn't in their favor.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:55:14 PM EST
|
|
Promoted by Jason Springer: Losing matching funds would hurt Lonegan. For his part, Lonegan blames the Republicans for this investigation. Those obnoxious robocalls Steve Lonegan made last year on behalf of Americans For Prosperity are finally catching up to him. It seems the Election Law Enforcement Commission is holding up Lonegan's matching funds pending an investigation over failure to report his involvement with AFP. Even if the funds are eventually released they will be too little too late to stop the Chris Christie juggernaut.
The only question is how many of the wingnuts who support Lonegan will stay home in November and cry in their Kool-Aid because they feel disrespected by GOP leaders.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:57:38 PM EST
|
Elected Officials who run afoul of the law are going to have to find a different way to pay for their defense because they won't be able to use the campaign warchest. Wayne Bryant wanted to use some of his $640,000 campaign fund to pay his legal bills. First he was denied by ELEC and today that decision was upheld by a state appeals court:"Even in an era when public officials are being called with increasing frequency to answer criminal charges of corruption in office, their legal defense costs could hardly be described as an 'ordinary' expense of office-holding," the judges wrote. Bryant's team has a few weeks to appeal to the Supreme Court and haven't decided whether they will. I understand the money was donated to the official, but it was for the purpose of electing them to office not helping to avoid incarceration in prison. If you violate the public trust, you shouldn't be able to benefit from the faith they put in you before you let them down.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EDT
|
Now this is good stuff. Thurman Hart writes today about former Jersey City mayor Bret Schundler over at his SL Voices column. While many know that Schundler is exploring the idea of another run for Jersey City Mayor, I would submit that not as many people would be aware he still has over $181,000 in debt from his failed Gubernatorial campaign in 2001. Schundler's wife argued yesterday essentially that their past debts from the last campaign have outlived their statute of limitations: Lynn Schundler, the ex-candidate's wife and an attorney, said both firms were paid substantial sums during the campaign. But she said her husband has been unable to pay the rest.
During ELEC's regular monthly meeting yesterday, she repeated a request to let him close down his primary fund-raising committee even though he still owes debts. "There comes a time when a debt just cannot be repaid," she said.
Lynn Schundler argued the campaign fund should be closed because there is a six-year statute of limitations on the collection of debts. She said neither company has gone to court seeking to have the debt repaid. So as I follow Schundler logic, if I pay off part of my debt and then string it out long enough, I will exceed the statute of limitations and not be responsible for the difference? I'm guessing the banks and holders of mortgages in Jersey City are praying that either Schundler doesn't win, or that his campaign position on outstanding debts does not become the official policy of the city.On a personal note, I look forward to telling my mortgage company that after paying 3 years on a 30 year loan, I've done enough and will just not be able to repay the rest of the debt. Anyone want to take bets on whether I can run out the clock on like the Schundlers' before I get my foreclosure notices? I'll also be contacting my student loan companies and Honda for my car payments to inform them of my newly enlightened position on outstanding debt. I could get used to the Schundler debt reduction plan.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:00:16 PM EST
|
Today's quote stems from everyone's favorite ex-State Senator Wayne Bryant, who's in need of some money to pay his defense attorneys. He has asked ELEC for permission to use some of the near $650K in his campaign account to foot the bill which led to this response from Frederick M. Herrmann, the commission's executive director., ..."This is the first formal request we've ever had to decide on the issue of whether or not you can use your campaign contributions for a criminal legal defense," Herrmann said. "The current regulations don't address that." Let's all thank Senator Bryant for another Jersey first. The commission will consider his request at a hearing next Tuesday. I'm sure that's what all the people wanted when they gave him money, even though they may have known in the back of their mind that it might end this way. Take the poll below the fold and tell us whether you think he should be able to use the money for his defense.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:18:14 PM EDT
|
|
LD37 Incumbents, Senator Loretta Weinberg and her running mates, Assemblyman Gordon Johnson and Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle qualify for more Clean Elections campaign funds. And once again, Ms. Nibot from Bergenfield and her running mates do not.
You could almost pity poor Ms. Nibot according to this Stiles column in the Record. Tsk. Tsk. Actually bribing elderly ladies with the promise of a free dinner if they would be her 400th contributor. Sad. So sad.
However, hold your pity for a moment. Bergenfield does wierd things to folks lately........
Without the slightest sense of even understanding the irony of it all, Nibot has asked the ELEC to look into how Loretta Weinberg is spending her Clean Elections money. After campaigning as the Clean Elections candidate up until the bitter end, while actually never being certified an OFFICIAL NJ Clean Elections candidate (talk about misleading packaging), Ms, Nibot has the raw unadulterated chutzpah to challenge Senator Weinberg about how she spends her newly acquired campaign funds. I feel like Jon Stewart when he rubs his eyes furiously with his palms, shakes his head, looks up wide eyed and says Whaaaaaaa?
Come again, Ms. Nibot? If anyone is a Clean Candidate it is Senator Weinberg. It is certainly not you. According to ELEC, I have the proof. You didn't QUALIFY. You will just have to accept funds from folks like Joe Ferriero, Councilman Mulligan, or whoever else is funding your misleading campaign against our incumbent Senator.
As for Ms. Nibot's indignation that Senator Weinberg is looking into how our public utilities are run, whether for ideas on how to improve them or to root out corruption, what the heck is wrong with that? As a voter in NJ, I'd be happy to know that our Senator is looking after our interests everywhere - especially in expensive places and under rocks we often don't think to look. I hate to tell Ms. Nibot,"It ain't all about you, sweetheart." Just because you don't think a candidate should do any research except to learn all about your failings, doesn't mean Senator Weinberg is doing anything illegal or even unethical. It just tells me, you have more issues than a newstand. I don't know if I care to figure out what they all are before November 6 and I don't know if the voters have the time or inclination either.
See below for more links and articles explaining the real ways campaign money corrupts the political process. After reading them, tell me how a desperate Republican like Ms. Nibot can attack a popular honest Democratic State Senator like Loretta Weinberg who has just persuaded over 800 District 37 voters to give her 10$ each. Tell me that Niibot is the clean candidate when she can't even stay above the kind of nasty smears and innuendos that characterize the dirtiest of politics.
Ms. Nibot, it is you who needs to "come clean" and stop advertising yourself as the Clean Candidate when you are NOT.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 303 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)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.gif)
