The New Jersey State Legislature has talked a good game when it comes to governmental ethics reform, but, has allowed the Clean Elections Program to be discontinued with a mere whimper from Speaker Roberts and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Of course, by definition, those who were elected in our pay-to-play state are the winners in the unreformed system, so it is no surprise that they have ceded the reform initiative to US Attorney Chris Christie and the courts. Mr. Christie apparently sees what they refuse to acknowledge -- reform is not only an idea whose time has come. As Christie’s gubernatorial poll numbers suggest, those who do not energetically pursue reform may find themselves losing elections. But, there are those who refuse to face facts.

After it was determined (on September 2, 2008) that New Jersey’s Clean Elections Program would be suspended during 2009 and maybe beyond, Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) issued the following lukewarm statement: “Instead of rushing to find stop-gap solutions, Clean Elections simply needs a time-out.” The timidity of the Speaker’s response is most noteworthy here.

But, even as Republican US Attorney Christie has been bagging the unclean, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan (R), Conservative Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R), and Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean Jr. (R) vociferously oppose Clean Elections.

While Lonegan directly referred to Clean Elections as “welfare for politicians,” McHose gave a more nuanced characterization of the program as a big government, Democratic Party scheme. “Our tax dollars will be used to subsidize the Democrats,” she told a group of constituents. And Kean Jr. voiced the oxymoronic thought that the Clean Elections Program, which eliminates the pay-to-play financing of incumbents, was nothing more than an incumbency protection plan.

Although not readily apparent, the comments of McHose and Kean, Jr. are the most outrageous in light of the fact that they are both beneficiaries of the State’s most vibrant government sponsored, entitlement program…otherwise known as legacy. Ordinary, community activists and those simply committed to good government often don’t meet the qualifications for that affirmative action program for establishment pols.

Many of us agree on the need for change and ethical reform in New Jersey politics, particularly, and in Washington, D.C., generally. Many of us believe that bringing more outsiders, like women and people of color, into political power will benefit us as a state, nation, and democracy.

Yet, there is a problem in actualizing this goal. Most of these change candidates, who desire to serve the public and add to the public debate, do not come to politics armed with the political funding needed to prevail in tough fights against firmly entrenched incumbents. Clean elections financing levels the playing field here.

The Clean Elections Program gives everyday people, at the grassroots level, the ability to really participate in State races. It sends the strong message: corporate donors and lobbyists do not have an unbreakable hold on our political system.

Yes, New Jersey’s Clean Elections Program has some difficulties to overcome. Yes, the fact that a U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling (in Davis vs. Federal Election Commission) requires the program to be reworked. And yes, the onerous paperwork and that it doesn’t cover all elections are problematic.

But, despite these hurdles, the energetic pursuit of a Clean Elections program must be on the front burner, not languishing in a “time out” of unsure duration. The drumbeat of headlines and federal indictments are bound to arouse New Jersey voters. Incumbents who think that they can just hunker down while outsourcing political reform to the US Attorney’s office may be in for a big surprise at the ballot box.