Don't Cut Clean Elections Funding
May 10, 2008 |
Dierdre's
Corner
From Dierdre's editorial in the May 8 Record:
Granted, New Jersey's Clean Elections program may need some fine-tuning in order to live up to its full potential. Yet, under no circumstances should its funding be cut to the point that it becomes yet another toothless governmental ethics reform measure.
Data released by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission show that 669 firms that gave $15 million in political contributions received $5.17 billion in contracts from all levels of government. According to a recent news report, "that's a return of $345 for every dollar donated."
And we wonder why New Jersey voters have so little confidence in statewide government.
The proposed reduction to the already under-funded election commission would place the five-member Special Programs Division in jeopardy. This division oversees the Clean Elections program and answers an average of 200 calls per day.
As well, this ill-advised proposal does not take into consideration the surplus cash returned to the state's coffers as a result of the Clean Elections process. For example, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood, returned a $13, 000 overage to the state that was left over from her Clean Elections campaign.
If New Jersey is to be serious about getting its governmental house in order, it must prioritize substantive and sustained change. Anything less sends the unmistakable message: Ethics in government is not a priority in the Garden State.
Because of our growing reputation as a kleptocracy, our Legislature signed a "sweeping," although half-hearted, set of ethics reforms into law in 2004. The ethics reforms were intended to address justifiable voter concern about dual-office holding, pension tacking and political influence-peddling (especially in the form of pay-to-play.)
Unfortunately, the Legislature had neither the heart nor the stomach to produce ethics reform legislation with teeth, except when it came to Clean Elections. But instead of cleaning itself up, the Legislature mostly passed the buck down the chain of responsibility, adding complications to the already stressful lives of public employees.
How? For one, adjunct professors subsisting on annual incomes of less than $20,000 found that their very modest pensions were at risk because they were somehow prioritized as significant pension tackers! But what about the powerful career politicians whom the reforms were initially designed to target? They conveniently passed the buck to others.
Another example of "reform" is specific to public employees who are compelled to search around (on company time, mind you) for a charity to which they can donate a $25 box of chocolates received from a student's family for a job well done! Is this really the heart of ethics problems in the public sector?
I don't know about you, but I don't think that this is what the bill's sponsors intended when they first set out to tackle governmental ethics. It is certainly not what our state's citizens consider the most pressing matter compromising their confidence in government.
Clean Elections and other real campaign financing reforms not only help to restore integrity to state-level government, they also help to incorporate more women and people of color into New Jersey's political system.
Our county-level politics remain a white, male enterprise. True, there are a number of white women who have made it through and now hold elective office. But if they oppose the male-dominated county machines, they find themselves attacked.
There are also some black and Latino men who have broken barriers and entered the upper echelons of county-level politics. But most of them are handpicked and financially backed by powerful county political machines as "diversity" window dressing. Noticeably absent from this level of political power are women of color.
During 2007, I ran against a machine-backed incumbent for the Englewood City Council. I ran as an independent Democrat who also happens to be a black woman, with a grass-roots coalition of labor, higher education and political activist support. Although I did not defeat the incumbent last time, my campaign garnered 40 percent of the vote. This was a remarkable result for a new, relatively unknown candidate running in a year with very poor voter turnout.
For me, running was an opportunity of a lifetime.
Of course, the urgent need to raise campaign funds and be competitive was time-consuming and difficult. Despite the handicaps inherent in being a political newcomer, I managed an effective campaign that stayed in the black.
Having the ability to participate in a Clean Elections program would have helped me as a challenger of the unsatisfactory status quo. I would have had a greater opportunity to reach out to residents who need to learn about an alternative to the corrupt, pay-to-play way of doing business that the political machinery props up.
If the Legislature is serious about reforming government and restoring competitive integrity to the process, it needs to put its proverbial money where its mouth is. Anything less perpetuates the failure of governments at all levels to live up to their mission of responsible, unselfish public service.
Granted, New Jersey's Clean Elections program may need some fine-tuning in order to live up to its full potential. Yet, under no circumstances should its funding be cut to the point that it becomes yet another toothless governmental ethics reform measure.
Data released by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission show that 669 firms that gave $15 million in political contributions received $5.17 billion in contracts from all levels of government. According to a recent news report, "that's a return of $345 for every dollar donated."
And we wonder why New Jersey voters have so little confidence in statewide government.
The proposed reduction to the already under-funded election commission would place the five-member Special Programs Division in jeopardy. This division oversees the Clean Elections program and answers an average of 200 calls per day.
As well, this ill-advised proposal does not take into consideration the surplus cash returned to the state's coffers as a result of the Clean Elections process. For example, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood, returned a $13, 000 overage to the state that was left over from her Clean Elections campaign.
If New Jersey is to be serious about getting its governmental house in order, it must prioritize substantive and sustained change. Anything less sends the unmistakable message: Ethics in government is not a priority in the Garden State.
Because of our growing reputation as a kleptocracy, our Legislature signed a "sweeping," although half-hearted, set of ethics reforms into law in 2004. The ethics reforms were intended to address justifiable voter concern about dual-office holding, pension tacking and political influence-peddling (especially in the form of pay-to-play.)
Unfortunately, the Legislature had neither the heart nor the stomach to produce ethics reform legislation with teeth, except when it came to Clean Elections. But instead of cleaning itself up, the Legislature mostly passed the buck down the chain of responsibility, adding complications to the already stressful lives of public employees.
How? For one, adjunct professors subsisting on annual incomes of less than $20,000 found that their very modest pensions were at risk because they were somehow prioritized as significant pension tackers! But what about the powerful career politicians whom the reforms were initially designed to target? They conveniently passed the buck to others.
Another example of "reform" is specific to public employees who are compelled to search around (on company time, mind you) for a charity to which they can donate a $25 box of chocolates received from a student's family for a job well done! Is this really the heart of ethics problems in the public sector?
I don't know about you, but I don't think that this is what the bill's sponsors intended when they first set out to tackle governmental ethics. It is certainly not what our state's citizens consider the most pressing matter compromising their confidence in government.
Clean Elections and other real campaign financing reforms not only help to restore integrity to state-level government, they also help to incorporate more women and people of color into New Jersey's political system.
Our county-level politics remain a white, male enterprise. True, there are a number of white women who have made it through and now hold elective office. But if they oppose the male-dominated county machines, they find themselves attacked.
There are also some black and Latino men who have broken barriers and entered the upper echelons of county-level politics. But most of them are handpicked and financially backed by powerful county political machines as "diversity" window dressing. Noticeably absent from this level of political power are women of color.
During 2007, I ran against a machine-backed incumbent for the Englewood City Council. I ran as an independent Democrat who also happens to be a black woman, with a grass-roots coalition of labor, higher education and political activist support. Although I did not defeat the incumbent last time, my campaign garnered 40 percent of the vote. This was a remarkable result for a new, relatively unknown candidate running in a year with very poor voter turnout.
For me, running was an opportunity of a lifetime.
Of course, the urgent need to raise campaign funds and be competitive was time-consuming and difficult. Despite the handicaps inherent in being a political newcomer, I managed an effective campaign that stayed in the black.
Having the ability to participate in a Clean Elections program would have helped me as a challenger of the unsatisfactory status quo. I would have had a greater opportunity to reach out to residents who need to learn about an alternative to the corrupt, pay-to-play way of doing business that the political machinery props up.
If the Legislature is serious about reforming government and restoring competitive integrity to the process, it needs to put its proverbial money where its mouth is. Anything less perpetuates the failure of governments at all levels to live up to their mission of responsible, unselfish public service.
