Pay-to-Play reform, with the accompanying argument of campaign finance reform, were subjects discussed at Oakland’s last town council meeting.
A proposal to implement a local pay-to-play ordinance, as has been done in communities across the nation and in neighboring Franklin Lakes, was met with some skepticism in Oakland.
One argument, proffered by borough attorney Brian Chewcaskie, latched on to opinions voiced by political party bosses and union leaders in Bergen County that these ordinances sweeping the nation are unconstitutional. The other argument, proffered by council member Visconti, was that corruption in politics will always exist, so why bother.
Borough attorney, Brian Chewcaskie, struck down the recently passed Bergen County pay-to-play ordinance as unconstitutional. He joins Republican Party leader Yudin and longtime Democrat and Bergen County Freeholder David Ganz who have expressed similar opinions; though Ganz, in a case of political ‘..whatever..’, voted in favor of Bergen County’s new pay-for-play reform.
Oakland’s borough attorney, Brian Chewcaskie, is one of the single largest contributors to the Oakland Republican Club – and hence, the counselor’s contribution of constitutional concerns contain a comical component.
But the issues of pay-to-play and campaign finance reform often overlap in that there is the perception that money talks, and unregulated cash in an election may leave voters wondering whose voice is being represented; but pay-to-play reform is normally associated with limiting the amount of money given by people who work for the government.
The goal of pay-to-play has a very focused purpose which is to restrict people earning taxpayer money to use that money in an effort to curry favor to be given a position, a contract or a job. It seeks to restrict vendors, contractors, and unions from using money to unfairly influence government spending.
Efforts have existed in America for over one hundred years to limit the influence of money in politics, and continue today with pay-to-play laws being enacted by states, counties, towns, and on the national level by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms.
The Supreme Court ruling alluded to during the Oakland town council meeting, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), essentially decided that corporations and business entities had a First Amendment right to freedom of speech…and limitations on giving money was limiting the free speech of corporations, unions and PACs.
Opponents of pay-to-play laws are hoping they can piggy-back on this 2010 Supreme Court ruling to challenge pay-to-play reform.
Many supporters of campaign finance reform, including Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, blasted the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC as, “one of the worst decisions I have ever seen”. His sentiments echoed those of dissenting Justice Stevens who called it, “a rejection of the common sense of the American people”.
The ruling also inspired comedian Stephen Colbert to form his own Super PAC, Americans For a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. In a 2011 email Colbert stated, “As you know, when we began Colbert Super PAC, we had a simple dream; to use the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling to fashion a massive money cannon that would make all those who seek the White House quake with fear and beg our allegiance…in strict accordance with federal election law.”
But now the US Supreme Court may be reviewing the Citizens United vs FEC decision. The Monatana State Supreme Court, in December of 2011, essentially told the US Supreme Court to go ‘FEC themselves’. The US Supreme Court responded with an order that suspends the Montana decision “pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari”.
The Supreme Court Justices in Montana openly defied a US Supreme Court decision, and it would have been expected that the US Supreme Court would simply reverse them. Instead they chose a route where the Citizens United vs FEC decision may be reviewed, “A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”
There were dissenting views on the Montana Supreme Court who saw no legal basis for defying the US Supreme Court, but they still voiced strong opposition to the Citizens United vs FEC decision.
“Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers —not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers….Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people— human beings— to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
Oakland council member Coira brought the proposal for a local play-to-play ordinance to the town council for discussion. The arguments concerning pay-to-play reform will be addressed by the council in the coming months.
Below are videos for entertainment purposes
The first is political ad produced by the Super PAC, Americans For a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and the second is a previous Oakland town council meeting.
Article submitted by Richard Saunders
I hope Councilman Visconti and his cohorts view Sen. McCain’s speech on “pay to play” history. We need representatives who will fight to suppress these acts of buying jobs through political donations. Pay to play, nepotism and cronyism are the reasons our government is being run shabbily by corrupt leaders. Please, please, Mr. Visconti, look at ALL the pay to play, nepotism and cronyism which is going on right under your nose.
As any Oakland citizen would do, I did a little research into this Pay for Play idea. Thanks to our friends over at Oakland Victory, they had a scanned official form showing who paid what to whom. Here is what it uncovered: The engineer firm named Boswell, the borough attorney firm named Gittleman, Mulstock and Chewcaskie and the auditor who this town MUST return regardless of late reports and kooky billing practices named DiMaria ALL DONATED to the Oakland Republicans! Is this a coincidence???? or is this Pay-for-Play??? I can’t wait for the next election, this gang has yet to learn their lesson. I will be voting Republican straight down the line, except switching to the Democrats when it comes to council.
Editor’s note: The article mentioned above on the Oakland Victory site can found at this link.