“We’re in the money,
We’re in the money;
We’ve got a lot of what it takes to get along!”
The Bergen County Freeholders sang out a song of good cheer as they rolled back pay-to-play reforms in Bergen County.
The lone vote against the bipartisan majority was Freeholder Maura DeNicola, Republican from Franklin Lakes, NJ against rolling back
Republicans Mitchell and Felice, joined Democrats Ganz, Voss, Silna Zur and Tanelli, in their efforts to assure that struggling party coffers remain plentiful.
It has been a matter of public record that the pay-to-play laws were an obstacle for Bergen County’s political bosses. Soon after the county pay-to-play reforms were implemented in 2011, effort to rescind them began – and in October of 2012 County Executive Donovan vetoed a Freeholder similar effort to roll back reform.
Pay-to-play is a term used to describe political donations made by vendors, contractors, and consultants seeking to win government contracts. The new reforms limited the political contributions that could be made by those seeking to be awarded government contracts.
The most significant reform rollback will raise the contribution limit for no-bid contractors from $2,500 to $20,000. This would allow a single contributor/contractor to give an additional $17,500 to any county political party.
The Freeholders voting to roll back reform – all except DeNicola – proffered arguments that the reforms were unconstitutional and would not withstand a legal challenge. County Executive Donovan, when she vetoed the 2012 effort, stated that the courts should decide the constitutionality.
Pay-to-play reforms are intrinsically linked to campaign finance reforms, and the controversial Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court is the case most often cited by those opposing reform.
The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court extended the Bill of Rights to corporations, stating that limiting corporate political contributions was a matter of free speech. The decision continues to be controversial with public protest and legislative efforts to override it
Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion stated, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” Following the Supreme Court decision, Senator John McCain called the Supreme Court decision, “arrogant, uninformed, naïve”.
Pay-to-play reform is slightly different in Bergen County, and was specifically geared towards protecting the taxpayer dollar from the corruptive influence of political donations by limiting contributions from those who work under government contract.
The issues proffered by those resisting pay-to-play reform in Bergen County are far from settled in the national arena, and most likely far from settled in Bergen County as the ordinance heads for public hearing and final vote by the freeholders in May.
Submitted by Charles McCormick
Links:
http://conservativenewjersey.com/pay-for-play-battle-in-bergen
Everyone who is surprised by this please raise your hand? Wonder how long it will be before Oakland’s new pay-to-play ordinance is also repealed.