The Center for Competitive Politics — the euphemistically named organization that opposes public financing of elections — has issues what it is calling a “study” that it says shows that special interests still control New Jersey politics.
The organization says that
members of interest groups provided the majority of “qualifying contributions” for candidates participating in the 2007 ?Clean Elections’ pilot project.
The New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) was the most frequently represented interest group among contributors.
NJEA members made up more than one quarter of all contributors. Members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) were the top givers to Republican candidates in the 24th district, making up nearly one-third of all donors in that district. NRA members also provided 17.9 percent of contributions to Republicans in the 14th District.
Other interest groups whose members provided significant support included New Jersey Right to Life (18.1 percent to Republicans in the 24th District), NARAL Pro-Choice New Jersey (16.7 percent to Democrats in the 14th District), the Communications Workers of America (16.7 percent to Republicans in the 14th District), and the Sierra Club (15.6 percent to Democrats in the 24th District).
This would be damning if it were more than just a direct-mail attack on the program. While the Center has some academic connections, the so-called study was just a mail survey similar in nature to the surveys that the Democratic and Republican National Committees send out as fundraising tools.
Sen. Bill Baroni, a Mercer County Republican and clean-elections backer, said the numbers issued in the so-called report do not match his experience with the program.
He told PolitickerNJ:
“I don’t know where they got their data, so God bless them. I can tell you that every one of our contributions was one in a series of backyard barbeques and coffee gatherings organized by individuals, along with some mailings,” he said.
Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, D-Camden, a supporter of clean elections, was more blunt, telling The Star-Ledger,
“This unscientific ‘survey’ and its results are not persuasive at all and just another excuse (for opponents) to oppose the program.”
(Tomorrow’s Dispatches will focus on the Davis decision that opponents are using to challenge clean elections.)
Hank Kalet 