The state Supreme Court has endorsed the state’s pay-to-play ban — and now needs to turn its attention to local bans seeking to accomplish the same thing.
The court in a unanimous decision Thursday affirmed an appellate court ruling that found that
the State’s interest in insulating the negotiation and award of State contracts from political contributions that pose the risk of improper influence, purchase of access, or the appearance thereof, is a sufficiently important interest to justify a limitation on political contributions. The panel further found that the $300 limitation on contributions to gubernatorial candidates and political committees by businesses and principals of businesses who enter into substantial State contracts constitutes a “means” of protecting this interest that is “closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of association freedoms.”
In particular, it is important that the state — whether it be the judiciary or the Legislature — step in and expand it to municipalities. The courts had nixed a portion of Monroe’s pay-to-play rules earlier this year — those governing money contributed by land developers — forcing the town to rewrite its ordinance. That was unfortunate and needs to be changed — as campaign finance reformers point out.
Harry Pozycki, chairman of the Citizens’ Campaign Legal Task Force that helped draft the campaign-finance law, applauded the Supreme Court decision and said the law’s reach should be expanded to all levels of government.
“Now that the Supreme Court has spoken so decisively, it’s time to quickly expand the approach used at the state level to county and municipal government,” he said.
State Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer) also called for a statewide ban.
“We must finally clean up New Jersey’s culture of corruption and restore
New Jerseyans’ faith and trust in their government,” he said.
It’s difficult to argue with that.
Hank Kalet 