The chances that Lawrence Township — or any other — might be able to enact its own clean elections program could depend on two issue: whether it is allowed under current state law and whether taxpayers will be willing to foot the bill.
And the two issues are dependent upon each other.
It is still too early to know whether the local public-financing initiative is legal — Lawrence’s attorney is still investigating the issue — and it is doubtful that the money angle will go away (property taxes are the single biggest issue in New Jersey right now). But the cost of public financing at the local level is not likely to be that great — if it costs a penny on the tax rate in most towns, I’d be surprised. But it still won’t be easy.
That said, the two main campaign finance reform groups differ on the desirability of a clean elections program.
N.J. Citizen Action has been at the forefront of public financing, drafting model ordinances and working with the state Legislature to enact it at the legislative level (though not at the local level), while Citizens’ Campaign is pushing alternative methods — broader disclosure rules, a ban on pay-to-play, etc.
I think readers know where I stand on this — I believe there is a need for public financing, because the other proposals ultimately end up being nothing more than temporary solutions (think of the Dutch boy and the leaking dam; each time he plugs one leak, another pop up).
Incremental reform can be useful — which is why I applaud every community that enacts pay-to-play bans and disclosure rules — but it only goes so — far less far. More is needed.
In a town like South Brunswick, a penny hike in the tax rate — which would bring in $350,000 — would cost the owner of the average house $25 ayear. That’s a small amount, espectially when he return can be so great.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick