Seema Singh is the first to hit the 400-contribution threshold necessary to qualify for public financing under the state’s pilot clean election program. I was expecting Bill Baroni to get there first, but it doesn’t matter. The game is on. Now let’s hope the other five get there quickly — along with the two independents — and that all hit the magic 800-threshold.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
This post from Wally Edge offers some pretty interesting speculation on whether the Democrats might want to shield Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein from having her committee review a death penalty repeal bill. The notion is that the Democratic leadership would move the legislation to a different committee to spare her having to take a high-profile stance on a difficult issue in a district that includes Hamilton (considered a bulwark of death-penalty support) — and to keep from angering death penalty abolitionists.
Supporters of ending the death penalty are worried that Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein’s tenuous hold on her own competitive legislative district — past polling has shown support for the death penalty, especially in blue-collar Hamilton Township — and her fear of tough stands, might make her less likely to support their cause.
Amazing what an issue-based story can do for the political process (yes, I am patting the Post on the back).
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here
Politics NJ’s Wally Edge has some thoughts on our story on the death penalty. His notion is that Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein “waits to see how her Republican colleague, Bill Baroni, votes before she makes a final decision” on legislation.
He then takes her to task for having no position on the death penalty and likens it to her abstention on an Assembly resolution “opposing the Bush Adminstration’s plan on Iraq.”
Refusing to take positions on core issues like Iraq and the death penalty won’t help her gain enthusiasm among Democratic base voters for her re-election campaign.
While I agree that her non-position is vexing to say the least, and a bit off-putting, I doubt that Democrats will be abandoning her at the polls. The logistics of electoral politics and the importance of maintaining a majority end up overshadowing any misgivings voters have about candidates.
This is especially true in the wake of the 2000 presidential race, one lost by a sitting vice president because he didn’t carry Florida. There are still Democrats who are angry at Ralph Nader for cyphoning votes in Florida and a couple of other close states and possibly tilting the vote toward then-Gov. George Bush.
I doubt that declared Democrats would be willing to allow something like to happen to Greenstein, no matter how angry they might get.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
The Star-Ledger comments today on the case of Byron Halsey, who had his double-murder conviction overturned earlier this thanks to DNA evidence tying the crime to someone else — someone who had testified against him during the 1988 trial.
The Ledger correctly notes that
The case is cause for grave concern about police interrogation tactics, lie detector tests, confessions and the overall well-being of the justice system.
The Halsey case is another in a long line of cases in which seemingly incontrovertable evidence — in this case a confession — proves not to be so incontrovertable, after all, the confession apprently coming after a long, difficult interrogation.
That confessions aren’t always what they appear to be is yet another lesson. To many, it seems almost incomprehensible that suspects would confess to crimes they didn’t commit, but criminologists say false confessions are not as rare as some believe.
Halsey’s lawyers had argued that the length and circumstances surrounding his interrogation made his statements unreliable.
It’s a lesson that the federal government should take to heart as it attempts to justify its torture program at Guantanamo and one that should be factored into the debate over the death penalty here in New Jersey.
One of the striking things about this case is that the crimes committed are exactly the kinds of crimes that those who support the death penalty regularly point to as a reason to preserve capital punishment. Halsey was sentenced to life in prison — the death penalty was sought by prosecutors because the murder victims were children and apparently raped, but the jury opted not to impose it.
Consider the candidates for state Senate and Assembly from the 14th District. Four of them — the three Republicans, Assemblyman Bill Baroni, who is running for state Senate, and Assembly candidates Adam Bushman and Tom Goodwin, along with Democratic Assembly candidate Wayne D’Angelo — express doubts about the death penalty, but believed it should be retained for cases of terrorism, child murder and the killing of prosecutors, police or witnesses in criminal cases.
“Can you imagine if a convicted terrorist were allowed to stay alive, letting him continue to rally and support his cause?” (Mr. Bushman) said.
Then again, wouldn’t putting a terrorist to death turn him into a martyr? That, however, is a side issue. The question here is whether we can eliminate doubt from the process, whether we can ever be completely certain of the guilt of the men and women being sentenced to death.
There are other issues surrounding capital punishment — moral and ethical concerns, its effectiveness as a deterrent, etc. — but the question of guilt or innocence and our inability to ever be 100 percent sure seems paramount (and tied back to the moral and ethical issues).
Human nature being what it is, there is no way to ensure that we are not sentencing an innocent man or woman to death. That being the case, how can we not abolish capital punishment?
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here
A Saturday story in the Portland Herald Press details a Maine report on its clean elections program that offers an example of why supporters of public financing in New Jersey are so hot to have the pilot program here work. The 14th legislative district, which includes Cranbury, Jamesburg, Monroe and South Brunswick, was chosen as one of three pilot districts this year. Assembly members Bill Baroni, a Republican, and Linda Greenstein, a Democrat, are co-sponsors of the clean-elections program and probably the Legislature’s biggest backers.
According to the Maine paper, the 11-year-old clean-elections law “has encouraged more people to seek office and boosted the number of challengers who take on incumbents.” The law has helped control “direct spending by legislative candidates, but not indirect campaign spending by special interests” because “political action committees and political parties are spending more to help or hurt candidates.”
This should not be a surprise — nor should it be used to damn the law. Interest group ads were a prominent feature of the last presidential race and have become a staple of races for all level of office. One option is for clean elections legislation to provide a boost in funds to candidates targeted by independent groups or those who run against candidates who opt out of the system.
The goal of public financing, however, is not just to reduce costs. Privately financed campaigns already cost the public a lot, though those costs are hard to quantify (pay-to-play contracts, corruption, access to legislators). Public financing breaks this connection, while also increasing participation.
“I think the most significant findings are that the act is encouraging first-time candidates to run for office” and allowing challengers to run competitive races, said Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the state ethics commission.
From 1990 through 2000, the number of general-election legislative candidates averaged 349, the report says. That number jumped to 391 candidates in 2004 and to 386 in 2006, as public financing became more popular.
Adopted by Maine voters in a 1996 referendum, the Clean Election Act first made public financing available in legislative races in 2000 and in gubernatorial campaigns in 2002. In last year’s general election, 81 percent of the candidates for the Legislature used the Clean Election Fund to pay for their races. So did three of the five gubernatorial candidates who were on the ballot in November.
Let’s hope the New Jersey pilot works and that clean elections can be expanded to the entire Legislature next time out.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 