Tag: Greenstein

The state Election Law Enforcement Commission told us Monday that a decision on Linda Greenstein’s request for “rescue funds” under the state’s clean elections law would come by Wednesday morning.

Seems an obvious question to answer: Is an outside organization targeting a candidates in an effort to sway voters? The answer, of course, is yes.

But Brian Brown, chairman of Common Sense America and executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, groups that agitate against same-sex marriage, is correct when he says he has a constitutional right to weigh in on the campaign.

This goes for these shadowy groups — the National Organization for Marriage Web site appears to be little more than a vessel to collect donations — and bigger, more established groups like the Nation Organization for Women, the Sierra Club, etc.

Imagine that NOW was running ads seeking to highlight the pro-choice positions of Seema Singh or Linda Greenstein, or to ask the other four candidates to state explicitly where they stand. Should state law preclude the ability of issue-groups to advocate on behalf of their issues, even if their advocacy may be interpreted as electioneering? The answer seems obvious to me — as it should to anyone who values the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That’s why, as I said yesterday, the “rescue fund” provision exists. Remember, the clean elections program is voluntary — and must remain voluntary for it to pass constitutional muster. Candidates do not have to participate.

But candidates who opt in, as seven of the eight candidates who are on the ballot have, should not be placed at a disadvantage (doing so will only provide a disincentive to opt in, defeating clean elections and leaving private money and its corrosive influence in place) should they face a candidate with deep pockets who chooses not to participate, or an attack from an outside group like Common Sense America.

While the candidates have called for Brown to “leave the district” or to cease and desist, supporters of clean elections should be thankful that the controversy erupted — and that Libertarian Jason Scheurer is suing over the distribution of cash. These little hurdles offer important tests of the program, giving the state Legislature a better handle on how it should work when applied statewide in the (hopefully) very near future.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Linda Greenstein is under attack from an unaffiliated organization that she says is distorting her record.

According to press release issued Friday, “for rescue funds under the Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Program as a result of an egregious attack campaign undertaken by a third-party organization.”

A group named Common Sense America, based in Princeton, N.J., has reportedly placed a $125,000 radio buy with WKXW 101.5 FM. Constituents in Assemblywoman Greenstein’s district also are receiving push poll calls that distort her legislative record on issues including taxes, monetization, criminal sentencing and same sex marriage. Supporters reported these calls to the campaign beginning the evening of October 11, 2007.

The attacks, she says, are a violation of the state’s clean elections law and warrant an infusion of cash designed to level the playing field.

The district’s Republican candidates — Assemblyman Bill Baroni for senate and Adam Bushman and Tom Goodwin for Assembly — have denounced the third-party ads, as well.

To some, the attack ads might show a flaw in the clean elections program. But no one should be surprised. The system was set up to deal with just such an outside assault. That’s why there is a rescue fund.

The clean elections fund, contrary to what some of the state’s papers may imply, is not designed as a panacea. It can’t clean up elections all by itself. The state — and the nation — have to cleanse the political culture.

In the meantime, third-party ads are a fact of life.

Of greater concern is the general unfairness of current system, which grants independent and third-party candidates less money than their major-party opponents.

Earlier this week, Jason Scheurer, a Libertarian who qualified as a “clean elections” Assembly candidate in the 14th District, sued for state funding on an equal footing with the major party candidates. The program provides greatly reduced funding to independents.

Scheurer got $23,521 for raising 448 contributions of $10 each. If he were a Democrat or Republican, he would have been entitled to $103,645 under the formula for distributing state funding.

His lawsuit also challenges the fairness of provisions allowing candidates who raised 400 contributions of $10 each by Aug. 17 to have a 250-word statement printed on sample ballots and to run with the slogan “clean elections candidate.” Scheurer missed that deadline, while his Democratic and Republican opponents met it.

“His money is just as clean as the other candidates’ money. He just gets an awful lot less of it,” Scheurer’s attorney, Walter Luers of Atlantic Highlands, said. “Whether he gets a 250-word statement on the ballot should not be determined by his fundraising capability.”

He’s right, of course. At least on this.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.