Several years ago, South Brunswick paid consultants to lobby the state and federal governments in an effort to win grants for its SMART bus and to get the widening of Route 1 moving.
The township in 2005 hired Cavarocchi, Ruscio and Dennis of Washington to take advantage of the firm’s influential ties to the power-holders, looking to cut through year’s of indifference by higher-level officials and get the township’s goals accomplished.
The cost was $120,000. The result, money for the bus line and some federal money for Route 1 and state interest in the widening. Money well-spent? Maybe, but only if you consider the issue from the narrowist of perspectives.
Considered more broadly — within the context of a story in today’s Star-Ledger — the money is part of a questionable trend that drains public coffers by privatizing the interaction between government agencies.
The story focuses on a report from the state comptroller that found that 74 government entities spent $3.87 million to lobby state government — a figure that the report acknowledges may understate the amount spent because it only includes self-reported spending and also does not include money paid in dues to organizations like the state League of Municipalities. It also does not take into account money spent to lobby the feds, which cost $1.9 million.
The government agencies included ran the gamut from municipal and county governments to school boards to independent authorities, with some spending as much as $536,000 over the two-year peeriod. And the lobbying issues included both general and specific issues —
The Mercer County Improvement Authority hired a lobbyist (for $136,000) to monitor legislation and work with NJ Transit, while Montgomery paid a lobbyist $17,000 to aid in the purchase of the North Princeton Developmental Center.
The report raises two questions — whether public agencies should be allowed to hire lobbyists and what kind of disclosures are necessary to ensure that citizens know what is going on in their names.
Five states ban the hiring of lobbyists — legislaton on which the comptroller neglects to take a position. Better disclosure, however, is absolutely necessary, he says.
“It makes no sense to permit public entities not to disclose information that private companies are required to provide about the hiring of lobbying firms,” State Comptroller Matthew Boxer said. “Given that we’re talking about a use of taxpayer dollars that some would deem controversial, public entities should in fact be held to a higher standard of transparency than private companies.”
He adds that
the public is certainly entitled to information from government entities hiring lobbying firms as to why such expenditures are necessary, whether steps have been taken to reduce costs and, in the end, what public benefits were derived.”
That’s the least we can expect.
Hank Kalet 