Marlboro puts off action on pay-to-play

Marlboro puts off
action on pay-to-play
Council wants
more time to
review ordinance
BY LARRY RAMER
Staff Writer

For the second time in six months, the Marlboro Township Council has delayed taking action on so-called "pay-to-play" reforms.

Representatives of Common Cause New Jersey, a citizen lobby group, addressed the council regarding pay-to-play reforms at a meeting on Oct. 23. The organization also made a presentation to the council on the matter in May, but the governing body has not taken any action on the pay-to-play issue since then.

Pay-to-play refers to the practice of candidates for office who win election to a governing body giving public contracts to individuals or firms that made contributions to their campaign.

Common Cause’s pay-to-play ordinance would place a limit on campaign contributions that may be given to local candidates by individuals or firms who have a contract with the town. The ordinance would prevent professionals who do business with the municipality from contributing more than $400 to candidates for mayor or council.

Under the terms of the ordinance, municipal contractors would not be able to contribute more than $500 to any county or local political committee. Members of the contractor’s immediate family would also be covered by the limits.

"State and local governments continue to overspend on contracts ... and campaign contributions are traded for public contracts. We want to sever the link between contributions and contracts," Steven Reed, a student working with Common Cause, told council members.

Acting Township Attorney Jonathan Williams said he drafted an alternative pay-to-play ordinance, which was presented to the council during the Oct. 23 meeting.

Council members said they needed more time to review the proposed ordinance before taking action on the measure.

Williams added that he was concerned about constitutional issues surrounding pay-to-play restrictions.

"The issue of restrictions on First Amendment rights involving pay-to-play legislation has been raised," the attorney said.

Courts have ruled that limiting contributions by municipal contractors to county organizations, which then pass on funds to local candidates, restricts free speech, Williams said.

Likewise, scholars have questioned the constitutionality of limiting contributions by contractors’ families, the lawyer added.

Williams’ law firm, DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole, and Wisler, has received contracts on the state and local levels. The firm frequently makes campaign contributions to local and statewide candidates, according to published arti­cles and election reports.

Williams said he would work with rep­resentatives of Common Cause New Jersey to draft a pay-to-play ordinance that would be able to withstand legal challenges.

"I have every confidence that we’ll adopt an ordinance that will be bullet­proof to constitutional challenges," Williams said.

Common Cause New Jersey first ad­dressed the council regarding a pay-to-play ordinance in May. The council has not acted on the matter since then.

Council President Ellen Karcher has said that the resignation of former Township Attorney John O. Bennett III, which took place in March, hindered the council’s ability to act on a pay-to-play ordinance. Karcher, who has said she is in favor of pay-to-play reform, called the ordinance that was drafted by Williams "impressive." She suggested that Williams reconcile his draft ordinance with Common Cause’s proposal, which she said she had not yet seen.

Councilman Barry Denkensohn raised an objection to adopting a pay-to-play or­dinance.

"We need [campaign] funding sources so that people who are not rich can run for office," Denkensohn said.

He added that he still needs to study the matter before making a decision.

Councilwoman Mary Singer disagreed with that point of view.

"You don’t need a lot of money to get the word out on the local level," Singer said. "If you’re doing a good job people will realize that and make personal con­tributions."

Singer said she had raised $7,000, primarily from individual donations, and spent about $7,000 of her own money in her failed June mayoral primary race, which she lost by a small margin to Robert Kleinberg.

"It’s like gambling in Atlantic City. You have to be willing to lose some money," Singer said.

The councilwoman, who originally raised the pay-to-play issue on the council early this year, added that she believes there is a certain quid pro quo involved in campaign donations. Company officials expect that they will receive some benefit from their contributions, while officehold­ers expect allegiance from the companies to whom they give contracts, Singer ex­plained.

Mayor Matthew Scannapieco, who did not attend the Oct. 23 meeting, said, "The council has done nothing to enact pay-to-play reform since Common Cause made its recommendations (in May). I’m sur­prised at that since ethics has been a cen­terpiece of (Karcher’s) state Senate cam­paign and pay-to-play is a significant eth­ical issue, she has done nothing to enact it in her own town, where she has power to do so."