Council "ethics reform" invites DARK MONEY into Hoboken ELECTIONS

I finally watched the August 7th  City Council debate on the DeFusco-Fisher  ethics  ordinance, B-180, and learned quite a bit.  Council members had only publicized the Nixle aspect of the legislation (to stop the Administration from using Nixle for alleged "politicking"); they never mentioned the ethics exclusion they've created for themselves, a giant dark money loophole for special interests to dump money into Hoboken elections.  

I'll explain.  Per the alleged "ethics" legislation, Hoboken's mayor is prohibited from advocating for or against ballot initiatives, which the council calls "politicking." 

But, the Council exempted themselves from the same "politicking" prohibition they put on the mayor. 

Yes, DeFusco-Fisher's ordinance codified a gag on the mayor to stop him from speaking about pending  ballot initiatives ("politicking"), while the council crafted no such prohibition on their own advocacy.

First, the notion that speaking on a ballot initiative is  "politicking" is preposterous. Politicking is  the activity of trying to persuade or even force others to vote for a particular political party or candidate.  Persuasion for or against issues of public governance, direction of public money, new law, issues and matters of public concern is not politicking. 

More importantly, Hoboken's Corporation Counsel Brian Aloia cited the council's self-exclusion as a legal defect which rendered the ordinance illegal. If it is illegal, it is unenforceable.  But, Fisher and DeFusco and the rest of the Ramos coalition ignored the City of Hoboken's legal advice.  They passed it anyway. Why?

Curing the  defect- adding themselves to the prohibition from politicking on ballot initiatives- would have been simple. Why didn't they?

OPINION: THE REASON FISHER AND DEFUSCO EXEMPTED THEMSELVES FROM THEIR ETHICS LAW
Here's what I think.  The Council's self-exemption on politicking allows them to evade accountability for soliciting third parties and special interests to pump dark money into Hoboken elections, to pass or defeat ballot initiatives.

One only has to look back to 2018's ballot question on bringing back runoff elections and that shadowy special interest group, New Jersey Democracy in Action. 

Remember how New Jersey Democracy in Action came out of nowhere in the summer of 2018 to carpet-bomb Hoboken with "Vote Yes" mailers, and appeared at Mike Defusco's Pier 13 fundraiser; their citywide, full-color mailers must have cost at least $50,000, yet New Jersey Democracy in Action never reported its receipts and expenditures to the state, nor reported its donors.

An investigation by yours-truly turned up direct ties to none other than Councilman Ruben Ramos; one of New Jersey Democracy in Action's four Trustees worked with Ruben Ramos in Paterson, and was a Ramos for Council donor.  So, at least two Hoboken City Councilpersons, DeFusco and  Ramos, were connected to this shadowy, dark money-fueled group. 

NEW JERSEY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

So, it's not rocket science why Team Ramos omitted themselves accidentally-on-purpose from their "ethics reform."  

If DeFusco and Fisher prohibited council members from politicking for/against ballot referendums then running backdoor, dark money laundromats like New Jersey Democracy in Action would be more than sleazy, it would be unlawful. 

Sure, I believe this "ethics" exclusion was done with deeply unethical, nefarious intent.   Because the cure was so simple and DeFusco and Fisher elected not to do it.  Instead, they legislate their escape from accountability for the next "New Jersey Democracy in Action. "