Tonight: Pay-to-Play Ordinance: the Sequel

Its back!  

Tonight an amendment to Hoboken's Pay-to-Play ordinance, retooled after its recent rejection, is up for a final vote.  While I vigorously support local campaign finance reform, I'm drawn to the irony that neither sponsor of tonight's  ordinance has satisfied her own reporting obligations to NJ's Election Law Enforcement Commission ("NJ-ELEC").  That's a big no-no.  Without timely and accurate ELEC reporting, there is no way a municipality can enforce its Pay-to-Play law. 

And as ELEC reporting deficiencies go, this is a big one.

TIFFANIE FISHER CERTIFIED HER 2019 CAMPAIGN HAD NO OUTSTANDING DEBT OR OBLIGATIONS.... 

Tiffanie Fisher for Hoboken 2nd Ward: 438-day late 20 day Post Election Report

…BUT THAT IS FALSE. 

Tiffanie Fisher for Hoboken 2nd Ward: 438-day late 20 day Post Election Report

According to Fisher's 20 day Post Election report, her campaign fund carries debt ("outstanding obligations"). Debt can be paid off or transferred to another account, but the campaign fund has not "wound up its business" and cannot be closed until that is done.  

Yet the candidate, an elected official, certified this statement:

"I certify that all contributions to this campaign have been disbursed, that there are no outstanding loans or obligations, and that the election fund has would up its business and has been dissolved." 

Why?

Fisher also jettisoned her original Treasurer without filing the state- mandated "successor" form to the Commission (D-1, D-2 or DX).  Not a hanging offense, but sloppy.  And Pay-to-Play cosponsor Giattino, reported a campaign fund balance on October 2019, but has failed to file quarterly reports since.  Again, Pay-to-Play law cannot be enforced if elected officials and candidates do not file timely ELEC reports. 

   

IT'S BACK TONIGHT

So, when Councilmembers are this reckless and sloppy with their own campaign financial administration, are they qualified to rewrite campaign finance law?  When a Councilwoman cannot seem to follow simple rules, like how to close a campaign account or swap a Treasurer, is she knowledgeable enough about election law to rewrite it?   

I'm going to say no.  In my opinion.  

It's one thing to write legislation pertaining to dog doo; I assume all council dog owners pick up after their pets. Hence, council dog owners can be trusted to codify canine waste management, to keep our streets clean   But councilpersons who evade or ignore the state's election reporting rules are, in my opinion, unsuited to write law intended to keep elections clean.  

My opinion, folks. 

So what changes are  being proposed? For one, campaign contributions from a candidate's spouse and children are treated the same as those from vendors with the City of Hoboken. That seems... weird.  

Notably, the ordinance attempts to regulate Independent Expenditures (IEs).  How come nobody ever thought of that before*.  (*sarcasm) By their nature, IEs are unregulated; they operate independently from and without coordination with the candidate, committee or entity for which they produce communications, and IEs have no spending limit. 

Fisher's proposed reform  prohibits City vendors from making contributions to IEs within a year of the expiration of the contract.  It also prohibits awarding public contracts to contributors to IEs (within one year of the contribution date).  Is that legal, when City vendors are allowed to make individual contributions up to $300? I don't know. 

Unfortunately, IEs themselves are legal, thanks to Citizens United v  FEC.  So, how can a municipality keep them from interfering in local elections? Can a municipality refuse to do business with those who make legal contributions to a legal entity?  Sounds like fodder for a First Amendment complaint, in federal court.