|
McHose proposes “Clean Election Law be voted on by the public next
year
TRENTON (12/19/07) - Assemblywoman Alison McHose (R-24)
testified yesterday at a hearing of the New Jersey Election Law
Enforcement Commission reviewing the 2007 “New Jersey Fair and Clean
Elections” pilot program. The 24th legislative district
in Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon counties was one of three districts
participating in the pilot project. McHose, her Republican running
mates and their Democratic opponents participated in the project.
In
a prepared statement McHose said any future program would have to
answer the questions “How much will it cost and who is going to pay
for it?”
To
this end, McHose proposed legislation establishing a commission to
study the costs and potential funding sources for the program for
legislative elections, primary legislative elections, and county
elections. She proposed the commission be charged with issuing
majority and minority reports no later than January 2009.
She added: “In order to afford the people of New Jersey the
opportunity to fully discuss the ‘clean elections’ concept, its
costs and funding sources, I would like to see the program on the
ballot as a non-binding referendum in November 2009.”
McHose stated that any future program should provide a means “so
that every citizen has the opportunity to participate as a candidate
for public office,” adding, “This should include the opportunity to
challenge a party’s choice in a primary election, to run under the
banner of a third party, or to stand as an independent candidate.”
“Such a program should be part of a systemic approach to political
reform in New Jersey that includes the way in which district lines
are drawn (hopefully moving to a non-partisan, non-incumbent
centered system like Iowa’s); the way in which legislative vacancies
are filled (again – moving away from selection by party
organizations to direct democratic elections); to addressing the
powers of legislative leaders to shut out alternative legislation
and so negate the votes of those who send ‘backbenchers’ to Trenton;
and finally, to transparency in campaign finance and caps on the use
of county and leadership accounts. Real reform must move along a
broad front of issues.”
The following are excerpts from a statement made by Assemblywoman
Alison McHose on the Fair and Clean Elections Project before the NJ
Election Law Enforcement Commission
12/18/2007
- “The Fair & Clean Elections
Program” was designed by the political class in Trenton to
address the need to do something about the perceived endemic
corruption in New Jersey politics. The program bears a right
sounding name, but when you come down to it, it is the taxpayer
funding of political campaigns and – in the case of this pilot
program – not only did the taxpayers fund our campaigns, they
paid for the program’s advance advertising hype too as this
stack of invoices makes clear.
- I am not opposed to the
idea of creating a means to provide for a basic threshold so
that every citizen has the opportunity to participate as a
candidate for public office. (However) This should include the
opportunity to challenge a party’s choice in a primary election,
to run under the banner of a third party, or to stand as an
independent candidate.
- Such a program should be
part of a systemic approach to political reform in New Jersey
that includes the way in which district lines are drawn
(hopefully moving to a non-partisan, non-incumbent centered
system like Iowa’s); the way in which legislative vacancies are
filled (again – moving away from selection by party
organizations to direct democratic elections); to addressing the
powers of legislative leaders to shut out alternative
legislation and so negate the votes of those who send
“backbenchers” to Trenton; and finally, to transparency in
campaign finance and caps on the use of county and leadership
accounts. Real reform must move along a broad front of issues.
- If we are going to ask
taxpaying citizens to support reforms that include a “clean
elections” type program expanded state-wide, to primary as well
as general elections, we are going to have to answer the
question I have been asking since the program was proposed, “How
do we pay for it?”
- Proponents have admitted it
could cost at least $100 million (some estimates go as high as
$300 million) and in the 2007 pilot program the state spent
almost as much on three districts here as the Arizona “clean
elections” program spends state-wide. That’s because Arizona
actually caps spending on its legislative elections at $11,945
for the primary and $17,918 for the general election. Not like
New Jersey, where in my district we set record spending levels
for the 2007 general election because of the “clean elections”
project. I would like to note that legislative districts in
Arizona have 170,000 residents. In New Jersey there are 210,000.
- I have proposed
establishing a commission to answer the questions, “How much
will it cost and who is going to pay for it?” The commission
will study the costs and potential funding sources for the "Fair
& Clean elections" program at various levels (general
legislative elections, primary legislative elections, and county
elections).
·
The commission would be made up of the
state Treasurer, the Executive Director of NJELEC, a majority member
of the Senate and Assembly, a minority member of the Senate and
Assembly, five members of the public (one appointed by the Governor,
two consensus appointments each by the Senate and Assembly). The
commission would be charged with issuing majority and minority
reports no later than January 2009.
·
In order to afford the people of New
Jersey the opportunity to fully discuss the “clean elections”
concept, its costs and funding sources, I am proposing that the
program be on the ballot as a non-binding referendum in November
2009.
·
As the program stands now – tied as it
is to past spending – it is simply unaffordable.
·
We don’t need a program that spends up
to the levels of politicians’ dream campaigns. We need one that
affords a candidate the basic means to communicate with voters
enough times to get his or her message across. It is too
complicated to base taxpayer-funding on a sliding scale tied to
media market rates and past spending. Each district has roughly the
same number of residents, postage costs the same everywhere, so why
not base it on the cost to mail X number of communications?
·
While the candidate would have the
option of spending money in his or her campaign but it would be a
uniform, fair – and more affordable – benchmark.
·
I’m also concerned the qualification
thresholds heavily favor establishment candidates, especially
incumbents, and especially incumbents backed by local party
organizations. What start-up candidate has access to a mailing list
of 800 contributors?
·
If we are serious about opening up the
system – we need to expand the number of qualification thresholds
and design the program for “outsider” candidates. If we don’t, we
will simply be creating a program to use taxpayers’ money to fund
the existing political class and that would be ethically wrong.
·
If we look at the program in Arizona
there is some question as to whether it has opened up the political
process. A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office reported:
“Access to public funding did not affect incumbent reelection
rates.” In fact, before instituting its program, 96% of Arizona’s
incumbent state senators were re-elected. In the three elections
under the program the rate has been 100%.
·
And yet Arizona has much lower
qualification thresholds. Legislative candidates there must collect
210 five dollar contributions. Even with these lower thresholds,
Arizona’s program has been a disaster for third party and
independent candidates. The report notes: “Since the passage of the
Clean Elections law, the Green Party is no longer officially
recognized in Arizona and no longer fields candidates.” If we are
going to fashion a worthwhile program for New Jersey, we must avoid
results like these.
·
While Maine reports that its program
has generated an increase in candidates running for the Legislature
there, in Arizona its “clean elections” program has actually seen a
decrease in the number of candidates running for office. Some
observers have explaned that Maine’s increase is more because its
legislators are term limited. Another reform worth considering as
we go through this process.
·
I was very heartened to see that voter
participation leaped in my district under the 2007 pilot program.
While this is no doubt due to the money spent on advertising by the
six qualifying candidates, it is a very positive development.
Unfortunately, the Arizona example doesn’t indicate an equivalent
jump in voter turnout, but then they spent at much lower levels than
we did in 2007.
·
Among the flaws revealed in the 2007
program was its failure to address legislative leadership accounts
and county party accounts and the potential impact they might have
on legislative elections covered under the “clean elections”
program. This should be addressed in any future program.
·
There also appears to be a loophole
that allows taxpayers’ money to be commingled with PAC money to fund
non-clean elections candidates – in effect allowing taxpayers’ money
to be meld into non-clean elections accounts. This loophole should
be closed.
·
And taking a reform championed by
Governor Corzine, a future program should prohibit convicted felons,
office holders under indictment, and individuals who have
unsatisfied tax liens from receiving money from the "clean
elections" program.
·
There also are a number of housekeeping
issues that need to be cleaned up with any future program. The
reporting regimen for $10 contributors was too stringent. For
instance, disqualifying contributions from individuals for failing
to report a middle initial in a name, or for using a mailing instead
of a physical address. It created a clerical burden that, while
handled well enough by established or party-backed candidates, could
rule out new, independent, and outsider candidates.
·
There is an over-reliance on cash
contributions to qualify. Cash contributions are always a potential
avenue for corruption and should be avoided Unfortunately the 2007
pilot program seemed to go against this longstanding truism to
embrace currency contributions.
·
The debate format frightened potential
debate hosts and was confusing enough that our campaign consultant
had to assist the Democrats in completing their forms in order to
qualify. Again, if unchanged it might be a hurdle for inexperienced
candidates.
·
Despite the ELEC staff’s best efforts,
the election laws governing the program were ambiguous, offered no
recourse, and were unenforceable.
·
No one thing is going to cure the
political class in New Jersey. This program, properly constructed,
openly debated among the voters, and with a funding source accepted
by the taxpaying public – could be of great value in constructing
the right set of checks and balances to effectively inhibit
corruption.
To that end, Senator-elect
Steve Oroho, Assemblyman-elect Gary Chiusano, and I will be
submitting a more detailed report in advance of the January 2nd
deadline.
Assemblywoman McHose also
thanked the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission for
holding the hearing and added that she hoped the Legislature will
permit the professional staff at NJ ELEC to provide their insight
into this program. The staff at ELEC, led by Executive Director Fred
Hermann, were very helpful and I would like to specifically thank
Legal Director Nedda Mazur and Mr. Felice Fava for their patience in
assisting the candidates of the 24th Legislative District
– both Republicans and Democrats.
|
