Editorial: A close look at campaign finance reform
"Pay to play" is the latest catchphrase in the lexicon of campaign finance reform, raising the specter that those who contribute to political campaigns are expecting a return on their investment in the form of government contracts and jobs.
This is nothing new, of course. Law firms and engineering companies are regular contributors to state, county and local political races, and many end up working for the folks their money helped elect, some doing good work and others witness the fiascos surrounding the overhaul of the state motor-vehicle inspection system or the creation of the EZ-Pass program.
Efforts to curb the influence of campaign contributions, which began in earnest following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, have focused on limiting contributions to candidates and political parties. (Banning them altogether, the courts have ruled, would deny political expression and violate the First Amendment.) And in elections subsidized by public financing the presidential and New Jersey gubernatorial races are two examples candidates who accept public funds agree to a ceiling on campaign expenditures, which further limits the influence of any individual contribution.
But "pay to play" has survived these reforms. One of the byproducts of campaign finance reform has been a proliferation of political action committees to spread money around: party PACs, gubernatorial PACs, legislative leadership PACs, interest group PACs, industry PACs. Those who make the maximum allowable contributions to these PACs, as well as to candidates, count on the recipients calculating (and appreciating) their generosity in the aggregate, and rewarding them accordingly after each election.
Gov. James E. McGreevey pulled a fast one in his annual message a couple of weeks ago, calling for an end to "pay to play" and, in the process, killing any chance that it might happen anytime soon. Instead of supporting a measure, already approved by the Senate and awaiting action in the Assembly, that would ban the practice at the state level, the governor said he would veto any reform that did not extend to county and municipal governments as well opening up a can of worms that hundreds of mayors, council members and freeholders find decidedly unappetizing.
But it is obvious that something needs to be done the question is how to do it without violating the First Amendment (as a complete ban on hiring firms who have given to candidates would seem to do) and without turning the hiring of consultants into a bureaucratic mess.
Other questions include: Should it apply to current contractors, as well as those seeking contracts? To attorneys who act as confidential and legal advisors as well as engineers, accountants and others whose jobs are focused on technical expertise? And what kinds of contributions should trigger the ban? Should someone who contributes to Monroe Mayor Richard Pucci’s re-election fund be banned from working for the state, or someone who has contributed to the McGreevey campaign be prevented from providing consulting services in Cranbury?
These and many more questions need to be answered before a well-intentioned reform leads to a host of unintended consequences.

