Ordinance criticized for county exclusion.
By: Lea Kahn
Aiming to initiate campaign finance reform at the municipal level, Township Council introduced an ordinance Tuesday that would limit the amount of money that an attorney, engineer or other professional could contribute to a political campaign.
The ""ordinance to stop the practice known as "pay to play" was introduced by a 4-1 vote. Mayor Mark Holmes, Deputy Mayor Pam Mount and Councilmen Michael Powers and Greg Puliti all Democrats voted yes. Councilman Rick Miller, the lone Republican on the council, voted no.
Mr. Miller said that while he supports campaign financing reform, he could not support the ordinance that was introduced Tuesday night. He said he would have preferred using an ordinance that has already been adopted in other towns, rather than one that was crafted in Lawrence.
Audience members, including a representative from the government watchdog group, Common Cause, also criticized the proposal because it doesn’t specifically ban campaign donations made to the county political committees, which can funnel the money back to the candidates running in municipal elections.
Under state law, a governing body may award a contract without seeking bids to professionals such as attorneys, engineers, architects and planners. Pay-to-play ordinances ban or restrict the amount of money that these professionals could contribute to a political campaign.
The issue of pay-to-play was raised during the Township Council race last fall. The Republican candidates Colette Coolbaugh, Robert Brackett and Victor Murray favored a pay-to-play ordinance. Democratic candidate Greg Puliti, an incumbent councilman who was serving as mayor at that time, suggested waiting for the state Legislature to address the issue.
State election law already calls for the name of a donor to be listed on campaign finance reports if that donor has contributed $400 or more.
The law also applies to political action committees. The Lawrence Township Democratic and Republican clubs have filed forms with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission acknowledging they are political action committees.
Last month, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers both sought to introduce versions of a campaign finance reform. Township Council reviewed the versions suggested by each councilman and then directed Municipal Attorney Kevin Nerwinski to return with a final version.
The ordinance that was introduced Tuesday night sets a "net value" limit of $400 on donations to an individual candidate, or $800 to a political committee or club such as the Democratic or Republican club, by a professional service provider.
A professional business entity, such as a law firm or other business that has multiple partners, principals or officers, is limited to contributing a net value of $2,500 to all candidates and all political clubs or organizations, combined.
The ordinance does not include the Mercer County Democratic and Republican political committees, but it does stipulate that a professional service contract would be voided if contributions were given to an intermediary "for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the source of the contribution." It does not define "intermediary," however.
"Net value" is the difference between the cost to produce an event and the money that it generates. For example, if tickets to the Mayor’s Ball cost $100 each and it costs $60 per person to hold the event, the net value of that event is $40 the amount of money that would be counted as a campaign contribution.
Several audience members spoke out against the ordinance, including Heather Taylor, the communications director for Common Cause. The citizens advocacy group has pushed for campaign finance reform and also prepared a model ordinance that some towns have adopted.
Ms. Taylor thanked Mr. Powers and Mr. Miller for bringing the issue before Township Council, but added that the ordinance as proposed does not go far enough to address campaign finance reform.
Ms. Taylor urged Township Council to include a specific reference to the Mercer County party committee the Mercer County Democratic Party and the Mercer County Republican Party.
"It’s like putting up a sign that says ‘Do not enter’ and leaving the door open," Ms. Taylor said. Ordinances adopted by other towns restrict the amount of money that a professional service provider may contribute to the county political party.
Mary Tanner of Cold Soil Road also urged the council to include the county party committee in the ordinance. Including that language is important because it would prevent professionals from contributing to the county party committee, which in turn would funnel that money to the municipal campaign, she said.
The other four towns in Mercer County that have adopted a pay-to-play ordinance included limits on the amount of money that a donor could give to the county party committee, said Ms. Tanner, who served on Township Council in the 1970s as a Republican.
David Snedeker of Bunker Hill Avenue also praised Mr. Powers and Mr. Miller, adding that the proposed ordinance is "a first small step" in campaign finance reform.
But Mr. Snedeker, who ran unsuccessfully for Township Council twice as a Republican, also called on the council to include a reference to the Mercer County party committee. Removing the county party committee from the ordinance weakens it, he said.
Victor Murray of Melvina Drive, who ran for Township Council as a Republican in November, said that eliminating the county party committee would "show very poorly" on the council. It defeats the intent of the pay-to-play ordinance, he said.
"I share the sentiments of my fellow citizens," said Barnett Road resident Falk Engel.
He said he was "displeased" with the lack of inclusion of the county party committee or political action committee in the ordinance. The intent and purpose of the ordinance is to include political action committees at the county level, he said.
"If you wish to have ‘pay to play’ (enacted), it won’t be done in Lawrence," he said. "We need to send a clear, unambiguous message. We will be questioned for passing an ordinance that has no teeth."
Mr. Nerwinski, the municipal attorney, replied that Township Council does not adopt an ordinance based on what other towns have done. When an ordinance identifies a specific group or organization, that ordinance may be challenged in court, he said.
Mr. Nerwinski said that if there is a concern that money would be funneled to the Township Council candidates indirectly, the reference to "intermediaries" is sufficient. A professional who contributes money to a political campaign through an intermediary would be disqualified from seeking work with the township, he said.
"It has the teeth that it needs," Mr. Nerwinski said.
The township cannot adopt an ordinance that controls Mercer County. Township Council can only adopt an ordinance that affects Lawrence Township, he added.
When Mr. Miller objected to the concept of net value, Mr. Powers replied that the intent of the ordinance is to avoid "quid pro quo" or, giving money to a political campaign in exchange for a job or appointment.
Mr. Miller asked the council members whether they thought the township would be "more open" to a legal challenge, adding that the 13 towns that have adopted a pay-to-play ordinance statewide do not include the concept of "net value." They do include the county party committee.
Township Council does not adopt ordinances based on what other towns have done, Mayor Holmes said.
"We look at the law from the first letter to the last letter and then we make a decision," Mayor Holmes said. "The ordinance is being totally driven by those who are part of the process. The ordinary citizen does not care about pay-to-play. The people who are spoke are politically related."
After the meeting, Mr. Miller said he could not vote for the ordinance because it was a "sham." He objected to the concept of "net value," stating that he would prefer a flat limit of $400, $800 and $2,500.
Internal Revenue Service rules allow for the concept of net value in terms of charitable contributions.
However, purchasing a ticket to the Mayor’s Ball which is a major fund-raiser for the political party in power in Lawrence is not the same as making a charitable donation, Mr. Miller said.