Pay-to-play law moves to Lawrence council.
By: Lea Kahn
Township Council is expected to be presented Aug. 3 with a proposed "pay-to-play" ordinance that is a beefed-up version of the one that it adopted earlier this year thanks to a grassroots petition drive.
Dissatisfied with Lawrence’s campaign finance reform ordinance, a group of citizens last week submitted petitions signed by more than 900 township voters seeking a tweaked version of the "pay-to-play" ordinance.
The petitions were turned over to Municipal Clerk Kathy Norcia by residents Falk Engel and Adele Vexler, and Township Councilman Rick Miller July 15. Joseph Smith of the Center for Civic Responsibility, who helped organize the petition drive, also was there.
Wednesday morning, Ms. Norcia said that multiple reviews of the signed petitions yielded 698 valid signatures 7 more than the 691 that are required. She plans to present the ordinance to the council at its next meeting. If the council does not approve it, the ordinance would be put before the voters in the Nov. 2 general election.
Under state law, a governing body may award a contract without seeking bids to professionals such as attorneys, architects, engineers and planners. Pay-to-play ordinances ban or restrict the amount of money those professionals could contribute to a political campaign.
The pay-to-play ordinance, as proposed by the petitioners, would limit professionals to donating a maximum of $400 to candidates for Township Council and $500 to the Lawrence and Mercer County Republican and Democratic parties. The political parties donate money to the candidates’ campaigns.
The proposed ordinance also would limit to $2,500 the amount that members of a law firm, architectural firm, engineering firm or planning firm, for example, could donate in the aggregate to a political candidate.
But Township Council’s pay-to-play ordinance, adopted earlier this year, places a "net value" limit of $400 on donations to an individual candidate, or $800 to a political committee or 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.
"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 its 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.
Also, Township Council’s ordinance does not include the Mercer County Democratic or Republican political committees or parties. 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" but it does not define "intermediary."
Deputy Mayor Pam Mount said she was satisfied with the ordinance that was adopted earlier this year. She said she did not see any need to change it, adding that "we don’t feel that we, in Lawrence, can regulate Mercer County."
Ms. Mount pointed out that there are only a handful of contracts that are awarded without competitive bidding. Those contracts include ones for attorneys, architects, engineers and planners.
Last week, Mr. Engel, one of the petitioners, said township officials claimed that residents do not care about campaign finance reform. But the petitions, bearing more than 900 signatures, show otherwise, he said.
"People do care about integrity in government," Mr. Engel said. "Instead of becoming cynical, they rose to the challenge (and signed the petition)."
Ms. Vexler, the co-president of the Lawrence Chapter of the League of Women Voters, said she hoped that all political parties would realize that citizens care about the issue and that they would be interested in supporting legislation for campaign finance reform.
While Municipal Attorney Kevin Nerwinski said earlier this year that including Mercer County in a pay-to-play ordinance would, in effect, mean township officials were attempting to exert control on Mercer County, Mr. Engel last week disputed that claim.
The proponents of the tougher pay-to-play ordinance are not regulating Mercer County "in any way," Mr. Engel said. What the proponents are regulating, however, is how contracts are awarded, he said.
People or professionals who want to donate money to the county political parties or committees may do so but if they want a no-bid contract from Lawrence Township, they cannot exceed the dollar limits in the proposed ordinance, Mr. Engel said.
Mr. Miller, the lone Republican on the Democratic-dominated Township Council, agreed that the petition drive shows residents do care about fund-raising reform. The citizens collected more than 900 signatures seeking a stronger version of the existing ordinance, he said.
Mr. Miller and Democratic Councilman Michael Powers both sought to introduce a pay-to-play ordinance earlier this year. Mr. Nerwinski, the municipal attorney, reviewed their proposals and crafted the version that was approved. Mr. Miller voted against it, however.
"I believe that the residents of Lawrence Township and New Jersey do care how we, as elected officials, raise money to fund our campaigns," Mr. Miller said. "That is why there is a strong movement to pass real ‘pay-to-play’ reform, not the watered down versions that Lawrence Township passed earlier this year and the one the governor signed into law."