A state appeals court upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey's pay to play ban, saying "government has a right to protect the state and its citizens from the 'actuality or appearance' of corruption in the award of state contracts," according to reports in the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger.
The government has rights? I better re-read the constitution. I saw the part where people have rights, that are inalienable and bestowed by The Creator, and the people shall form governments to protect those rights. I missed the part about the government's rights. But I digress.
In this case, Earle Asphalt Company was disqualified from performing state work for 18 months because they bought $1500 worth of tickets to the Monmouth GOP finance gala. When they got wind of the fact that the contribution could disqualify them for state work, they requested the money back, as the law allows.
Earle challenged the law on free speech grounds. Their first amendment rights are trumped by the government's right, according to the court. They also challenged their disqualification based on their request for a refund within 30 days. The court ruled the timing of the request was irrelevant, they had to receive the money back within 30 days. It took the Monmouth GOP 41 days to get them the money back. They are disqualified for 18 months.
There are lots of problems with this situation.
What if a contractor were to have made political contributions and was still the lowest bidder? Is the state's interest protected if a political contributor is disqualified from performing a project when the next highest bidder's proposal is $100K more? This is not a hypothetical situation. According to the Star Ledger report Earle was the lowest bidder on a $6.2 million road project with NJ DOT. Somehow, DOT was able to award this contract to Earle anyway while the case was litigated.
A huge problem with pay to play bans is that they don't apply to unions. Unions have by far the largest state contracts, and by far the greatest political influence. That is why our state is broke. The foxes are running the hen house. You're the hen.
The effect of pay to play laws is a one sided limit on political speech. It doesn't work and it can't work. This situation might serve the interest of the government which is controlled by the unions and other trough swillers, but it does not serve the interests of the people.
All restrictions, except full disclosure, on campaign contributions should be lifted. All citizens should be able to give as much money to any candidate, party or committee at any level that they want to. In order to create transparency, all contributions should be disclosed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Matawan's Councilman Mendes and Councilman Mullaney are performing work for the Borough and then voting to pay themselves. Councilman Mullaney spoke about a "Pay to Play" Resolution for Matawan at a previous meeting. However, no further mention was made and now we know why! He proposed that elected officials not peform work for the Borough. Verification can be made by viewing the Bill List for Matawan that was passed on 4/18/08,5/16/08 and 2/28/08.
When a resident questioned these actions, the Mayor asked the Borough Attorney to speak with Councilmen Mendes and Mullaney. No answer was forthcoming.
Does this sound ethical?
Post a Comment