Pay-to-play ready for introduction in R.B.
Borough attorney: New version puts onus on candidates
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

The Red Bank Borough Council may finally be on its way to adopting a pay-to-play ordinance.

At Monday’s council meeting, all but one council member trudged through the snow to be present when Borough Attorney Kenneth Pringle made a presentation on the newest draft of the borough’s anti-pay-to-play ordinance.

The ordinance is due to be officially introduced on March 14.

Pay-to-play refers to the practice of making political contributions with the expectation of government contracts.

After the presentation, Councilwoman Jennifer Beck and Councilman Arthur Murphy, both of whom are members of the committee given the task of preparing the ordinance, spoke positively about the proposed ordinance.

Beck thanked Pringle for helping to improve the ordinance that she, Murphy and Councilman Robert J. Bifani, who was not present for the meeting, had spent much of the past year putting together.

“More now than ever,” said Beck, “it is important to build the confidence of the general public that our borough is operating with their interests in mind, that there are no outside influences.”

Murphy said he was very happy with the reworked ordinance because it is so easily understood.

“I’m glad to see the end of the road,” he said.

Councilman John P. Curley said he thought the ordinance was “wonderful.”

The ordinance is stricter than the previously introduced pay-to-play ordinance because it addresses contributions by developers, businesses holding liquor licenses, and political action committees (PACs).

Pringle explained that the proposed ordinance is divided into two parts, one of which would amend the Revised General Ordinances of the Borough of Red Bank, Section 2-65, “Payment of Claims.”

The second section would be added to the general ordinances as 2-76, “Conflicts of Interest.”

The first section would prohibit the awarding of contracts to certain parties, including certain campaign contributors, and outlines what would make a vendor ineligible for being awarded a contract by the borough.

The second section spells out how much money a vendor would be allowed to contribute and still be eligible.

According to the ordinance, the maximum combined amount of campaign contributions that may be made to a campaign of a borough official by a vendor during any calendar year may not exceed $400, and this extends to each candidate, including mayoral and council candidates on the same party or campaign ticket.

Contributions to borough political committees by a vendor may not exceed $500, and the maximum a vendor may contribute to county campaigns cannot exceed $2,500, during any calendar year.

Any candidate who receives more than $400 in contributions during a single calendar year from any developer or development professional, or alcoholic beverage licensee, would be deemed to have a conflict of interest and would not be eligible to vote on any matter involving the contributor.

If an official could not vote on a matter due to a conflict of interest of this type, he or she must state for the record at the meeting that he or she is ineligible to vote and why.

“The ordinance imposes the consequences on the candidates, not the contributors,” said Pringle, adding that the reason for this is because otherwise the ordinance might infringe on people’s first amendment rights.

“To the extent that you want to impose limits on contributions,” he said, “you limit first amendment rights.”

Pringle said that the most important aspect of the proposed ordinance is the fact that it is filled with definitions broad enough to cover many different aspects of pay-to-play.

“Red Bank campaign contribution shall mean any contribution, whether in the form of money, free service or pledge, including without limitation, any in-kind contributions, or purchases of tickets, advertisements or the like, directly or indirectly, to any campaign committee or election fund of any candidate for, or holding office of, mayor or council of the borough, or to any municipal or party committee or political club or organization within the borough,” the ordinance addresses.

The ordinance also speaks to “money wheeling,” referred to in the ordinance as “pass-through campaign contributions.” Wheeling refers to moving contribution money around from source to source until its origins can no longer be traced.

“The term ‘directly or indirectly’ as used herein shall further mean and include any campaign contributions made through intermediaries or third parties for the purpose of concealing the source of the contribution(s),” according to the ordinance.

The ordinance also states that “any elected official who has received during any of the three preceding calendar years, including during any of the years preceding his or her election, pass-through campaign contributions from any single source in excess of $1,000, or, who has during any of the said three preceding years received combined pass-through campaign contributions from all sources in excess of 20 percent of the total amount of all Red Bank campaign contributions received by that elected official during that same calendar year,” would be ineligible to participate in the negotiations, discussions or votes with respect to that matter.

Pringle said a list of ineligible vendors will be kept by the borough.

He said that the numbers are arbitrary, and that the council could easily change them to suit its needs.

Pringle said that this ordinance is almost identical to the one that Belmar, where he is mayor, adopted last summer.

“This is one of the toughest in the state,” said Pringle.

He said that although this ordinance would not keep anyone from running for office, it would keep people in check, because if they accept too much money from certain sources, they will not be able to vote.

“The consequences are political,” said Pringle. “It’s like having a scarlet letter, a PP, on your forehead.”