Campaign finance, Part 2

TRENTON - Two years ago, New Jersey took its first crack at taking special-interest money out of elections.

Legislation that Gov. Corzine is expected to sign any day is meant to fix what almost everyone agrees was a failed experiment.

But critics say the state's second attempt to design a program to finance campaigns with public money isn't much better than the first.

Under the new law, which would apply only to this year's general election, candidates who met a fund-raising threshold would qualify for state funds. A key change would be a decrease in the amount that candidates had to raise themselves to qualify.

The idea of "clean elections" - which have been adopted in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut - is to try to cut down on the influence of large contributors. It's also a way to level the playing field for everyday people who might be good political candidates but typically don't stand a chance against incumbents backed by big money and party machines.

Champions of the pilot program, which was approved by the Legislature last week say it represents a major improvement over the 2005 program. That trial, which covered Assembly races in two districts, was declared a bust after just one of five candidate slates - Assemblyman Louis Greenwald and running mate Pamela Lampitt in Camden County's Sixth District - managed to qualify for public financing.

"I think this program makes it easier for candidates to qualify, makes it easier for citizens to participate, and allows the project to take the next step forward," said Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D., Camden), a prime sponsor of the bill. "I think it has real potential for success."

Bill Schluter thinks otherwise.

Schluter, a former GOP state senator who headed a commission asked to find ways to fix the 2005 program, bristled that legislators ignored several key suggestions made following more than a dozen public hearings.

He called the result "meaningless."

"It's not reform," he said. "It's really a phony. It's not clean elections."

Assemblyman Bill Baroni (R., Mercer), who sat on the commission with Schluter, conceded that the system that lawmakers put forward - and that he sponsored - "is not perfect."

But, he said, "it does a lot of good things" - including keeping alive a worthwhile experiment that might otherwise have died.

"Campaign finance reform is often series of steps, and this is a step in the right direction," he said.

Under the 2005 pilot program, candidates had to raise $20,000 only in $5 and $30 contributions to qualify for public campaign financing.

Under its replacement, State Assembly and Senate candidates in three as-yet undetermined test districts would be required to collect at least 400 donations of $10 from voters in their district to qualify. That would entitle them to $50,000 in public funds, while 800 donations would get them $100,000.

Independent candidates could qualify for as much as $50,000, and unopposed candidates would receive half of the funding otherwise available to them.

Candidates running against privately funded opponents could get as much as $100,000 in "rescue money" to help them keep pace.

The legislation provides $6.75 million to fund candidates, with $925,000 more going toward publicizing and administering the program.

The most glaring failure of the program, Schluter and other critics say, is that it does not cover primary elections. In districts dominated by one political party, they say, the primary is where the battle plays out, where party machines wield enormous influence, and where the program is needed most.

The legislation provides for expanding the program to primaries in the future, but critics say that's not soon enough.

Schluter complained that lawmakers also "larded the program" with provisions that "favor incumbents and special interests."

Schluter's commission had recommended that the program include six districts that are all relatively competitive and geographically spread around the state for the trial run.

Legislators instead opted for three districts - one Democrat, one Republican, and one competitive - to be chosen by party leaders by April 9.

Critics also have questioned the program's treatment of independent candidates, who would get only half of the money afforded major-party opponents.

Sandra Matsen, advocacy coordinator for the New Jersey League of Women Voters, said her group would have liked to see the program include all of the recommendations made by Schluter's commission. But, she said, the league realized "that bill was not going to go anywhere," so it supported the legislation that lawmakers ultimately passed.

"It wasn't much of a step forward, but it was a step forward," Matsen said. "If the bill had died, it would have been a very heavy lift to get it back up."

Abigail Field, legislative advocate for the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, said the program was too flawed for her group to support.

"A truly transformative clean-elections program would involve primaries," she said.

She said she also worried about a provision allowing candidates to opt out of the program mid-campaign, which she said would defeat the whole point. If an incumbent were losing, Field said, he or she might turn to deep private pockets to pull ahead.

"Precisely at the moment clean elections is working, it can be sabotaged," she said.

State Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester) said that he, too, wasn't thrilled with the program. He said he worried that it did not do enough to curb the influence of outside special-interest groups, which, he pointed out, "can spend unlimited amounts of money" to defeat a candidate.

His concerns were not, however, enough to stop him from voting for the program.

"Enough people are saying 'give it a chance,' " Sweeney said. "I think there are a lot of us who said, 'We'll try it one more time.' "

What it is: A pilot program to test publicly financed election campaigns. The idea is to remove special-interest money from elections, and make the process more accessible to everyday people who lack party-machine backing.

When it would take effect: The current election cycle, leading up to the November general election.

Who would be eligible: State Assembly and Senate candidates in three yet-to-be-determined legislative districts - one Democratic, one Republican and one competitive. Legislative leaders have until April 9 to choose the districts.

How it would work: Candidates would have to collect at least 400 donations of $10 each to qualify for $50,000 in public campaign funds. They would have to collect 800 donations of $10 to get the maximum allotment of $100,000. Independent candidates could get a maximum of $50,000. Candidates facing privately funded opponents could also get up to $100,000 in "rescue money" to help level the playing field.

- Jennifer MorozEndText