Moorestown Considers Changes to Pay-to-Play Rules

Town council introduced an ordinance Monday that supporters say will make Moorestown's pay-to-play rules simpler and more transparent, but opponents claim unnecessarily pumps more money into government.

The ordinance amends the township's existing pay-to-play rules by upping the maximum amounts businesses can contribute to campaigns from $300 for individual candidates to $2,600; from $300 to $7,200 for Moorestown party committees; and from $500 to $7,200 for political action committees (PAC). It also requires businesses pursuing contracts with the township to disclose exactly how much money they have contributed to municipal political campaigns, regardless of the dollar amount.

Solicitor Anthony Drollas said the amended ordinance would bring the township in line with bipartisan pay-to-play legislation that has been discussed by Gov. Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney, and which Drollas believes could soon be imposed statewide.

He said municipalities across the state have "differing and, in many cases, confusing and conflicting limits" on contributions. Those inconsistencies, he said, contributed to the recent scandal involving engineering firm Birdsall Services Group, which admitted it evaded the $300 contribution limit imposed by many municipalities by encouraging top employees to write personal checks for $300 or less—which don't have to be disclosed—then reimbursing them through bonuses.

But a few residents questioned the rationale for raising the limits.

“What’s the advantage?” asked Paul Conlow. “The candidates gain by allowing more money to come in. What does the electorate gain?”

Mark Hines, a former Democratic candidate for council, was also alarmed at the “very dramatic change” to the amounts of allowable contributions.

“There seems to be no logical reason (for the change),” he said. “Why do they need more? There’s no problem to be solved here … (Council’s) rationale of being consistent with other governing bodies is weak and unsubstantiated, and hardly justifies changing a law that is working just fine.”

Both Conlow and Hines said there’s already too much money in local politics, and suggested the amended pay-to-play will make it worse.  

“When you’re giving $7,200 to a campaign, there’s an anticipation you’re getting something in return,” Hines said. “I still feel firmly as a citizen (outside entities) should not have undue influence on government.”

Deputy Mayor Chris Chiacchio doesn’t buy into the concern however, suggesting the ordinance will have “probably no practical effect” on the interaction between business and government.

“Money’s in politics,” he conceded, but said the new pay-to-play rules will make it easier to keep businesses honest and allow more transparency.

Councilman Greg Newcomer abstained from Monday’s vote because he didn’t have a chance to see the ordinance before the meeting, he said. He asked that the vote be tabled, to no avail.

“I haven’t grasped it as well as I should (to vote on it),” Newcomer said. “It could be a very good thing … because it’s raised the ante of what should be identified.”

He said “without a doubt” there’s too much money in politics, adding, “It’s important that outside entities are not dictating through money what will become the town’s business … It’s important to understand that we, as Moorestonians, want to be in charge of our elections as much as possible.”