Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Vox populi

Thanks to a successful signature gathering effort, Teaneck will get to conduct a little experiment in direct democracy. As the Record reported yesterday, the Township Clerk has 20 days (now 19) to check the 2,200 signatures collected in favor of an ordinance on public contracting reform, aka a ban on pay to play. It would be rather surprising if the ordinance did not pass by a landslide.

That's not to say there are not any legitimate arguments against this type of legislation. As discussed here before, it is possible that the measure could unnecessarily handcuff local officials when they choose contractors for municipal business. Practically speaking, however, it seems rather unlikely that there is a large constituency out there ready to mobilize and get out the vote for preserving the rights of large political contributors. Whether those who might oppose such a measure would be willing to spend the time, money, and effort to mount a defense of their right to grease the palms of local government officials without penalty remains to be seen, but it seems doubtful.

There are, on the other hand, at least a few thousand voters who were willing to sign a petition in favor of rules against pay to play, and given the low turnout expected for this November's elections, that should be more than enough to carry the day. If the vote is even close, there will be a lot to discuss. Boy would that send a message ahead of the next Council elections!

20 Comments:

At 5:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it seems rather unlikely that there is a large constituency out there ready to mobilize and get out the vote for preserving the rights of large political contributors

With all due respect, you completely miss the point. This legislation is a suppression of the free speech rights garaunteed in the Constitution.

There are a lot of people up in arms about suppressing rights that they like (right to protest, etc...) but as soon as you talk about suppressing rights that benefit them, all of a sudden it's not such a bad thing.

If this passes, we will simply postpone the inevitable.

First off, I believe that the pay to play legislation has way too many loopholes to be effective.

Just take a look at the McCain-Feingold legislation and its subsequent problems over soft money, then fixing, then 527's, then fixing, then .... what will be the next way around it??

Instead of limiting what people can give, we should be requiring all contracts to list all donations made by the entities being awarded the contract.

Dismissing the fact that this is a free speech issue by claiming that "influence peddling is my right as an American citizen" is not fair.

Freedom of speech and the ability to stand up and promote an elected leader is a cornerstone of our democracy than has been codified into the Bill of Rights.

While pay to play legislation may be an important issue deserving serious debate, it does not rise to the level of a foundational issue for our Republic.

I do not feel that free speech is unlimited, however it should very rarely be squelched. As the Chief Justice said a few weeks ago, When the "First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

There is a serious issue facing the electorate. Is appears that more than ever before, they do not have the faith of the people. More often than not, I hear disaproval of elected officials at all levels of government.

We should be focused on better leaders than holding mediocre leaders to higher levels. By forcing people to cut back on help to those whom they think deserve it or lose out on contracts (even though they may be qualified) we possible cut funding to good and qualified candidated because of a fear of possible bribery.

Let people know where the money is and trust them to make solid decision on whether to re-elect their leaders.

 
At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you see is what we got. Hopefully this referendum will be the first step in getting the best Congress money can buy to pay attention to what is percolating up from the grass roots.

 
At 7:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So who is going to start a petition to get the Cramers and the Shwartzs and their crew to either put up or shut up? Step up and stop wasting town council meeting time with your childish rants, stop writing lots of letters to the Suburbanite and show us all how you can do something CONSTRUCTIVE for TEANECK! Oh No! I just had a thought! Maybe this crew doesn't know how to do anything constructive for the town!!!!! They are hiding behind their complaints!!! While you are doing petitions lets start one - put up or shut up!

 
At 9:20 AM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

With all due respect, you completely miss the point. This legislation is a suppression of the free speech rights garaunteed in the Constitution.

Don't mistake glibness for ignorance. I'm well aware of the larger issues involved in this situation. Perhaps you should read my earlier post on the topic.

However, the issue has already been framed in Teaneck and it seems pretty clear that given the debased political culture in Bergen County and the voter disgust with it, this will not be a referendum about free speech. If by some chance the measure is defeated, it will not be because large numbers of voters will choose to stand up for the Constitution but because someone with influence managed to get out the vote in order to preserve the status quo.

 
At 12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't mistake glibness for ignorance

Unfortunately, you don't always know where your ignorance is taking you.

You say that "this will not be a referendum about free speech" and unfortunately you are correct - but that doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be. Nor should it stop all those that care about defending their rights simply because it has some possible ramifications that they might like to see.

Whether one is reading the blogs, listening to peoples' comments or watching the council meetings -- there is an overwhelming opinion that since this this will have a benefit to a large section of society and only restrict 'a few people', it should be a slam dunk.

In your own comments.... you say as much: "If by some chance the measure is defeated, it will not be because large numbers of voters will choose to stand up for the Constitution".

Damn the small segment for the greater good.

SHAME ON YOU!

If this were face to face, I wouldn't want to compare "pay to play legislation" with slavery or voter dis-enfranchisement because the typical reaction of people to the former is delight while the latter is outright condemnation (as it should be), but the fact of the matter is, that when rights are taken away - it's not done by storm troopers. It's done in drips and drabs over a period of time.

It wasn't always whis way though. People used to stand up and talk about rights and liberty and democracy. Today you sound like a lunatic for just claiming to be patriotic. And when rights are at issue: you need to either defend them or let them slip away.

Beyond all of this though is the fact that the legislation at issue (Pay to Play) does absolutely nothing to stop corruption. The only reason a politician would be for it is to use it during a campaign (I'm trying to root out corruption will be next year's mantra). It's a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound.

Just like 527's took place of other campaign contributions in the last Federal Elections, something else will take their place after pay to play is enacted.

I don't know if it's because we think it's too hard (or impossible) to fix the current system or if it's because we like quick remedies (probably a little of both), but it's not going to cure anything and takes up a lot of our time.

If you are serious about going after corruption....punish it when it happens and don't elect the people again. All this does is tell everyone that we have no faith in our electorate.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I plan to vote against this.

 
At 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

apoplectic said ...

It's a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound.


This is part of the problem, people love band-aid solutions because it gives them their periodic 15 minutes of fame with very little accountability for the what happens later down the road.

 
At 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TeneckBlog,

Having 2200 people who are willing to sign a petition does not equal 2200 people who are going to get out to vote.

I suspect if you subtract the people who did not read prior to signing and the number of people who simply do not vote, the 2200 number will be significantly lower.

 
At 3:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems this issue has stirred the political pot. Let's not cloud the waters with "free speech" violations. This should not stop people from contributing to their canidate of choice, it will only keep those who contribute for future contracts, from having an easy time at the same. Crooks will be crooks, all the laws in world won't stop the ethically challanged from winding their serpants path through the grass. Don't be confused, free speech is not tied to "quid pro quo" contributions for contracts. If you really support a candidate, there is nothing stopping you from supporting them, only profitting from their position. The keepers of the status quo, would like everyone to believe that this is about freedom of speech. It is not,it is about slugs profiting from the taxpayers of this town, county, & state. Those who practice this form of business are affraid to compete for business out in the open on a level playing field. This is why our taxes are out of control, plain and simple.

 
At 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not cloud the waters with "free speech" violations...[d]on't be confused, free speech is not tied to "quid pro quo" contributions for contracts.

The keepers of the status quo, would like everyone to believe that this is about freedom of speech. It is not,it is about slugs profiting from the taxpayers of this town, county, & state.


You fundamentally miss the point! This is not about free speech being tied to quid pro quo. If you've followed any of my comments, you'd know that I'm very much against corruption and quid pro quo.

This, is about whether it's correct to restrict one's right to give money to a candidate of their choice simply because it MAY lead to situation where they or a family member are awarded a contract.

You say....

This should not stop people from contributing to their canidate of choice, it will only keep those who contribute for future contracts...

The question that needs to be asked is: Is giving money to a political candidate free speech? The Supreme Court has said time and time again - that it is. So, I'd like to know where in your copy of the Constitution (or Bill or Rights) it says that just because it's a couple people that you'll be stopping -- that it's no big deal?

Also, it's not (just) the keepers of the status quo that are against this. Personally, I have no dog in this fight other than my freedom of speech. But while I'll gladly chat with anyone about real solutions that might be of use in a system that's full of questionable deals....I won't stand by and idly believe that this kind of drek is going to save the day.

And another thing....I'm all about being anonymous - but use a nickname - it's easier to follow your thoughts.

 
At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fence in the Northeast- Gang problem solved!!- its the GHETTO anyway

 
At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please remove the post at 4:45 pm. It is offensive.

 
At 7:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Northeast residents and their bleeding heart pals are offensive!!

 
At 7:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FREE SPEECH!!!

 
At 11:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Fence in the Northeast- Gang problem solved!!- its the GHETTO anyway"

Well, that "GHETTO" that youa re calling the northeast is paying around $10,000 a year in taxes for their homes like the rest of us!

A "gated" community of orthodox in the northeast is offensive.

 
At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Teaneck has reached an all time low. Bring back the leadership of the 90's; when people respected one another and communicated with intelligence and civility. Our leaders are now narrow minded egomaniacs. So are many of our loud and boisterous residents.

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

Unfortunately, you don't always know where your ignorance is taking you.

You say that "this will not be a referendum about free speech" and unfortunately you are correct - but that doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be. Nor should it stop all those that care about defending their rights simply because it has some possible ramifications that they might like to see.


OK, now I think I understand what is ticking you off and I think that you are living up to your moniker for no reason. I made an observation about what is going on, not an argument in favor of it. I am not celebrating the fact that we live in a sound bite society in which people make simplistic judgments based on what feels right to them, and I do concur with you that many people may be doing just that in this instance. But whether you like it or not, that is the dynamic in this, and many other, Teaneck elections in which substantive discussion of the issues never figures into the process. I hope this site and others can help change that, though the string of posts that followed yours in this thread certainly frustrates that ambition.

 
At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:18 said:

"Having 2200 people who are willing to sign a petition does not equal 2200 people who are going to get out to vote.

I suspect if you subtract the people who did not read prior to signing and the number of people who simply do not vote, the 2200 number will be significantly lower."

Perhaps everyone who signed may not vote, but only registered voters' signatures will count, and the people collecting signatures asked potential signers if they were registered to vote in Teaneck.

 
At 12:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, now I think I understand what is ticking you off and I think that you are living up to your moniker for no reason.

I'm very glad to retract my previous statement. You are not an ignorant individual.

Unfortunately, you are correct in saying that

"[w]e live in a sound bite society in which people make simplistic judgments based on what feels right to them, and I do concur with you that many people may be doing just that in this instance. But whether you like it or not, that is the dynamic in this, and many other, Teaneck elections in which substantive discussion of the issues never figures into the process"

What I'd like to do is raise the level of discourse (rather than just "live up to my moniker"). There are serious reasons that people can disagree with pay to play legislation. There are serious issues with our fundamental freedoms that need to be examined and not simply to be paid lip service.

It's easy to gloss over the reasons not to pass this legislation. It doesn't hurt many of us (few if any indeed) and it can help a lot. But by that logic, we would be heading down a very slippery slope.

We all know that face time and advertizing are the main things that get a candidates message to the public. These cost money. There isn't anything wrong with that and without the money, some messages just won't see the light of day. While that's sad (since some ideas are truly worth listening to), it's a fact of the American election system. To take away the ability of my wife or my child from donating to a campaign to get those ideas some airtime, simply because I might want to apply for a contract at some point in time - places a restriction on several people that have every right and expectation to be able to participate in the political system. I can't be for such a program and I believe based on some of the comments I've seen posted - that I'm not alone in this belief.

As for the goal of this legislation (removing graft and corruption & cleaning up the politics) I'm all for another method. Let's come up with one and put it in place ASAP. Let's just make sure it's a plan that penalizes those that DO bad things, rather than those that are related to someone that might be put in a condition that makes corruption a possibility.
___________________________________

Since you've brought it up - I picked Apoplectic after hearing one too many people bitching and moaning at a council meeting.

I have no problem with people speaking their minds and I appreciate the fact that you didn't summarily erase the ignorant comments that appeared after mine (although part of me did want you to do it). But while I would defend their right to bitch and moan, I can't help but believe that there is a better use of our collective energy.

For better or worse, a segment of our town is lashing out -- and without a proper target (remember, innocent until proven guilty isn't only for the cases we approve of) and it seems like an indiscriminant rage.

If you want to start working things out together, you need partners that are willing. Otherwise it's whoever gets more votes and damn the rest. I don't think it's too far gone to fix .... yet!

 
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Vox Dei is pretty far from what we've been hearing at the Council meetings (not even the meeting in the Church).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home