Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26484 |
Monkeying With State's Rights (New Jersey's Pay to Play Ban Smacked Down)
I've referenced this a couple times the last couple days, so I may as well post a thread.
Instead of a summary, you kind of have to read the whole thing.
In Court Filing, U.S. Attacks New Jersey Donation Limits
By JOSH BENSON
TRENTON, Jan. 20 - The federal government filed court documents on Thursday insisting that new rules in New Jersey restricting political contributions limit competitive bidding and therefore violate federal guidelines for awarding highway contracts.
In a strongly worded reply to a lawsuit brought by the state in Federal District Court here, the federal government defended the rights of businesses and individuals seeking government contracts to make political contributions.
The court papers describe the state's lawsuit as "pernicious" and "ludicrous."
Arguments in the suit are to be heard on Friday, and the state has asked for an immediate ruling.
At stake is $250 million in federal aid designated for highway projects in New Jersey, which the Federal Highway Administration is withholding on the ground that a recent executive order banning the awarding of state contracts to major contributors is in conflict with federal law.
In its suit to get the highway money released, the state defended an executive order banning "pay to play," the practice in which state contracts were given to political contributors. When the departing governor, James E. McGreevey, ordered the change in October, the primary criticism came from state Republicans who thought the law did not go far enough.
But if anything, the response from the Department of Transportation indicated a hardening of the federal government's position. The Federal Highway Administration favors full disclosure of political contributions as an alternative to limits.
The argument against New Jersey's rules echoes previous arguments by the Bush administration against donor restrictions.
"Nothing about a bidder's history in contributing, or not contributing, to political causes or elective contests impacts in any way the ability of that contractor to provide quality work at an efficient price," the federal document said.
The document denounced in particular what it saw as an effort to call into question the integrity of state contractors who had made contributions. The document said that "in the arena of public contracting, it is the public official, not the provider of a lawful political contribution, who is deserving of moral rebuke."
A ruling on the withholding of the federal money will not immediately affect the executive order, which prohibits state officials from giving contracts worth more than $17,500 to any person or company that contributed in the previous year and a half to gubernatorial candidates or to state or county party committees.
But supporters of the law were nonetheless quick to react to the federal filing. "In the real world of New Jersey government contracting," said Harry Pozycki, chairman of the trustees of the Center for Civic Responsibility, "pay to play restricts competition to those who can afford to contribute, and the reforms provide an opening of competition."
The Senate minority leader, Leonard Lance, a Republican who has criticized the executive order as insufficient, said he hoped the federal government would reconsider.
The decision was handed back on Friday, the state of New Jersey lost. The judge ruled that despite the fact that the state was the one championing the good cause, "the court at this point is not persuaded that that laudable goal is not in conflict with federal law." The folks in New Jersey pledge to further fight it and take it to higher courts, but they also have a billion dollars in federal highway money on the line. One billion dollars. That they kinda need.
The case will be precedent setting one for sure, as already the restrictions are becoming en vouge with state governments. "West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and South Carolina have enacted measures to limit the awarding of contracts to political contributors. In addition, there are local governments in New Jersey and in California that have enacted their own limits. The cities of New York and Los Angeles are debating the tightening of rules on contributions by government contractors."
Essentially, the federal government is fiercely pushing through the notion that said restrictions on awarding contracts are simply unacceptable, and the states can go fuck themselves if they think they can decide otherwise.
I'm not entirely sure that the fed's position on this is borne of concern for the American people. They certainly don't give a fuck about what the states may or may not want to do with their money.
Thoughts?
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
01-22-2005 08:48 PM
