New Jersey Clean Elections

The Eagleton New Jersey Project conducts studies and provides information about New Jersey’s Clean Election Pilot Projects to further the Eagleton Institute’s mission to educate citizens and encourage their participation in politics in order to strengthen our democracy. 
   More about the concept and purpose of clean elections, and the New Jersey Clean Election Project here.

The new book, Clean Elections: Public Financing in Six States including New Jersey's Pilot Projects, by Benjamin T. Brickner with Naomi Mueller is scheduled to be posted here in early August.

Results of 2008 Clean Elections Around the Country, A Report from Public Campaign.

Monitoring the New Jersey Clean Election Pilot Projects
The New Jersey Project has provided information about Clean Elections and specifically Clean Elections in New Jersey since time in 2004 when the then Majority Leader Joseph Roberts included, of a part of a 25 point ethics agenda.  the idea that the Maine Clean Election program could be a model for the state.

The first Clean Election Pilot Project took place in 2005 and focused on candidates for election to the General Assembly from two districts. The second Clean Election Pilot Project included candidates for the General Assembly and Senate and was expanded to three districts.

Included in the Eagleton monitoring study of these pilot projects were opinion surveys conducted jointly by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling and the Fairleigh Dickenson University Public Mind Poll. Voters were polled state-wide and in the pilot project districts to determine citizen attitudes and knowledge about clean elections and campaign finance reform. 

The monitoring study also conducted analyses of newspaper coverage of legislative races with a focus on Clean Elections districts campaigns and as well as campaign materials of the clean election districts.

For the 2007 study, a Citizen Advisory Committee provides perspectives, advice and informed evaluation of the second pilot project.  Funding was provided for the Clean Elections monitoring studies by the Fund for New Jersey and additional support from the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.

Information about the New Jersey Clean Election Pilot Project can be found in:
       New Jersey Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission Final Report, May 2006
           
       2007 Fair and Clean Elections Report, March 28, 2008 (New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission)

Looking Ahead to a Clean Election program for the 2009 Legislative election
In June 2008, following the work of a bi-partisan task group of Assembly members and senators, a bill was considered by the Assembly State Government Committee.   Testimony was presented by Ingrid W. Reed, director of the New Jersey Project, summarizing the proposals for a 2009 Clean Election proposal based on the monitoring study and the advice of the Citizen Advisory Committee.  The proposals were summarized in a chart comparing the proposal, the bill, A-100, with the previous pilots projects and 2006 recommendations of the New Jersey Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

The bill did not advance and is scheduled for reconsidered by the legislative task group for consideration in September.

Clean Elections and the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, June 26, 2008
This case that addressed the constitutionality of mitigating the effects of self-financing of elections by wealthy candidates has been examined for whether or not it applies to Clean Election programs.

Since this decision was rendered, opinions have been written on its relevance to Clean Elections.

The N.J. Office of Legislative Service in a letter opinion of July 21,2008 said that “relying on .... “Davis decision, would likely find the rescue money provisions to violate the First Amendment.”

A July 23, 2008 statement from The Campaign Legal Center that analyzed the Davis decision for its relevance to Clean Elections concluded that “the Davis Court did not decide the issue and public financing program trigger provisions can be distinguished from the Millionaire’s Amendment invalidated in Davis.”