Fun with ELEC

It's been a long time since I've fiddled around with my trusty highlighter and ELEC documents. So I figured now was as good a time as ever to embark on some early spring cleaning.

I'll be diving into the reports of Monmouth's ruling Republican Party and publishing what I find. Do contractors still contribute in spite of pay-to-play regulations? Are PACs and municipal organizations being used by the county GOP to navigate around pay-to-play regulations?

Let's start with the easy stuff.

Middletown

The Middletown Republican Committee received $7,200 from T&M Associates on October 2, 2006.

How this is not a blatant violation of the state's Pay-to-Play law is beyond me. This nifty little chart from ELEC tells me: "At the county-munic level, contributions of over $300 made to candidates holding office at the time of the awarding of the contract and to the political party committee to which such a candidate belongs in the year preceding the award of a contract are illegal."

T&M is once again Middletown engineering firm in 2007.


Aberdeen

I have to thank an anonymous tipster for pointing out the following information, which all bore true in the reports.

The Aberdeen Republican Committee received $7,200 from T&M Associates on October 23, 2006. (It is completely legal for the Aberdeen GOP to receive money from T&M since there are no Republicans currently serving on the Aberdeen Township Council and therefore couldn't vote on an engineering appointment for the town.)

Curiously, the Aberdeen GOP contributed $5,000 to the Monmouth GOP on October 24, 2006. That's right - the day after T&M contributed over $7K, $5K was wheeled over the county.

I say "wheeled" because T&M is an engineering firm for the county. They could not legally contribute to the Monmouth GOP (even though that didn't seem to stop the firm when it came to doing business in Middletown). Sending the money through the Aberdeen GOP's account essentially cleans the money, allowing T&M and the county GOP to violate the spirit of the pay-to-play regulations, though not the law.

Also of note is a contribution of $2,000 by Gibbons, Del Deo, Griffinger & Vecchione on November 11, 2006. (Gibbons, Del Deo is the county's bond counsel. Aberdeen Republicans can legally take money from Gibbons, Del Deo, but the county GOP cannot.)

Why might Gibbons, Del Deo be contributing to the losing Aberdeen GOP after the Nov. 7, 2006 elections, you might ask? I'd be curious to know that as well. What we do know is that the Aberdeen GOP was generous enough to put down a $3,000 deposit on December 23, 2006 for the county GOP's 2007 Lincoln Day dinner at the Addison (formerly the Garden Manor).

Interestingly enough, the contributions by Gibbons, Del Deo and T&M were the only major contributions received by the Aberdeen GOP last quarter. And, aside from $1,000 for what appears to be a municipal event, the only major expenses by the Aberdeen GOP were the Lincoln Day deposit and the contribution to the Monmouth County GOP.

Verbal fisticuffs in Middletown

Joe Caliendo gets all bad-ass on the APP.

I don't quite get the nature of the Republicans' ELEC complaint, as posted by Middletown Sewerage Authority Commissioner/failed state GOP exec. director/chief Peter Carton lapdog Brian Nelson. The argument seems to be that municipal parties can't give money to their candidates or something.

Perhaps not as vehemently as Caliendo, but I do agree that there was some major bungling by the APP, or like a total failure to click into the ELEC site.

This is the report of a money transaction that the Republicans say was not reported (i.e., the GOP is full of it and the APP failed to do any fact checking whatsoever):


(click to enlarge)

And here it is from the ELEC candidate's manual (page 7, under "Initial Election Fund Report"):

"In the event the committee is established within 5 months or less of the due date of the 29-day preelection report for the election in which the candidates or joint candidates are running, the committee will file a 29-day preelection report as the initial election fund report."

Translation: As long as the moolah is reported in Pat Short's 29-day preelection report (which isn't even due yet), he's in the clear ELEC wise.

Should I be worried or something?

Thank God I save my ELEC documentation. I don't think I wrote anything so controversial to merit the lawyer trove. Most of what I blogged about was already out there. Now it's wait and see if anything interesting happens. The e-mail, as always, is jcorley@gmail.com.

Old unpublished article

A dated Journalista: I wrote the article below circa the summer of 2004 (hence the McGreevey and Kushner references).

I shopped it around town and Al Sullivan used some of my info in an article he wrote for the Hudson Reporter. Al worked on the story for a couple of weeks but we wound up getting scooped by the Ledger. (The link to Ledger story has expired, but WhiteHouseForSale.org sums it up pretty well.)

The $144,000 in donations from the Christies to the New Jersey State Republican committee from 2001-2004 were generally ignored newspaper-wise for the juicier fact that "Since the summer of 2001, Todd Christie (Chris Christie's brother) and his wife have donated more than $400,000 to various GOP coffers. In comparison, the couple had donated less than $12,000 in the time before Chris began lobbying for the U.S. attorney's job." (WhiteHouseForSale.org)

Todd Christie came into $100 million in 2000 when Goldman Sachs purchased his firm, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, hence his ability to donate large sums of money to the state and national GOP. However, his time at Spear, Leeds & Kellogg has since drawn some controversy. In April 2005, Todd Christie was one of 20 folks charged civilly by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for using "their positions with the New York Stock Exchange to enrich themselves and their companies at the expense of investors".

The New York Times' editorial from April 16, 2005 included this interesting bite: "We can't help but note that Todd Christie, the brother of Christopher Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey, was among the 20 stock traders charged. But while 14 of the traders were charged with criminal fraud, Mr. Christie, a major donor to Republicans and the youngest brother of a prosecutor who has specialized in rooting out political corruption, faces only civil penalties and fines. ... Mr. Christie ranked fourth in the S.E.C. complaint among the 20 traders who earned the biggest profits at customers' expense. The top three were indicted, as were 11 traders lower down. We don't know whether this is a case of how nice it is to have big brothers in high places. But it doesn't look good."

Anyway, here's the thing I wrote in the summer of 2004. It wasn't written for Courier; it was a piece I was shopping around. There are a number of stylistic things I would change if I had written it today, but I'm not going to start nit-picking now.

Chris Christie's money trail

By JACKIE CORLEY

New Jersey's U.S. Attorney, Christopher J. Christie, has achieved a reputation as the Garden State's chief crusader for justice, racking up convictions against corrupt politicians and party fundraisers.

Recently, Charles Kushner, Governor Jim McGreevey's top Democratic money-maker, felt the sting of a Christie-led investigation. Kushner pled guilty in federal court on August 18 to 18 charges, including retaliating against a federal witness, violating campaign finance laws and filing false tax returns.

Christie has also been a vocal opponent of New Jersey's notorious pay-to-play political tactics in which campaign contributors are rewarded with jobs, tax breaks and other lucrative deals. Christie called such practices a hidden tax on residents.

While investigating shady political deals and fighting pay-to-play campaign donors, however, Christie has failed to discuss the $144,000 in campaign contributions he and his family have made to the New Jersey State Republican Committee (NJSRC).

Christie learned on September 10, 2001 he would receive the Presidential appointment and was sworn into office January 17, 2002. Early on, many New Jersey politicians questioned the selection, citing Christie's lack of experience: Christie had never tried a criminal case before becoming New Jersey's U.S. Attorney.

Despite early criticism, Christie struck out on such a fierce campaign of battling corruption that his name is currently being touted in Garden State Republican circles as a possible gubernatorial candidate in 2005 -- or earlier, should McGreevey bow to GOP pressure and resign immediately so a special election can take place this November.

New Jersey Republicans certainly have a lot to be grateful for in Chris Christie, and not just in the investigations that have whittled McGreevey's poll numbers down these past few months.

Campaign finance records from the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reveal that before 2001, Christie made two contributions to the NJSRC, totaling a mere $800. From 2001 until 2004, however, Christie and his family donated $144,000 to the committee.

In May and June of 2001, at a time when state Republicans were still deciding who would become New Jersey's next U.S. Attorney, Christie and his family, including his brother Todd Christie and his sister-in-law Theresa Christie, donated $74,000 to the NJSRC.

A month after Christie took the oath of office for U.S. Attorney, his brother donated another $20,000 to the committee. Todd Christie would continue the trend in 2003 and 2004, donating $50,000 to the NJSRC during that time.

Todd Christie was the chief executive of Goldman Sachs' New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) specialist arm, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg. On March 21, 2003 he was nominated to the NYSE's board; in less than a week, he was ousted from his position at Spear, Leeds & Kellogg and withdrew his nomination to the exchange's board. No public explanation was given for the sudden departure.

In addition to the direct contributions from the Christie family, business associates of Christopher and Todd Christie have donated generously to the NJSRC and its chairman, State Senator Joe Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) over the past few years.

Members of Christie's former law firm, Dughi, Hewitt and Palatucci, and Todd Christie's former investment firm Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, contributed $11,000 to the New Jersey State Republican Committee in 2001.

On October 21, 2001, 17 employees from Spear, Leeds & Kellogg donated a total of $14,000 to Kyrillos' campaign coffers. During his three-year tenure as committee chair, Kyrillos has received $30,850 from the Christies and their associates for his local campaigns.

While state U.S. Attorney positions are appointed by the President, leading state party officials hold the cards as to what names get sent to the White House, according to an aide at the Governor's Office who would not release his name.

Timothy A. White, political director of the NJSRC, denied that the committee has any influence over federal appointments, saying the NJSRC focuses its efforts strictly on campaigns at the federal and municipal.

However, Michael Drewniak, public affairs officer for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, acknowledged that closed-door politicking influences how the state's U.S. Attorney post is chosen.

"Honestly, there's a lot of deal making involved," Drewniak said.

When asked directly if state politicians and organizations have a say in the appointment, Drewniak said, "I don't want to go there."

Question

I'm pretty curious: does anyone know what this WMUA probe is really all about? Like the juicy behind-the-scenes stuff?

Not much new to report on the Bayshore Journalista-front. I work nights, which has been doing all sorts of wackiness to my person. Progress is slow but steady on the novel writing, determined little tortoise that I am. Wish I could move faster than continental drift but some things take time, I guess.

I want to shed some of this blogging boredom and post something interesting. So in that spirit, here is the U.S. Attorney Chris Christie & co. money trail I've chirped about but never really got around to posting. In the next couple days, I'll put up screen grabs of the ELEC reports.

Christie family and the NJ Republican State Committee PAC

* Before 2001, Chris Christie donated $800 to the NJ Republican State Committee. (His relatives didn't donate to the state committee before 2001.)
* From 2001 to 2004, Christie and his family donated $144,000 to the NJ Republican State Committee. $74,000 of that was donated about three months before he learned of his appointment.

Christie Donations to NJ Republican Committee 2000
August 8, 2000: $400, Christopher Christie
October 12, 2000: $400, Christopher Christie

Christie Donations to NJ Republican Committee 2001 (pre-appointment)
May 23, 2001: $10,000, Christopher Christie
June 13, 2001: $32,000, Todd Christie (brother)
June 13, 2001: $32,000, Theresa Christie (wife of Todd)

September 10, 2001: Chris Christie learned of his appointment as U.S. Attorney. He never tried a criminal case before being appointed.

Christie Donations to NJ Republican Committee 2002-2004 (post-appointment)
February 21, 2002: $20,000, Todd Christie
January 31, 2003: $25,000, Todd Christie
February 12, 2004: $25,000, Todd Christie

*Note: This isn't a judgment on the U.S. Attorney, who has done an admirable job in focusing on the state's corruption. These are just black-and-white money facts. Make of them what you will. I just think it's better to exist in an atmosphere of full disclosure.

On losing one's blogging inspiration... and getting it back

I got to hand it to the Monmouth Republicans lately. As Fred's reign waned and it looked like grassroots reform was actually on the horizon, you guys got down right boring to blog about. And the Monmouth Democrats? Well, when they arrive out of their perpetual press paralysis perhaps they'll be interesting to blog about some time soon.

But I've found my blogging inspiration again, folks, with visions of future ELEC reports dancing in my head.

Given Adam Puharic's statements to PoliticsNJ, the TRT and the general county bees buzz-buzzing around, it looks like we're in for Fred redux (and I somehow think that Gibbons, Del Dio will be reaping the bond benefits into infinitum. Municipal marinas for everyone, darlings!).

There's an inherent elitism in dismissing the recent grassroots voting by the county committee in favor of a return to executive committee-only voting, and I find it greatly disturbing. The only ones who stand to benefit from such a position are those whose mortgages and mansions are tied up in county and municipal jobs.

And the only way to effectively support such a system is a return to questionable fundraising tactics, of the developers and engineers and attorneys and contractors paving the way and having the say so.

But it looks like this is the road the Monmouth GOP is destined to stay on. The reform-minded will vote for Ed Stominski and Jim Giannell, effectively splitting their vote and diffusing any chance of actual change.

I respect Ed Stominski and Mel Hood a great deal but I believe Jim Giannell has proven he can organize the party and bring solid candidates to the forefront and should be the county's next chairman. I believe that Ed Stominski and Mel Hood can serve a vital role in fundraising for the party and should be a part of any new executive committee.

However if some compromise isn't reached among Ed, Mel and Jim, I believe all three will be left out in the cold, as well as a significant portion of the dedicated county committee members.

But if my premonition is correct and the committee goes for Fred redux, I have a feeling I won't be at as much of a loss for my future Monmouth blogging.

It's official: Fred's reign is dead

GOP chief Niemann to step down

I think the Monmouth Republican bloggers like Honest Abe and Will Seward deserve a hardy round of applause. I think the blogs played a large part in unmasking Niemann's incompetence as a leader. No one should underestimate the role Abe and Will played in what will inevitably become a stronger Republican Party.

And, of some note, the APP article includes ELEC numbers first confirmed by Abe, including the fact that Lynch associates Jack "I didn't bribe DeLisa" Morris and Jack "Why'd I get involved with Lynch in the first place" Westlake have been recent contributors to a party PAC.

By the by, just a personal opinion, but I think some people in this county will have a lot to worry about if Morris decides to spill whatever beans he has to the FBI. And the fact that neither Morris nor Westlake have been arrested--even after the DeLisa FBI's indictment said the pair (unnamed but outed by newspapers) allegedly bribed DeLisa using ELEC funds and money--gives me the vague suspicion that they may have already pulled a Palughi and gone state's witness.

It's only a matter of time, friends. Morris had a lot bigger projects around here than a West Long Branch Walgreens. And there was a lot more ELEC money flowing around these here parts than to just DeLisa and Zambrano.

Brilliant move time...

The Mon. Dems didn't bother to file a 4th quarter 2005 ELEC return, according to the APP. (By the by, the 1ST QUARTER 2006 should have been filed March 15.)

Their exec. dir. didn't even know about the missing report.

Don't worry R's, if the D's can't even figure out how to submit a piece of paper on time they're certainly not going to be able to take advantage of this little mess you find your party into now.

EDIT: That sounded rather cranky (or snarky, as the hipsters say), didn't it? That wasn't my intention. I shouldn't post at 6 a.m., 10 minutes after rolling out of bed.

I'm exasperated by the state of both political parties in Monmouth, though I think the R's have a much better chance of pulling the club back together by November than the D's do. You guys have a solid infrastructure, built over decades, and the blogger revolution shows your ability to adapt and find unique means of party support. The D's still haven't figured out how to file paperwork on time, and that's unfortunate because there is a palpable feeling amound Dems that "this is the year."

I'm going to de-fry from Monmouth-area shenanigans for awhile, though I can't imagine I'll be able to refrain from throwing in my two-cents as election time heats up.

Non-reporter status means I'm back in private citizen-ville. I think I enjoyed being entitled to my personal opinions a little too much after 20 long months of having to bite my lip.

It's been a helluva ride, but I think I'm going to enjoy being something other than "that Jackie," "that [former] Courier reporter," or "that opportunistic bitch" for awhile.

I'd like to start a new blog soon, some kind of repository of general commentary and news items about blogging in New Jersey.

And maybe this'll become a place where I can write news-y articles about the Bayshore whenever I get nostalgic (with source documents embeded in the post when they are referenced--that could be interesting). I'm not quite sure yet. I'm just getting a tad restless in terms of my blogging "style" as it were and I want to switch things up.

Fatigue

I need to post a bunch of source documents for the Lynch story since I promised to do that right after the New Year. I doubt anybody's pining away for a new set of dull ELEC report posts, but, essentially, this blog is supposed to exist just to house my source docs. Anyway, just wanted to say I haven't forgotten, I've just been incredibly fatigued by all the work on this website redesign business. It might take a few more weeks, but I'll get there.

I found this comment yesterday on a post on TheMediaDrop.com about that infamous pulled story:

Oh dear - NOT FOUND!
So much for a pub trying to hold back a story.
Jackie Corley is a very talented writer who works for a paper that does not appreciate her talents. They are only interested in Jackie fronting the agenda they are churning out. It is my hope that she tires of this nonsense and find work at a reputable paper where she will allowed to grow into the writer she's destined to be.

Posted by: FreedomOfSpeech at January 1, 2006 05:13 PM

I love how I'm perceived as being in the clutches of some cloaked, nefarious organization. Naturally, because I'm 23 and lacking a pair of testicles, I'm too ignorant to make my own decisions or avoid having naivete block any and all rational thought.

...or maybe The Courier conspiracy theories aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maybe I was actually the one who lobbied hard for the Aberdeen-Matawan Train Station story to see the light of day. Maybe Joe Azzolina and Jim Purcell are actually generous, honest and decent human beings. (And maybe the people who make such grand judgments on them should actually have a conversation with them or at least see them in person before frothing at the mouth.) Maybe the people who work at Courier love the place and the work they do. Maybe these Courier staffer blogs exist because the place is much more open and honest than other newsrooms. Maybe the reporters believe that we're given much more independence in the storylines we pursue and how we pursue them than our peers are.

I learned absolutely everything I know about journalism from my time at The Courier. If I'm a decent writer, it has everything to do with Jim Purcell, Shom Sengupta and Darlene Franklin.

Lynch’s role and intrigues in Monmouth County

(Published in the December 22 issue of The Courier.)

Lynch’s role and intrigues in Monmouth County

By JACKIE CORLEY

Are the losses of Monmouth Democrats in part caused by an internal split that has been orchestrated by forces outside the county?

For years state Democratic leaders have been looking at Monmouth as a county with a Republican vice-grip upon it that could be broken. The demographics seemed obvious: Monmouth is not Hudson County, where 42.5 percent of registered voters are Democrats, or Sussex County, where 34.2 percent of registered voters are Republicans, as of 2005.

What the Numbers Say

Contrasted to the rest of the state, Monmouth has the largest percentage of unaffiliated voters compared to its base of registered voters. Out of 396,047 registered voters in Monmouth County, 256,154 or 64.7 percent were unaffiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties, as of June 2005.

Additionally, the percentage of registered Democrats compared to the percentage of registered Republicans within the county voting bloc is third closest in the state; only Burlington and Bergen counties have a tighter spread percentage between Democrats or Republicans. When it comes to affiliated voters in Monmouth County, 65,390 or 16.5 percent of total registered voters aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, while 73,117 or 18.5 percent of total registered voters have aligned themselves with the Republican Party.

The demographics being what they are, how has Monmouth remained a Republican stronghold for decades?

The well-oiled machinery of the Republican Party plays no small part. And while the county Republicans have had their share of squabbles, such as the ouster of long-time Monmouth Republican Chairman Bill Dowd in June 2004, any issues have remained largely internal.

In the Monmouth County Democratic Party, struggles for the heart of the organization have come as much from neighboring Middlesex County and former state Sen. John Lynch, D-Middlesex, as they have from within.

Additionally, as the Monmouth County Democratic Organization faced internal challenges for the party leadership in recent years, challenges often well-funded by a Political Action Committee (PAC) controlled by Lynch, money from Lynch’s business partners have found its way into Monmouth Republican coffers.

Lynch: ‘Invader’ from the North?

The day after this year’s November General Election, FBI officers raided the Tinton Falls offices, located at Suite 10 on 1 Executive Drive, of Lynch and his business partner, Jack Westlake.

The pair's Monmouth offices house Alma Ltd., Executive Continental Inc. and the New Directions Through Responsible Leadership PAC, according to Election Law Enforcement Committee (ELEC) reports.

In recent interviews conducted by daily newspapers in the state, Lynch has stated that he and Westlake share control of Executive Continental, a subsidiary of Alma Ltd., which was incorporated by Westlake.

Lynch, considered a heavy-hitter in Middlesex politics, was a political mentor to former Gov. James McGreevey before the pair severed ties in the early 2000s. Lynch's own career in elected office ended in 2001 when he retired from the New Jersey Senate.

Labels in the press, such as "king-maker" and "de facto boss," have followed Lynch into retirement. These labels, Lynch has said publicly, are what he believes have drawn the FBI to investigate his business dealings.

Area residents may have been surprised to learn of Lynch’s presence in Monmouth following the FBI raid, when it made headlines in the media.

However, Lynch has had an involvement in Monmouth County politics for a number of years, and the belief that Lynch has been pining for a foothold in Monmouth County is an open secret in the Monmouth County Democratic Organization.

“He’s wanted influence in Monmouth County, no doubt about it,” Middletown Democratic Chairman Joe Caliendo said.

Caliendo said the challenges to Monmouth County Democratic Chairman Victor Scudiery's leadership in recent years were anchored in Lynch's desire to extend his sphere of influence into Monmouth County.

One of the most prominent turf battles for the Monmouth County Democratic Party occurred in 2003. That was when Scudiery supported state Sen. Ellen Karcher, 12th District, in a contentious primary battle against Oceanport Mayor Gordon Gemma, who received significant backing by Lynch. Also that year, Assemblyman Robert Morgan, D-Monmouth, was challenged by Fair Haven business owner Amy Mallet in the 2003 race. The New Directions PAC funded Gemma and Mallet’s failed primary attempt to the tune of $14,400.

Also, a 2000 race for the Monmouth County Democratic chairmanship pitted Red Bank Mayor Ed McKenna against Scudiery. McKenna received $5,000 from the New Directions PAC for the ultimately unsuccessful attempt. Lynch's PAC has continued to support McKenna's role as a Democratic leader in Monmouth County, contributing $9,700 to the Red Bank Democratic Party and $2,500 to the Monmouth County Council of Democrat Leaders PAC, a committee McKenna is affiliated with, since 2002.

Lynch's support for McKenna has been reciprocated, with the Red Bank Democratic Party, McKenna and his law firm contributing at least $5,500 since 2002.

Additionally, some specific municipal Democratic parties in Monmouth County have received funding from New Directions Through Responsible Leadership on more than one occasion since the PAC’s inception. In addition to the Red Bank Democratic Party, these municipal parties include: the Atlantic Highlands Democratic Party, the Manalapan Democratic Party and the West Long Branch Democratic Party.

As for Monmouth County Legislative District races, the Democratic candidates in the 13th District received $3,000 since 1999, with $500 coming from Executive Continental to Assembly candidates Patrick Gillespie and Alex DeSevo in 1999; $2,000 from the New Directions PAC to state senatorial candidate Bill Flynn in 2003; and $500 to Flynn and his Assembly running mates, Leonard Inzerillo and Thomas Perry, also in 2003. No contributions were made to the 2005 Democratic 13th District race, in which candidate Michael Dasaro, who ran with Flynn, made considerable issue of the financial relationship between developer Jack Morris, also a Lynch partner in a Brick land deal, and state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth.

In addition to the campaign funds contributed to Gemma and Mallet in the 12th District primary race, then assembly-candidate Gemma and running mate William Scherer received $2,000 from Alma Ltd. in 2001; Karcher received $2,000 from Westlake and $2,000 from the New Directions PAC in the 2003 general election; and Morgan and Assemblyman Michael Panter, D-Monmouth, received $500 from New Directions in 2004.

In the 11th District, Assembly candidate Matthew Doherty received $500 from the New Directions PAC this year.

During the time that Lynch made his presence known in Monmouth through contributions from New Directions, the 2000 and 2003 challenges to Scudiery’s leadership occurred, as did a stunted attempt by McKenna’s law partner and Democratic fundraiser Michael DuPont, who considered running for the chairman post in 2004.

And though individual Monmouth Democrats and municipal campaigns have benefited from Lynch's fundraising capabilities, his PAC has not financially supported the Monmouth County Democratic Organization to the same level as it has other county Democratic organizations throughout the state. The Monmouth County Democratic Party received $5,000 from the PAC since 2001, while southern neighbor Ocean County, also a heavily Republican-controlled part of the state, received $84,500 for its Democratic organization and northern neighbor Middlesex County, Lynch's home territory, received $133,000 for its Democratic organization.

Lynch: A Monmouth Republican Supporter?

While the fact that a PAC under Lynch's control would not contribute funds to a county leadership it has taken exception to is not unusual, what does stand out in ELEC reports listing Suite 10 at 1 Executive Drive as home to numerous campaign contributions are the funds given to the Monmouth County Republican Party by Alma Ltd.

Lynch has publicly stated to other news outlets that Westlake consulted with him about forming Alma Ltd. during the early 1990s. Lynch and Westlake subsequently decided that Westlake alone would incorporate Alma Ltd. and a subsidiary company, later called Executive Continental, Inc., would be formed out of Alma Ltd. to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest for Lynch, who was still a state senator at the time.

Nevertheless, Alma Ltd. has become a significant source of funds for the Democratic Party, in much the same way that the New Directions PAC listed at the same address had.

Of the $125,450 contributed to campaigns and political organizations by Alma Ltd., with 94 percent of such donations being made between 1998 and 2005, $106,500 went to Democratic candidates and committees.

Alma Ltd., however, has not neglected Republicans: $18,900 in contributions were made to state Republicans. Of the $18,900 in Republican contributions from Alma Ltd., $12,400 went to Monmouth County Republicans.

The Monmouth County Republican Party received a total of $5,500 in annual donations made between 1999 and 2004. The contributions stood in the $650 to $750 range until August 2004, when a $2,000 donation was made. This compares to $3,000 in total contributions to the Monmouth County Democratic Party by Alma Ltd., made between 2002 and 2004.

Other contributions to Monmouth County Republicans by Alma Ltd. include: $650 total to Assemblyman Steve Corodemus, R-Monmouth, in contributions made between 1998 and 1999; $1,800 total to former state Sen. John Bennett, R-Monmouth, in contributions made between 1999 and 2002; and $3,800 to Kyrillos, a former New Jersey State Republican Committee chairman, made between 2000 and 2005.

Kyrillos came under fire this summer when it was revealed that, while counseling Democrat-controlled Aberdeen Township and then-Republican-controlled Matawan Borough for a resolution to the Aberdeen-Matawan Train Station redevelopment project, he had accepted over $50,000 from Jack Morris in campaign contributions. Morris is a Middlesex-based developer and a Lynch business partner whose company, the Columbia Group, was ultimately selected by the Matawan Borough Council as its designated redeveloper.

Morris has been a very successful fundraiser for Middlesex Democrats in recent years. Since 2000, Morris and his companies have contributed over $500,000 to Democrats and Democratic political organizations throughout the state. Of that money, at least $140,000 has gone to the Middlesex County Democratic Organization, ELEC reports.

Why would the leader of the New Jersey State Republican Party be accepting funds so closely associated with the so-called Middlesex County Democratic boss, a man who has been doing everything in his power to defeat Middlesex Republicans? Kyrillos has not returned calls to this office to answer questions for this article.

Kyrillos was chairman of the state’s Republican Party from 2001 to 2004.

Middlesex Republicans' Up-hill Battle

For years, Middlesex Republicans have been fighting an up-hill battle to raise funds in a county where the Middlesex Democratic Party is largely in control of the area's municipal and county-wide offices. Subsequently, Middlesex Democrats have been able to draw on the generosity of numerous professional services firms and developers to fill its political coffers.

Is the Middlesex Republican Party destined to minority status because of the financial power of the Middlesex Democratic organization, or has a dry fund-raising well kept the Middlesex Republicans from encroaching on Democratic territory? The question may bit of a "chicken or the egg" scenario, but the Middlesex County Republican Committee has seen little in terms of funding by the state to even put the question to the test.

Middlesex had the second largest base of undeclared voters in the state (Bergen County had claims to first place) at the height of Kyrillos' tenure as state Republican leader in 2002. Nevertheless, the county organization saw only approximately $28,000 in contributions and in-kind contributions from the state party from mid-2001 to 2005.

In total, approximately $2,016,000 has been contributed or given as in-kind contributions to county organizations during that time, with $45,000 of that money being expended since Tom Wilson took over the reins as state Republican chairman in December 2004.

Therefore, the $28,000 amount places Middlesex County 13th out of 19 counties that received money from the state for the county party organization and county-wide races during that time period. (Hunterdon and Sussex counties, both heavily Republican, relied on internal fundraising alone to finance their races.) The counties out-ranking Middlesex in terms of state GOP spending included Democratic powerhouses Essex, Union, Camden and Hudson. Counties that saw less funds from the state than Middlesex from June 2001 to 2005 Cape May, Morris, Atlantic, Salem, Warren and Mercer.

Neighboring Monmouth and Ocean counties were at the top end of the spectrum, receiving approximately $232,000 and $136,000 respectively from the state during that time. Notably, all the donations and in-kind contributions that came to Monmouth from the state between June 2001 and 2005 were made after Fred Niemann replaced Dowd as Monmouth County Republican chairman.

Today, both the Monmouth County Democratic and Republican parties are experiencing change. What direction these changes take may ultimately be tied to Lynch’s involvement in both parties and Kyrillos’ involvement with Lynch.

(A request for an interview with Sen. Lynch was not answered by this article’s deadline.)

Stay tuned...

Next week, The Courier is going back to the ELEC report jungle with some new information we've been given. Matt McGrath, who has revamped his Bayshore Planet site, will join in the investigative fun. This will involve the Democrat and Republican parties and Monmouth and Middlesex Counties.

Someone just wrapped up a gift and handed it to me today over the phone. I told Matt to stock up on binders and highlighters 'cause we're gonna be in the reporter trenches for the next few weeks. Fun times, fun times.

I ::heart:: Art

I feel like such a groupie.

Arthur Z. Kamin is da bomb.

We've had a few nice chats after the whole ELEC extravaganza began this summer, but I finally get to sit down with the man himself later this month. I'm already incredibly nervous about it. He's basically my local journalism hero. Here's to hoping I don't trip over myself.

Broschart drops out of race

Published in the September 22, 2005 issue of The Courier.

Broschart drops out of race

By JACKIE CORLEY

In an unexpected turn of events in Hazlet politics, Committeeman Scott Broschart resigned his candidacy for the November special election.

In May, Broschart was selected by the Township Committee to replace former Mayor Paul Coughlin. Coughlin resigned in April, two months after he was arrested by the FBI in a corruption sting that netted 11 Monmouth County officials.

At the time, Hazlet Republicans expressed reservations about Broschart’s ascension into government office.

“His work experience is close to nothing. The other Republicans that were nominated for his seat are professionals and own property [in town],” Rich Kohler, a Hazlet Republican, said in an article in the July 7 issue of The Courier.

In the same article, Hazlet Republican Chair Steve Grossman said, “There were qualified candidates. Someone as young as Scott has no real work experience. He has no real life experience.”

Broschart denied that his youth would affect the way he would govern and launched an “Ethics Reform Plan” that included campaign finance reform regulations.

When the Township Committee voted unanimously to approve an anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance, however, Broschart was bombarded with questions from Hazlet Democrats about his own campaign fundraising activities.

In the resume he submitted when seeking to fill Coughlin’s seat, Broschart wrote that he “raised over $40,000 in contributions” as campaign manager for the successful 2004 election of Mayor Michael Sachs and Committeewoman Bridget Antonucci.

In fact, Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports show that $20,535 was raised for the campaign, a number later adjusted to $20,831.

“Either you falsified the election report and violated state law or you falsified your resume to become a member of the Township Committee,” Vincent Solomeno, a Hazlet Democrat, said at the September 6 meeting.

In a later interview, Solomeno questioned whether or not Broschart’s appointment was in itself Pay-to-Play.

“He is the one who raised tens of thousands of dollars for the very people who voted to appoint him to his position,” Solomeno said. “What this says is that someone who doesn’t have a steady job, who doesn’t pay Hazlet property taxes can become a committeeman by raising tens of thousands of dollars.”

Anointed not appointed?

When Coughlin resigned his seat and a November special election was imminent, Grossman said he began planning a “mini-convention” for county committee members of the Hazlet Republican Party to select who would run on the Republican ticket.

On July 20, that process was thwarted when Monmouth County Republican Chair Fred Niemann signed off on Broschart’s candidacy.

Niemann, who campaigned for county chair under the promise on enacting by-laws and restoring greater control to municipal clubs, reportedly told Grossman he was unaware of what he was signing.

Under a little-known rule, the county chair does in fact have the authority to select a candidate for a special election, Grossman said. Nevertheless, the rule hadn’t been applied in Monmouth County in 20 years, according to Grossman.

Broschart bows out just under the wire

At a meeting of the Hazlet Republican Club held at the Lakeside Manor on Wednesday, September 14, Committeewoman and Republican Club President Tracey Maffiore announced that Broschart removed his name from the Republican ticket.

Broschart had attended the Hazlet Republican Club meeting but left before the announcement was made that he was resigning his candidacy.

Maffiore said that Broschart had made the decision to step down because the Hazlet Democrats were using him as a political issue.

In an e-mail, however, Broschart said he removed his name from the ticket so he could focus on his future.

“I need to focus on my career and I'm unsure if I will be residing in Hazlet over the next year. It would be a disservice to the residents of Hazlet if I were to run this year, possibly win and then have to step down if I am forced to relocate,” Broschart said. “In the meantime, I will continue to serve on the committee and fully plan on supporting Ric Medrow (a Republican running for the seat currently held by Maffiore, who is not seeking re-election this year) and the candidate who is chosen to run in my place.”

Hazlet Democrats, however, believe Broschart’s sudden resignation of his candidacy to be a direct result of the questions they raised at the last Township Committee meeting.

“Obviously I feel that our questions about Broschart’s campaign fund raising were instrumental in him stepping down,” said Jim DiNardo, Democrat candidate for Hazlet Township Committee.

DiNardo said that Broschart, as a sitting member of the governing body, still owes taxpayers answers about the ethical questions that have been raised by residents. The Township Committee also needs to be held responsible for Broschart’s appointment in the midst of these allegations, according to DiNardo.

“The Township Committee had a choice. They chose to put up a guy who obviously has some issues with campaign finances. It raises another cloud over Hazlet (following Coughlin’s arrest),” DiNardo said. “We need good government not more questions about the lack of honesty and integrity of our committee members.”

If Broschart had not stepped down by Monday, September 19, only a court order could have replaced him with another candidate on the ticket, according to Grossman. The Hazlet Republican Party will have until Wednesday, September 21 to present the name of the new candidate, who will have to be approved by Niemann.

Many members of the Hazlet Republican Club asked Maffiore to consider running in the special election. Maffiore said it was unlikely that she would run this November, as she took on a new job last year and found her free time severely limited. She said she was heartened by the show of support from other Republican Club members.

Grossman said the club will continue to move forward.

“I wish Scott the best of luck. I think he did the right thing for Hazlet and for the party,” Grossman said.

Kohler said he was pleased by the turn of events.

“I think [Broschart] brought this upon himself. I think we almost had a case of the system running amok,” Kohler said. “Thanks to Steve, we got it back under control.”

With reporting by Christian Alexandersen.

Three Releases from 11th District R's

(Send any Bayshore area campaign releases to jcorley @ gmail.com and I'll post 'em.)

Looks like Assemblymen Corodemus and Kean have the pedal to the metal in this post-labor day election season. These are releases from yesterday and today:

For Immediate Release

September 8, 2005
Steven J. Corodemus (732) 744 - 1998
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

RECORDS SHOW REILLY TOOK $2,000 IN CAMPAIGN CASH FROM ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED FORMER U.S. SENATOR BOB TORRICELLI

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: Eleventh Legislative District Democrat Assembly candidate Jim Reilly took $2,000 in campaign contributions from the political action committee of former U.S. Senator Bob Torricelli months after revelations that Torricelli had taken illegal gifts.

Reports filed by Torricelli with the IRS and by Reilly with the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) show Reilly accepted a Torch PAC, Inc. check for $1,000 on August 25, 2001. Reilly accepted a second $1,000 from Torricelli on November 3, 2001.

Torricelli was forced to resign from the U.S. Senate in 2002 after he was forced to admit he took gifts from friends and associates including a Rolex watch, Italian-made suits and a big screen TV from a businessman who sought contracts with the U.S. government.

Torricelli’s acceptance of those gifts became public in February 2001.

Federal law and congressional ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from accepting gifts worth $50 or more.

Reilly was a legislative aide to Torricelli in 1998 and 1999.

“We need to judge Jim Reilly by what he does, not what he says. Reilly says he’s for higher ethics, yet he took $2,000 from Torricelli after Torricelli’s acceptance of illegal gifts had become public,” Assemblyman Steve Corodemus said.

“Reilly and Doherty have no credibility on claims to be ethics or campaign finance reformers. As far back as 2001, they were taking campaign cash from people and companies they knew, or should have known, had violated the public trust,” Assemblyman Sean Kean added.

###

For Immediate Release
September 9, 2005
Steven J. Corodemus (732) 744 - 1998
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

CORODEMUS AND KEAN SAY EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS MUST BE USED RESPONSIBLY IN REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

WARN THAT PROPERTY TAXES ALSO THREATEN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND RENEW CALL FOR PROPERTY TAX SPECIAL SESSION

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: Assemblymen Steve Corodemus and Sean Kean today said that eminent domain can be a useful redevelopment tool in the Eleventh District if it is exercised responsibly, property owners are fairly compensated and there are parameters for what areas are subject to this power.

"The recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion on eminent domain has raised legitimate concerns about government’s power to seize private property," said Assemblyman Sean Kean. "In our district, eminent domain has the potential to have a positive impact on some communities – if it is used properly."

"We need to create a formula that fairly compensates property owners not just for the price of their land, but for the burden caused by the loss of that property," Assemblyman Steve Corodemus said. "If we do that, and statutorily limit this power to areas that are clearly in need of redevelopment, this tool can be used without threatening property rights."

Kean and Corodemus pointed out that Democrat mayors in at least two Eleventh District towns – Asbury Park and Long Branch – are using eminent domain as a key part of redevelopment efforts, and that any effort to limit the scope of that power must be carefully constructed not to jeopardize those vital projects.

They noted the irony of Matt Doherty and Jim Reilly expressing concerns that people will lose homes through eminent domain while their Democrat allies have blocked Republican efforts to consider a property tax relief plan and have refused to schedule a special session to deal with that important issue.

"If our opponents really care about residents losing their homes, their party should stop blocking our efforts to provide guaranteed property tax relief," said Corodemus. "People are being forced out of their homes by skyrocketing property taxes and the Democrat Party doesn’t even care enough about that issue to schedule a legislative session to deal with the problem."

"Steve and I agree that there needs to be protections for homeowners against intrusive seizure of property by government, but how will people in the 11th be able be afford to live in their homes if taxes keep rising?” Kean asked. “The Doherty / Reilly Democrats continue to block a special session of the legislature on property tax reform.”

Questioning the sincerity of their opponents on the eminent domain issue, they challenge Doherty and Reilly to put people ahead of profits and condemn efforts by their fellow Democrats to use eminent domain to reward campaign contributors.

Recent newspaper stories highlighted efforts by some Democrat Party leaders to seize privately owned land in Linden to make way for a project to be managed by private developer, Joseph Morris, who has donated $120,000 to Democrats in the past four years. “Far too often in recent years we have heard Democrats spout all the right rhetoric, but then do the wrong thing”, Corodemus said. “Actions mean more than words and the Democrats in Trenton have failed to act on this issue – just as they have on many others.”

“If our opponents can’t stand up to their party’s leaders now, why would we expect them to when they get to Trenton?” Kean asked. “We are taking action by standing up and offering solutions to problems like eminent domain and property taxes. All our opponents and their party have offered is empty rhetoric.”

###

For Immediate Release
September 9, 2005
Steven J. Corodemus (848) 466 - 0366
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

DOES REILLY NOW ADMIT HOMELAND SECURITY PROCESS HIS PARTY CONTROLLED WAS ABUSED FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES? IF SO, HOW DOES HE KNOW?

AFTER DENYING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PROCESS, CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGES PARTISAN POLITICS WAS INVOLVED

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: So did Jim Reilly’s Democrat Party bosses manipulate New Jersey’s homeland security dollars for political purposes or not? The answer, it appears, depends on when you ask him and who he wants to blame.

When asked about Reilly’s own role in the process in the August 25 edition of the The Coast Star, Reilly’s spokesperson said that Mr. Reilly had no knowledge of how those funds were distributed.

Later, in the very same story, Reilly’s spokesperson contended partisan politics probably entered into the attorney general’s decision-making process. So it was the attorney general’s fault?

Last year $7.8 million of the $8.3 million in homeland security grants distributed by the state went to Democrat legislative districts. Over the past three years 93 percent of the funds went to Democrat districts. None of the money went to the 11th District.

Reilly, who staffed the Assembly Homeland Security & State Preparedness Committee for the Assembly Democrats, has said that despite his role on that committee he knew nothing about how these homeland security grants were distributed.

Assemblymen Steve Corodemus and Sean Kean said that as it has become apparent Reilly’s party bosses used this fund as a pot of political pork, they believe he is seeking to find a scapegoat.

"First our opponent denies any knowledge of the process, now he wants to cast blame elsewhere," said Assemblyman Steve Corodemus. "It is clear that he has no desire to put the blame where it obviously belongs, on the Governor and the Democrat leadership for whom he worked in the Legislature."

"The residents of the 11th District were cheated by this process and their safety was put at risk," said Assemblyman Sean Kean. "A real leader would demand answers and take steps to correct this problem as Steve and I have done, instead of trying to provide cover for their party bosses."

Kean and Corodemus noted that the lack of homeland security aid also has forced Eleventh District municipalities to shoulder more of their own public safety costs at local taxpayer expense. Just one more way Reilly and his Democrat bosses have contributed to the property tax problem.

###

Broschart comes under fire about campaign finances

(Published in the Thursday, September 8, 2005 issue of The Courier.)

Broschart comes under fire about campaign finances

By JACKIE CORLEY

What was supposed to be the passage of an anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance led to allegations of wrong-doing by a sitting committeeman at the Tuesday, September 6 meeting of the Hazlet Township Committee.

Committeeman Scott Broschart, 26, who was selected to replace former Mayor Paul Coughlin despite questions by both Republican and Democrat leaders about his qualifications for the office, initiated “Operation Public Trust” in late June 2005.
The ethics reform package proposed by Broschart included Pay-to-Play regulations and an anti-nepotism ban. The anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance was passed unanimously by the Township Committee at the meeting.

However, Democrats charged that Broschart had severe campaign finance issues of his own to answer.

In his resume seeking to fill Coughlin’s vacant seat, Broschart wrote that he “raised over $40,000 in contributions” as campaign manager for the successful 2004 election of Mayor Michael Sachs and Committeewoman Bridget Antonucci.

In fact, Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports show that $20,585 was raised for campaign.

When Democrat candidates for Hazlet Township Committee Kevin Lavan and Jim DiNardo attempted to question Broschart regarding the sum of money during the public portion of the Thursday meeting, Sachs refused to allow either man to speak on the issue.

“It’s political and has nothing to do with the business of this town,” Sachs said.

In an interview outside the meeting room, DiNardo disagreed with Sachs’s assessment.

“I feel it does matter to the citizens of Hazlet because Scott Broschart was the one appointed to the committee,” Lavan said. “I think it was a political appointment. The other two people who applied for the position had better resumes. We had one fellow in town (Coughlin) arrested because of illegal money, now we have a second person who took his seat having questionable financial actiivity himself. We have to take the political black cloud off of Hazlet.”

DiNardo concurred, saying, “I’m not happy with what’s happening. We’re not getting any answers from the Township Committee.”

Lavan said he and DiNardo filed a complaint with the Board of Elections and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office in regard to potential violations of the state’s election statutes.

“Where exactly is this missing $20,000?” DiNardo said.

Vincent Solomeno, a Hazlet Democrat, was able to make more headway during the public portion of the meeting, posing questions to Broschart about his conflict of interest in serving as a campaign fund-raiser “to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for the Hazlet Republican Party” and serving as the proponent of Hazlet’s anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance.

Broschart denied engaging in the practice of Pay-to-Play, noting that he had an obligation to raise funds as campaign manager and was not a member of the governing body at the time he raised money. He said he trusted the Township Committee to make fair and ethical decisions.

“You were engaged in Pay-to-Play and now you’re a member of the township committee supporting Pay-to-Play reform. I think it’s hypocritical,” Solomeno said.

Solomeno also publicly questioned Broschart’s claim of raising $40,000 for last year’s campaign.

“Either you falsified the election report and violated state law or you falsified your resume to become a member of the Township Committee,” Solomeno said.

In a later interview, Solomeno questioned whether or not Broschart’s appointment was in itself Pay-to-Play.

“He is the one who raised tens of thousands of dollars for the very people who voted to appoint him to his position,” Solomeno said. “What this says is that someone who doesn’t have a steady job, who doesn’t pay Hazlet property taxes can become a committeeman by raising tens of thousands of dollars.”

Rich Kohler, a Hazlet Republican, was the first to raise questions about Broschart’s campaign fund-raising claims in his column in The Courier in its May 19, 2005 issue.

In the column, Kohler wrote, “In [Broschart’s] capacity [as 2004 Republican campaign manager], he sent several arrogant and hostile campaign related e-mails to members of the Hazlet Township Republican Campaign Committee. These letters were barely written at a fifth-grade level…Although I supported both candidates, I limited my involvement in the campaign as a result of Mr. Broschart;s irresponsible correspondence and his lack of regard for the value of positive leadership. Rewarding this type of leadership with ordained political power will most likely lead our township in a negative direction.”

Kohler noted that questions about Broschart’s financial management of the 2004 campaign should be answered, especially in light of the Township Committee’s decision to propose anti-pay-to-play regulations.

“How can he pass the legislation if he has this hanging over his head? The money question needs to be answered,” Kohler said.

Following the Township Committee meeting, Broschart said DiNardo’s and Lavan’s decision to file a complaint with the Board of Elections about discrepancies in the 2004 campaign was “a political ploy aimed to get press for the campaign.”

Pay-to-play and the November election

At the Tuesday meeting, Kohler and other Hazlet residents questioned whether or not the township’s pay-to-play ordinance had “any teeth.”

Hazlet Township Attorney James H. Gorman acknowledged that Hazlet’s ordinance was essentially similar to the state’s anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance, which goes into effect January 1, 2006. The Hazlet ordinance would put the regulations into effect earlier but would not go beyond the state’s legislation as such a step would be nullified by the state when its bill went into effect in January.

“There are other bills pending [at the state level], which may or may not even be passed, that would allow municipalities to set different standards for Pay-to-Play bans,” Gorman said. “Right now, I don’t see why we should spend any money, time or effort on regulations that would be nullified by state legislation in three months. The state has effectively said, ‘This is all you can do.’”

Hazlet resident Eugene Gere questioned whether the introduction of the anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance was merely politicking during election season.

“From a political angle, this will just allow candidates to grandstand. There are real problems that are not being addressed. There are no anti-wheeling provisions. I’m not sure what we’re really getting with this,” Gere said.

Ric Medrow, a Republican who is running for Hazlet Township Committee, said the baby shouldn’t be thrown out with the bathwater.

“I’ve never seen a perfect piece of campaign finance legislation. We can’t let that be an excuse for not cleaning up dirty money in politics. You have to start somewhere,” Medrow said.

Also, Medrow noted he was interested in expanding pay-to-play regulations to include developers looking to build property in town.

Broschart was selected by Monmouth County Republican Committee Chairman Fred Niemann to run for the second committee seat up for election this year, making Broschart, by default, Medrow’s running mate, despite concerns issued publicly and privately by high-ranking Hazlet Republicans about Broschart’s candidacy.

Nevertheless, Medrow feels he has much to offer to Hazlet residents and has been knocking on doors since the beginning of the summer.

“It’s essential that you get out there and talk to the residents and get to know their concerns and let them know what you’ll do as an elected official to ease those concerns,” Medrow said. “I’ve knocked on 2,200 doors so far. I’ve been out when it was 104 degrees and I’ll be out when it’s 47 degrees. The residents of Hazlet deserve that.”

Gee whiz, batman -- two 11th District R releases!

(And again, I'll post any releases e-mailed to me by any Bayshore area candidate. My e-mail is jcorley @ gmail . com)

Here you go:

For Immediate Release
September 7, 2005
Steven J. Corodemus (732) 744 - 1998
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

IF DOHERTY & REILLY SUPPORTS A HIGHER STANDARD OF ETHICS, WHY DID HE TAKE $500 FROM A McGREEVEY APPOINTEE WHO VIOLATED CURRENT ETHICAL STANDARDS?

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: Eleventh District Democrat Assembly candidate Matt Doherty took a $500 campaign contribution from NJ’s Secretary of State less than a month before she was found to have violated state ethics rules for failure to disclose her involvement in a political consulting firm that reportedly collected hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from the 2004 Kerry Edwards campaign.

NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports show that on May 13, 2005, Doherty accepted $500 from Regina Thomas.

On June 8, 2005, NJ’s Executive Commission on Ethical Standards found that Thomas violated ethics rules by not disclosing her interest in IEM Message Management, a Democrat campaign consulting group.

The Secretary of State is a constitutional officer who is banned from active involvement in partisan politics. As a cabinet officer, Thomas is also required to file an annual report detailing her assets and business interests. She failed to report her ties to IEM.

“Mr. Doherty says he’s a reformer pledged to bring a higher standard of ethics to Trenton. He says Trenton is broken and he’ll fix it. That’s talk. What Doherty does is take campaign money from a Trenton insider who was formally reprimanded for violating state ethics rules,” Assemblyman Steve Corodemus said.

Corodemus emphasized that Doherty took the campaign cash when he knew, or should have known, that Thomas was under investigation for ethics violations.

“Mr. Doherty had a chance to refuse the money and prove he’s for change and higher ethical standards, but he took the cash from a Trenton Democrat insider who practices lower standards. He must be judged by what he does, not what he says,” concluded Assemblyman Sean Kean.

###


For Immediate Release
September 7, 2005
Steven J. Corodemus (732) 744 - 1998
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR JIM REILLY AND MATT DOHERTY: DO YOU BELIEVE NEW JERSEY HAS A PROPERTY TAX PROBLEM?

REILLY AND DOHERTY STAY SILENT ABOUT DEMOCRAT FAILURE ON PROPERTY TAXES WHILE OPPOSING REAL REFORM EFFORTS

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: While maintaining their vow of silence regarding their own party’s failure to address the property tax issue, Democrats Matt Doherty and Jim Reilly are now refusing to support a constitutionally guaranteed 30 percent cut in property taxes.

Meanwhile, Republican Assembly candidates Steve Corodemus and Sean Kean have been fighting to convince the Democrat leadership in Trenton to hold a special session to consider this 30% in 3 property tax relief proposal.

Corodemus and Kean challenged their opponents to answer a simple question: Is there a property tax crisis in New Jersey and has the current Democrat leadership in Trenton contributed to that problem?

The first step to correcting any problem is acknowledging that the problem exists and identifying the cause, Corodemus said. Unfortunately, because of their support from the Democrat bosses in Trenton, our opponents can’t even get past step one.

Steve and I know the answer to that question, Kean said. There is a property tax crisis and it has been fueled by Democrat policies that have frozen state aid to our school districts and slashed property tax rebates.

When it comes to the Democrat Party’s record of increasing property taxes by more than 20 percent in the past four years, our opponents are oddly silent, Corodemus said. Yet ironically, they also refuse to support a realistic, comprehensive plan to cut property taxes by 30 percent in three years.

As the handpicked candidates of Assembly Democrat bosses like Albio Sires and Joe Roberts, Matt Doherty and Jim Reilly have refused to acknowledge that Democrats in Trenton have failed miserably on the property tax issue.

They even recently sent out a mailer saying they support a special session to address the issue, but when Corodemus, Kean and the Assembly Republican caucus showed up in Trenton in August for just such a session, Doherty and Reilly’s Democrat bosses refused to allow the session to take place. Where were they when the taxpayers of Monmouth County needed them?

While our opponents try to sidestep giving an answer to that very simple question, Steve and I will keep fighting for property tax relief and reform, Kean said. We have identified the problem and have a plan on the table that will provide a comprehensive long-term solution. Only the Democrat leaders who appointed Doherty and Reilly stand in the way.

###

'Nother Press Release

11th District Republicans:

For Immediate Release

September 6, 2005

Steven J. Corodemus (732) 744 - 1998
Sean T. Kean (732) 241 - 9718
Info@CorodemusKean.com

CORODEMUS AND KEAN SAY DOHERTY AND REILLY MUST COME CLEAN ON CAMPAIGN CASH FROM HOUSTON, TEXAS CHEMICAL COMPANY THAT SELLS CANCER-CAUSING GAS ADDITIVE IN NJ

Atlantic Highlands & Wall Township, NJ: Assemblymen Steve Corodemus and Sean Kean today called on Matt Doherty and Jim Reilly to explain why they were singled out for a $5,200 campaign contribution from the Lyondell Chemical Company adding that Doherty and Reilly must refuse to accept any campaign money from an Assembly Democrat PAC that took $27,000 in campaign cash from that same company.

Lyondell is a major manufacturer of MTBE, a gasoline additive that the federal EPA says is a “potential human carcinogen.” MTBE is responsible for contaminating 1,500 municipal water sites in 28 states. It is estimated that it could cost taxpayers $140 billion to clean up the water supplies contaminated by MTBE.

In 2002, a California jury found Lyondell guilty of the irresponsible manufacturing and distribution of MTBE saying that Lyondell acted with malice by neglecting to warn customers of the dangers of MTBE water contamination.

On June 30, 2005, the NJ State Assembly and Senate passed (A3469/S2018), a measure to ban sales in New Jersey of MTBE groundwater contaminant. Corodemus and Kean voted for the ban. It was signed into law (PL2005) on August 18, 2005.

“Why were Doherty and Reilly singled out for a $5,200 campaign contribution from Lyondell? Why them? Why on June 20,?” Corodemus said.

According to NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) records, since January 2004 Assembly Speaker Albio Sires received $1,000 from Lyondell, Democrat Majority Leader Joe Roberts $1,500 and Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald $1,500.

On June 23, 2005 the Democrat Assembly PAC set up to fund candidates like Doherty and Reilly took $23,000 from Lyondell. Since January 2004 the Democrat PAC has taken a total of $27,000.

“Will that $27,000 find its way into Doherty and Reilly’s campaign coffers or pay for in-kind contributions,?” Kean said. “It could if they take any campaign money from the New Democratic Leadership PAC.”

Doherty and Reilly have made campaign finance reform and disclosure a cornerstone of their campaign. Doherty has said he has “an unwavering commitment to a clean environment” and Reilly says he has a record of “bringing suit against dangerous environmental polluters.”

Corodemus and Kean said that if Doherty and Reilly accept New Democratic Leadership PAC money it will be tantamount to accepting “laundered” money from Lyondell and will prove they are neither campaign finance reformers nor environmentalists.

“The people of the 11th legislative district await Doherty’s and Reilly’s response,” they added.


FACTS ABOUT LYONDELL CAMPAIGN CASH TO NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP PAC AND DOHERTY & REILLY FOR ASSEMBLY

February 11, 2004 Lyondell gives $1,000 campaign contribution to New Democratic Assembly Leadership PAC accepts Jersey Assembly

October 13, 2004 Lyondell gives $1,000 campaign contribution to New Democratic Assembly Leadership PAC

March 16, 2005 Lyondell gives $2,000 campaign contribution to New Democratic Assembly Leadership PAC

June 20, 2005 Lyondell gives $5,200 campaign contribution to Doherty and Reilly for Assembly

June 23, 2005 Lyondell gives $23,000 campaign contribution to New Democratic Assembly Leadership PAC

June 30, 2005 NJ General Assembly/Senate votes on A3469/S2018, a bill to ban the sale in New Jersey of Lyondell’s MTBE carcinogenic gasoline additive.

August 11, 2005 Jim Reilly says, of the $5,200 campaign contribution from Lyondell accepted by Doherty and Reilly for Assembly, “We returned it immediately.” – 88.1 FM Restore Radio interview with Maureen Nevin

August 18, 2005 MTBE ban signed into law PL2005

###

Green candidate challenges freeholders to end pay-to-play

Green candidate challenges freeholders to end pay-to-play

By JACKIE CORLEY

Brian Unger hopes voters will paint their election ballots Green this November: Green Party, that is.

Unger, who is running for the Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders on the Green Party ticket, has recently made waves with his call for tough anti-pay-to-play legislation on the county level.

Unger proposed a reform package he titled the “Public Accountability in Contracting Act” (PACA). The Green Party candidate’s proposal would forbid the awarding of contracts over $10,000 to individuals or businesses that contribute more than $400 to freeholder campaigns. It would also prohibit current contractors from contributing to campaigns of incumbent freeholders. Additionally, Unger’s plan calls for a four-year ban on contracts with businesses or individuals who have made political contributions to freeholder campaigns.

On September 22, 2004, then-Governor James E. McGreevey issued an executive order, effective October 15, 2004, prohibiting state contractors who receive more than $17,500 in contracts with state agencies from contributing to a gubernatorial campaign or a state or county political party committee.

A bill approved by the state legislature on June 16, 2004, to take effect on January 1, 2006, would prohibit contractors who receive more than $17,500 from counties or municipalities from making campaign contributions to county or municipal political parties or candidates running for office in that county or municipality.

Unger said the state legislation is filled with loopholes, and he criticized the Board of Chosen Freeholders for not passing a stronger resolution at the county level.

“There is a grass-roots movement in the towns and counties to do the tough, honest work that the state legislature doesn’t have the moral or ethical fiber to do,” Unger said. “There is a bill in the [New Jersey Legislature] now that would allow municipalities and counties to continue to adopt their own [anti-pay-to-play] measures, but it’s not going anywhere because no one’s looking, and there isn’t enough pressure to move the bill forward into law.”

Unger said the all-Republican Board of Chosen Freeholders is incorrect in believing that anti-pay-to-play legislation cannot be passed at the local or county level before the state acts.

“Mercer County has adopted pay-to-play reforms, other counties are considering them, and many towns including Long Branch and Belmar have already done so. The citizens of Dover Township are going to referendum to force their government to adopt more stringent measures,” Unger said. “We need this measure now because the state’s legislation is weak and only in effect from January to June of each year. So it’s important that as many towns and counties as possible adopt the toughest pay-to-play and wheeling legislation. Every county in the state should do this. It could help steamroll the legislature into meaningful action.”

“Wheeling” is a practice whereby contributors give money to a political action committee (PAC) and, in turn, the PAC gives money to the candidate the contributor was actually looking to give money to. Wheeling places a degree of distance between a candidate and a contributor, particularly when a direct contribution would give the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest.

The state’s provision only prohibits “wheeled” contributions from January 1 to June 30 of each year.

“Wheeling allows contractors, vendors and party bosses to secretly contribute to campaigns without proper disclosure. With cash gifts hidden, the contributors influence legislation, the award of contracts and patronage jobs, etc.,” an August 25 release from Unger’s campaign stated.

Contractors and contributions

Political contributions by county contractors frequently find their way into freeholder elections.

Money from the Monmouth County Republican Committee is used to heavily finance Republican freeholder elections. For example, during Rob Clifton’s and Amy Handlin’s 2004 general freeholder election, the two Republican candidates each received $50,598.12 in in-kind contributions, about 40 percent of the total money the pair received at that time, from the Monmouth County Republican Committee, according to New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports.

Under Monmouth County Republican Chairman Niemann’s watch, the Monmouth County Republican Committee raised the $430,035 in contributions over $400 from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, excluding money contributed to the county party by election funds of would-be office holders.

Of the $430,035 the Monmouth County Republican Committee collected during Niemann’s time as county chair, $75,570 came from companies that received a contract or multiple contracts with the county, as approved by the Board of Chosen Freeholders, from June 2004 to April 2005.

Additionally, according to the Monmouth County Republican Committee’s July 15, 2005 quarterly ELEC report, the organization received $37,000 of the $37,500 raised that quarter from the Monmouth Leadership PAC. Notably, $37,000 is the maximum a political action committee can donate to a county political committee. The $37,000 contribution was made on June 13, 2005.

The Monmouth Leadership PAC is billed as a non-partisan ideological committee created to promote the candidacy of strong leaders in Monmouth County. In fact, the Monmouth Leadership PAC shares the same P.O. Box with the Monmouth County Republican Committees well as many of the same contributors.

An end to wheeling?

Unger said that wheeling funds from various county political committees and PACs can be stopped through relatively simple legal measures.

Unger’s proposal would require that any business or individual applying for a county contract of over $10,000 submit a certification stating that they did not give funds to county candidates through outside individuals or committees.

“A simple cross-check with ELEC contribution reports would indicate if improperly wheeled money had come to the candidate. Certifications are a common regulatory mechanism widely used by state, federal and local governments. The process would halt wheeling for any contractor that wanted a county contract,” the release from Unger’s campaign stated.

At the very least, Unger hopes voters will look to the Green Party when they go the polls this year.

“The two major political parties in power cannot agree on who loses and who gains. Neither has been able to get the upper hand politically and both have successfully stopped tough, credible legislation from passing year after year after year,” Unger said. “The Monmouth County Freeholders are wrong. They can adopt pay-to-play reforms now and they should. Our home county is the political corruption poster child for the entire state. We need to be out front leading the fight for clean honest government.”

Discrepancies blaring in Kyrillos’s ELEC reports

Published in the August 18, 2005 issue of The Courier.

Discrepancies blaring in Kyrillos’s ELEC reports

By JACKIE CORLEY

Are missing dates in state Sen. Joe Kyrillos’s primary 2001 election reports a deliberate omission or a clerical mistake?

Four of Kyrillos’s 2001 election forms, three of which were typed and one of which was handwritten, are missing the last digit of the year of contributions made for that election cycle.

The four election reports in question are: Kyrillos’s July 15, 2000 quarterly report, received by the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) on July 25, 2000; the October 15, 2000 quarterly report, received by ELEC on October 27, 2000; the 29-day pre-election report for Kyrillos’s June 19, 2001 primary, received by ELEC on June 1, 2001; and the 20-day post-election report, received by ELEC on July 17, 2001.

A search on ELEC’s website lists the years of the more than 300 contributions in question. This is done under the years the reports for the contributions were issued.
However, the election reports themselves fail to include the last digit of the year of the over 300 contributions, seven of which were handwritten without the final digit into the 20-day post-election report.

For example, Ronald Gravino made a $2,200 contribution to Kyrillos’s primary campaign. The date of the contribution is hand written as “7/03/200” and included in the 20-day post report.

Notably, Gravino lists his address as PO Box 225, Colonia, NJ 07067, the same address used by gubernatorial candidate Douglas Forrester and the “Forrester For Governor” campaign in contributions made to Monmouth County Republicans during 2004 and 2005. Gravino is the treasurer for Forrester’s campaign for governor, according to the candidate’s official website.

The omission of the final digit of the year is repeated throughout in over 50 pages of documents.

Also curious is the election date listed in Kyrillos’s 11-day post-election report and his 20-day post-election report. While ELEC documents show the two reports were received by the commission on June 15, 2001 and July 17, 2001, respectively, for the June 19, 2001 primary election, both handwritten documents list the election date as “6/19/2000.”

All other reports for the 2001 primary list the election date as June 2001.
Additionally, Kyrillos’s 11-day pre-election report lists contributions made in two different years. The “Schedule A” of every election report filed by a candidate for office lists all monetary contributions over $400.

Kyrillos’s “Schedule A” for the 11-day pre-election report is four pages long. The first page includes five contributions handwritten as having been made on “06/07/01”; the second page includes five contributions handwritten as having been made on “6-7-2000”; the third page includes two contributions handwritten as having been made on “6-7-2000”, with three slots for listing additional contributions left blank; and the final page includes five contributions handwritten as having been made on “06/07/01.”

Kyrillos’s July 15, 2000 quarterly report also appears to have a discrepancy in its “Schedule A” form. Each type-written page of the report includes a subtotal, also typed, adding all monetary contributions over $300.

The second to last subtotal in the “Schedule A” lists the amount of contributions as $139,500. However, on the last page of the “Schedule A,” which includes a $500 contribution, this subtotal is handwritten as $138,200. The $138,200 amount was reported as the total amount of contributions in excess of $300.

Election Law

Currently, election law states that the following information must be reported for each contribution made: “1. The date the contribution was received or, if more than one contribution was received in the reporting period, the dates the aggregate contributions were received; 2. The name and mailing address of the contributor; 3. If the contributor is an individual, the occupation of the individual and the name and mailing address of the individual’s employer…; 4. The amount of the contribution, or amount of aggregate contributions in the reporting period; and 5. The total amount of all contributions received from the contributor in the election to date.”

Election law further stipulates that any candidate or treasurer “who omits or incorrectly states or certifies any of the information required by law to be included in [an ELEC] report…shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, be liable to a penalty of not more than $6,000 for the first offense and not more than $12,000 for the second and each subsequent offense.”

Treasurer’s Report

William A. Meyler, Middletown, a certified public accountant listed as the treasurer for the Senator Kyrillos Committee on the ELEC reports cited here, said he is not Kyrillos’s treasurer, though he does help in filing the veteran senator’s reports.

Meyler said he could not comment at this time on the missing years on the 50 pages of reports, as the documentation was completed some four years ago.

Any additions or corrections to the reports must be filed as an amendment with ELEC. There are currently no amendments to the reports in question.

To view the reports, visit http://www.bayshorenews.com.

Kyrillos's October 2000 Quarterly ELEC Report

The following are screen captures of New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission documents of state Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr., Republican - Monmouth/Middlesex, for his primary 2001 election.

These documents show contributions missing the last digits of the year they were made.

(Click thumbnails for larger documents.)