Senate at last passes Elections Transparency Act, with nearly all Democrats falling in line

At today’s voting session, the New Jersey State Senate finally passed the “Elections Transparency Act,” a mammoth campaign finance bill that was pulled from scheduled votes multiple times before making it to the floor today.

Most Republicans were opposed to the bill, and they were joined by Democratic State Sen. Nia Gill (D-Montclair). But every other Democrat – alongside Republican State Sens. Chris Connors (R-Lacey), Vince Polistina (R-Egg Harbor), and Jean Stanfield (R-Westampton) – voted in favor, allowing it to pass 24-12 with four senators absent.

The bill, which has gone through several rounds of significant amendments, still has yet to pass the Assembly; the lower chamber has a voting session scheduled for next Thursday.

If ultimately enacted, the Elections Transparency Act would represent a major overhaul of New Jersey’s campaign finance laws. It would create reporting requirements for contributions and expenditures by outside groups; standardize state pay-to-play laws regarding government contracts and sunset local laws; allow state parties to create housekeeping accounts for non-political expenses; and double most campaign contribution limits, which would represent the first contribution limit increase in two decades.

The bill would additionally make significant changes to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC), the state’s campaign finance oversight organization.

For one, it would temporarily give the governor direct appointment powers for ELEC’s four commissioners (a role currently subject to senatorial confirmation), who choose ELEC’s executive director. An earlier draft of the bill made the executive director position a gubernatorial appointee; both versions seem to be related to attempts by Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration to remove ELEC executive director Jeff Brindle, who sued Murphy and several of his aides last week.

ELEC’s ability to issue fines for campaign finance violations would also be restricted under the bill, which puts a two-year statute of limitations on all enforcement decisions.

The ELEC-related provisions – which were not in the original version of the bill when it was first introduced last June – drew sharp rebuke from Gill, an iconoclastic senator who often clashes with her party on election issues.

“I sincerely believe in the need for reform, but the changes outlined in this bill will have consequences that damage the integrity of our elections, and reduce the transparency of our political process,” Gill said.

State Sen. Holly Schepisi (R-River Vale) went further, warning that ELEC would become a more politicized body that could target politicians who disagreed with the governor.

“In this bill, we are enabling the [gubernatorial] administration to weaponize ELEC against any person who may speak out,” Schepisi said. “We’re taking away the ability of this legislature to ensure an impartial ELEC.”

But Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Linden), the bill’s lead sponsor, defended his legislation as a necessary step to ensure greater transparency and efficiency. He noted that ELEC recently released an enforcement decision for a violation that took place during a 2016 city council campaign, calling that sort of delay unacceptable.

“This bill represents a far better system than what’s in place already,” Scutari said. “We need to make sure that they prioritize what they’re doing over there [at ELEC]. That is why compliance and deterrence should be what we’re about here. In order for them to do that, we’ve got to lower the scope of what they can look at. Two years should be more than enough.”

Asked afterwards why the bill didn’t include additional funding for ELEC to make the statute of limitations more manageable, Scutari said that the commission already has “plenty of resources to look at two years’ worth of violations.”

Leading up to today’s vote, some Democrats still had concerns with the bill. In a Senate committee hearing last week, State Sen. Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D-Barrington) abstained, saying that she needed clarity on the bill’s ramifications; her abstention was a sign that the South Jersey Democratic organization had some issues they still wanted worked out.

But Cruz-Perez, like nearly all of her Democratic colleagues, voted for the bill today despite no amendments being made since last week. She said that she now has a better handle on the bill, and that she’s hopeful the Assembly will clean up any remaining problems.

“Whatever issues are still out there, I’m pretty sure that we can fix it in the Assembly, and we can do what we need to do,” Cruz-Perez said. She added that she’s spoken with Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Voorhees), the lead Assembly sponsor of the bill (and a fellow South Jersey Democrat).

Scutari announced at the end of today’s voting session that the Senate may return for a brief voting session next Thursday, the same day as the Assembly’s final voting session before a monthlong break for budget hearings. That extra voting session could be used in part to align with any amendments the Assembly makes to the Elections Transparency Act, but Scutari said he doesn’t expect there to be many significant changes.

The bill first foundered last June, shortly after it was introduced, and it struggled again in February following outcry over the attempted removal of Brindle. It’s looking like the third time may be the charm – though given the tribulations the bill has already endured, nothing’s certain until Murphy signs it into law.