The New Jersey Supreme Court has tentatively scheduled oral arguments in the Appeal by Earle Asphalt Co., which is challenging New Jersey's pay to play laws on November. The matter involves a contribution made to the Monmouth County Republican Committee by Walter Earle III, the owner of Earle Asphalt, which later barred his firm from winning state contracts. Upon finding out that his contributuion (made at the request of former Co-Senate President John Bennett) would violate pay to play laws, Earle asked for his money back. Still, the state invalidated the award of a state Department of Transportation contract -- on which Earle Asphalt was the lowest bidder. New Jersey prohibits the award of public contracts of more than $17,500 to any business that has contributed more than $300 to certain candidates and party organizatons.
Earle claims that the law limiting his campaign contributions violates his right to free speech. The queston the court is considering: "Did the political contribution of this Company’s president disqualify the Company from bidding on a State construction project under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.14; or, did the president’s request for a refund of the contribution entitle the Company to exemption under the safe-harbor provision of N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.20?
Christie vetoes 5 service contracts approved by Turnpike Authority Governor Christie on Thursday vetoed five professional services contracts that were approved by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority a month ago. The governor’s office said Christie exercised his eighth veto because the contract fees ranged from...
“She has already chosen the interests of the insurance industry over the health care needs of working people, she took millions from Wall Street as the economy went into a meltdown, and now she wants to purchase a job in Congress at a time when so many have lost their jobs because of the actions of big bankers and others." -- Monmouth County Democrats spokesman Mike Mangan, on Republican Diane Gooch, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone.
- PolitickerNJ.comPress releases are submitted by PolitickerNJ users, not by staff. They do not represent the viewpoint of PolitickerNJ.com.
Actually ....
while i'm a big fan of pay to play regulation, certainly there is an argument that the restriction should not apply to competitively bid contracts. If he is the low bidder, who cares who he donated money to? His bid was the lowest and the contract was awarded on that objective, competitive basis.
This is entirely different from no bid contracts that can be directed to fat cat donors without oversight or competition.
Millie
Is 100% on - there should be disclosure of donations and in the case of competitive bid if they are the most qualified and lowest they should have every right to the contract - its the no bid work and big donations we need to stop.
competitive bidding
Requiring that contracts are competitively bid doesn't mean that the lowest bidder gets the contract.
Municipalities and Counties have wide latitude to award the contract to a bidder other than the lowest, that's the issue. There might be a lower bid, but the crony still gets awarded the contract.
So the choices are either 1) reform the bidding laws so the lowest wins (not very smart), or 2) have a strict pay-to-play law.