Pay-to-play ban rejected narrowly in Holmdel BY KAREN E. BOWES Staff Writer voted 3-2 on Thursday to reject a zerodollar ban on pay-to-play, the practice of accepting campaign donations from firms on the town's payroll. "These firms aren't evil if they give people money. But as for me, as a candidate, it's just one more thing you don't have to worry about." - Mike Sockol The committee voted down its usual allied lines, with Republican Committeemen Alan Bateman, Rocco Pascucci and Mayor Serena DiMaso all voting against the measure, while Democrat Larry Fink and Republican Terence Wall supported the idea. In January, Fink proposed the idea of lowering the minimum campaign amount from $2,500 per firm to zero, saying the town's current law allows for too many loopholes and gives the perception that firms are hired based on the amount they contribute to local campaigns. Fink argued that although the current law states only $250 can be donated from single employees of contractors that do business with the town - admittedly, not a very high incentive to grant preferential treatment - the same law also states that up to 10 such employees can donate $250 each, making the real limit $2,500. On Monday, Pascucci explained why he voted against the measure. "I think it's going to make it worse," Pascucci said, "because now the engineers and the lawyers are going to say, 'Hey, let me give money to this PAC.' " PACs, or political action committees, are often used to funnel money from a firm to a candidate, Pascucci said. This type of wheeling would be encouraged under Fink's zero-tolerance proposal, Pascucci said. "It's illegal but you can never prove it," Pascucci said, adding that under the current system, "at least we know who the players are." "They're still going to do it, but it's going to be wheeled and you're not going to know it," Pascucci said. "And people getting politically appointed jobs. ... This, in my opinion, is still going to happen." "I call it paid-for-playing," Pascucci said, referring to politically appointed jobs. After the meeting, Fink appeared tired and simply said he was disappointed in the results. Democratic candidate for committee Michael Sockol, present for the vote, said he was not disappointed, since the outcome will not have any effect on the way he runs his campaign. "I'm calling on a higher authority when it comes to accepting donations that's based on my own religious beliefs, not the Township Committee," Sockol said. "At the end of the day, you're dealing with a moral issue," Sockol added. "As individual candidates, you have to make a decision. We already decided we're not going to accept contributions from professional services [that do business with Holmdel]." Sockol explained that local businesses cannot be blamed for trying to make a buck. "These firms aren't evil if they give people money," Sockol said. "But as for me, as a candidate, it's just one more thing you don't have to worry about." Sockol said the system by which candidates raise money to run for office must be altered, perhaps by the state or a municipal ruling that limits the amount that can be accepted from any person and/or entity. Holmdel Republican Organization Chairman Thomas Scarano agreed that the current system is flawed, but said the government has no place in imposing restrictions on who or what is allowed to contribute to a candidate's campaign. His opinion echoed that of Township Attorney Duane Davison, who back in March expressed concerns over the constitutionality of imposing a zero-dollar limit. On Thursday, Scarano said that real reform could only come about by improving the way the state's Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) tracks campaign contributions on the Internet. Currently, the state only demands that donations of over $300 be listed on the ELEC Web site, a site that, at best, is difficult to navigate. "There should be transparency," Scarano said, "complete transparency, whether it be a dollar or up to whatever the legal limit is." Pascucci expressed a similar sentiment. "I don't think it's going to do a bit of good unless they limit the amount," Pascucci said, referring to imposing a voluntary limit on all campaign contributions from all sources. "I don't care if Martians land on the planet," Pascucci said, "you can only get $100 from them." The committeeman mentioned the Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project, also known as FACE. This state-monitored experiment came to District 13 in 2005, encouraging Assembly candidates to collect $5 and $30 donations to qualify for public funding to run the rest of their campaign. Although considered a failure, the experiment continues in other districts as the state tweaks the rules in the hope of eventually making the program operable. Scarano also thinks Fink and the Democrats are being somewhat hypocritical. "I think all these people are good people," Scarano said referring to the Democrats, "but I think he's being a little disingenuous, because he's taken thousands and thousands of dollars from professionals." Scarano referred to Fink's ELEC reports prior to 2003, the year Fink made a public declaration to stop accepting so-called payto play donations. Scarano said it's disingenuous to attempt to outlaw contributions from firms on the town's payroll while still accepting donations from PACs. These groups receive their money from the same places as everybody else, Scarano said, such as private citizens and firms interested in landing work from local governments. The township's first attempt at pay-toplay reform also came about in 2003. At that time, Wall publicly accused Fink of acting inappropriately for accepting a $1,000 campaign contribution from a PAC. Fink, then mayor, wound up returning the check, but the subsequent argument led to an onthe spot introduction of the town's current pay-to-play law. Then political adversaries, Fink and Wall are now allies in their common views on pay-to-play reform.