Howard Birdsall Pleads Guilty To Pay To Play Crimes

Howard Birdsall, 72 of Brielle, pleaded guilty today to corporate misconduct for his role in a criminal scheme in which more than $1 million in corporate political contributions were illegally made through employees of his now defunct engineering firm, Birdsall Services Group, in violation New Jersey’s pay-to-play law, according to an announcement by the NJ Attorney General’s Office.

Under the plea agreement, the state will recommend that Birdsall be sentenced to four years in state prison. He also must pay $49,808 to the state, representing forfeiture of the political contributions that he made on behalf Birdsall Services Group that were reimbursed by the firm. He is scheduled to be sentenced on April 22.

“As the CEO and largest shareholder of Birdsall Services Group, Howard Birdsall reaped major profits from the millions of dollars in public contracts his firm secured each year – contracts that should have been off limits based on the illegal campaign contributions made by the firm,” said Acting Attorney General Hoffman. “This plea should serve as a warning to any corporate officials who would engage in this type of criminal scheme to skirt our pay-to-play law and skew public contracting in their favor.”

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Doherty: Belmar’s new pay to pay law has nothing to do with his Freeholder campaign

Belmar Mayor Matt Doherty, left, is preparing to face off with Freeholder Director Tom Arnone, right, in the November election.  Doherty said the relaxed pay to play law he is set to pass in Belmar has nothing to do with his Freeholder campaign.

The Mayor and Council of Belmar has introduced an ordinance that would remove the current restrictions on the Borough’s liquor license holders, real estate developers, professionals and vendors from contributing to the campaigns of Borough elected officials seeking higher office.

Mayor Matt Doherty told MoreMonmouthMusings that the ordinance has nothing to do with his candidacy for Monmouth County Freeholder.

Doherty announced that he is seeking the Democrat nomination for Freeholder on January 15.  The ordinance was introduced on January 19 and is on the agenda for a public hearing and final vote at the Borough Council meeting tonight.  Doherty said it will be tabled and another version will be introduced at tonight’s meeting.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

NJEA Spent Nearly $60M on Campaigns and Lobbying in Past 15 Years

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Top Birdsall Services Group officials agree to forfeit $3.95M

Top Birdsall Services Group officials agree to forfeit $3.95M (via NJ.com)

TRENTON — Former top officials of Birdsall Services Group, a bankrupt engineering firm at the center of the most expansive pay-to-play scandal in recent New Jersey history, have agreed to forfeit $3.95 million to those stiffed by the company when…

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Report: Divorce negotiations lead to Birdsall Indictments

Birdsall Service Group’s marketing director told his estranged wife that his income wasn’t really as high as reported because his bonuses were reimbursements for campaign contributions. The wife was recording the conversation, according to a Star Ledger report on NJ.com.

It was about a year ago that Philip Angarone Jr., then the marketing director of Birdsall Services Group, met with his estranged wife to discuss how much money he was earning. He said he seemed to be making more than he actually was because of the large number of bonuses he had been collecting.Brunei

The bonuses, Angarone explained, were illegal reimbursements for political contributions he had made on behalf of the company.

What Angarone didn’t know was that his wary wife was secretly recording the conversation.

The Star Ledger says they obtained the information from a confidential affidavit filed in state court last week by the State Attorney General’s Office.  Neither the AG’s Office nor the Court released the document.

Birdsall and seven of its current or former executives were indicted last week for making illegal campaign contributions and filing false documents with the Election Law Enforcement Commission.  The firms assets were seized by the AG, under the authority of an order signed by Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson.  The firm filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking to have its bank accounts unfrozen in order to meet payroll and perform engineering services under contract.

• Tweet

Turning up the heat on Middlesex County pay to play scandal

Politickernj writers Darryl Isherwood and Max Pizarro posted an in depth piece yesterday afternoon that exposes an incestuous web of influence driving planning, zoning and development approvals before the Middlesex County Freeholder Board and several municipal planning boards in the county.  

State Senator Bob Smith of Piscataway is the leader of the PACs that fund the campaigns of the Freeholders and municipal officials who approve the applications.  The applicants are donors to the PACs.  Smith is the applicants’ attorney.

It’s all legal.  And no one would know about it if not for Harold Kane of Monroe Township painstakingly examining thousands of pages of ELEC reports to find out where all the Middlesex Democratic money was coming from and the good journalists at Politickernj and The Star Ledger following the money.

Smith, the Senator working the system, and Peter Barnes, the Assemblyman and Middlesex County Democratic Chairman who’s candidates benefit from the system, know the solution to this “craziness.”   Barnes said that “any impetus to close the hole lies with the legislature.”  Smith said, “There is a solution to the craziness we have now and that is publicly financed elections – or complete transparency. “In New Jersey, we have nothing but chaos. The state needs one set standard across the state.”

Where is their legislation?   Smith and Barnes are both powerful members of the legislature.  They obviously know how the work the system.  They know how to fix it. 

Sponsor the legislation gentlemen.  Publicly financed elections won’t work.  Complete transparency will.

Here’s a campaign finance system that would be transparent:

1) Remove all limits on campaign contributions.

2) Require that all candidates and campaigns disclose all contributions of any amount on a dedicated website within 24 hours of receipt.

3) Competing campaigns, good citizens like Kane, and good journalist will examine the donations and expose influence.  Voters will decide if the influence is acceptable of not.

Correction: Peter Barnes, Jr, the Middlesex Democratic Chairman is no longer in the legislature.  His son, Peter III is an Assemblyman.

Now there are two Barnes and a Smith who can advocate for legislation that creates complete transparency.

• Tweet

5.7% turnout for school board elections

Marlboro and Neptune Township held school board elections yesterday.   Of the 45,035 registered voters in the the two townships, 2,618 voted.

By far most of those voters were from Marlboro, where over 2000 people came out.  In Neptune, less than 600 of aproximately 16,000 registered voters came out.

As of February 18, there was 24,926 registered voters in Marlboro and 15,865 in Neptune Township, according to Labels and Lists.  The county website says there were 45, 035 eligible voters in yesterday’s election.  Where those 4,244 new voters came from since February could be the subject of a future column.  In the meantime GOP leaders should take note that someone seems to be having a voter registration drive in Democratic towns.

For now I’d like to speculate about why there was a close to normal 10% turnout in Marlboro while only 3% turned out in Neptune.

One obvious reason could be competition.  In Marlboro, there were 7 candidates for 3 seats on the school board.  In Neptune, the 3 seats were not contested.

A not so obvious reason could be campaign spending.  In Marlboro one of the candidates, Bonniesue Rosenwald, mailed out a professionally produced post card late last week which included an endorsement from Mayor Jon Hornick.  Rosenwald, an incumbent, squeaked out a third place finish by 13 votes to retain her seat.

Some in Marlboro were upset that Rosenwald and Hornick politicised a school board election.  I say politicisation increases participation.

With the recent and perennial hubbub about campaign spending and pay to play, few of the critics of the pay to play/PAC/wheeling system are offering alternatives.  No one is talking about the public service campaign spending provides.

If not for campaign signs littering our roadways and lawns and mail boxes filled with glossy advertisements  few people would know when to interrupt their routines to vote.

With the arguable exception of presidential and gubernatorial elections, the media, local and national, does a horrible job of covering campaigns.  The media looks as electioneering as a revenue source,  not a story to be covered as if democracy depends upon it.

Current campaign finance laws thwart participation by limiting contributions and making the process more complicated.  The process is so complicated that only the most motivated and self interested contribute.  Recently, pundits at The Star Ledger, The Asbury Park Press and even the usually smarter than that InTheLobby criticised the John Wisniewski/Middlesex County PAC practices for violating the spirit of campaign finance laws.   Hogwash.  The complex system that reduces transparency is the spirit of our campaign finance laws.

If our leaders really want to reform the system, rather than give lip service to ethics while voting for a bill with “loopholes” intentionally written in, the would create a simple system with full and immediate disclosure required.

• Tweet

The Folly Of Campaign Finance Laws

Over the holiday weekend Politickernj and The Star Ledger  caught up with the good work that MMM contributor Harold Kane did last September in shedding light on political spending in Middlesex County.

Like Kane, Politikernj and The Star Ledger framed their articles as if the PACs set up to funnel campaign donations from engineers, lawyers and their firms to political campaigns were doing something scandalous.   Each of the articles acknowledges that the contributions are legal, yet they say that the donors “skirt” or “cloud” the law or that the contributors are “buying” the candidates that ultimately benefit from the contributions.

The real scandal is that campaign finance laws at every level of government, federal, state, county and local, that are ostensibly designed to eliminate the influence of money in our political system and to increase transparency actually have the opposite effect, by design.

Money is like air and water.  Set up a structure to restrict it and money, like air and water, will find a crack in the structure to get to where it wants to go.  With enough pressure the structure breaks.  Fix or reform the structure and the cycle repeats itself.

Our campaign finance laws decrease transparency in the process.  Kane and the reporters from Politickernj and The Star Ledger spent many unproductive hours combing through ELEC reports of campaigns and PACS to connect the dots.  Not many people have the time or resources to make that effort.  Kane, Politickernj and The Star Ledger reporters did us all a service by connecting those dots.  It is appropriate for the public to know who is financing the campaigns of their candidates for public office.

Restricting the amount of money that a person or entity can contribute to a campaign is inappropriate.  Such restrictions are impediments to free speech and push otherwise well meaning people out of the political process or into breaking ill conceived and complex laws.  Such restrictions don’t and won’t keep “bad money” out of the process.

The only way to increase transparency in the process is to require immediate disclosure of campaign contributions. Removing the limits that candidates and campaigns can accept would reduce the utility of PAC, Super PACs, etc. 

Creating a simple system of full disclosure would increase participation in the political process.  It would increase competition among government contractors and professionals.  It would make the entire process more democratic, which is probably why we won’t see such a simple system anytime soon, if ever.

• Tweet

HANDLIN IS READY TO CONTINUE EFFORTS TO REFORM PAY-TO-PLAY

Assembly Deputy Republican Leader Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth, said that she is committed to continuing her ongoing efforts to reform the pay-to-play laws that were the subject of a report issued by State Comptroller Matthew Boxer today.  Boxer said current laws contain “fatal flaws” in the determination of who will receive local public contracts.

            “I have always been a staunch supporter of reform to prevent campaign contributors from benefitting from their political patronage,” said Handlin, who is a member of the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee. “The comptroller’s report confirms that the ‘fair and open’ provision in pay-to-play is not only vague, but it is a license for crony capitalism. This is another wakeup call for the Democrat-controlled Legislature to finally address an issue that is costly to taxpayers and undermines their trust in government.

Handlin has been a leading advocate in the Legislature for banning the practice of trading public contracts for political contributions since she was elected in 2006.

“Establishing a uniform set of criteria that applies to all levels of government when a contract is awarded will end the charade of the ‘fair and open contract’ exceptions for businesses that take advantage of existing loopholes,” continued Handlin. “Now that an independent entity has exposed the continued weaknesses in these laws, I hope that we can make substantive reforms.”

In the current legislative session, Handlin is the sponsor of three bills that address pay-to-play issues, including:

A-520 (introduced 1/12/10) – This bill prohibits loans to a candidate, political party, or committee, by corporations which are already restricted from making political contributions. For example, insurance companies, financial institutions, certain utility companies, and casinos would fall under this legislation. It also extends existing restrictions on contributing to candidates, candidate committees and/or joint committees to political parties.

A-521 (introduced 1/12/10) – Provides that an individual or business that has made a campaign contribution would be prohibited for one year from performing a contract for a public entity at any level of government until one year after the contribution is made. The bill also prohibits an individual or business that has entered into a contract with a public entity from making a campaign contribution during the term of that contract and for one year thereafter.

A-527 (introduced 1/12/10 and initially introduced in the 2006 legislative session) – This legislation places limits on campaign contributions which may be made to candidates, office holders, and political committees by entities which do business with the State, local governments and interstate agencies. The bill also limits the amount which a county party can give per election per year to candidates and certain political committees.

• Tweet