Can the council members really argue that they were not aware of donations they accepted, when they, themselves, filed the forms that clearly show the contributions coming from the pass-through entities?
Wouldn’t that call into question all votes they have taken on redevelopment matters?
No because they were not officially notified until the end of the last meeting. Votes that took place before they were notified shouldn’t be affected. I also believe they can still vote up until the 30 day deadline to cure the problem and if they cure it within the 30 days no votes should be affected. That is the way they handled it when the Democrats had a similar problem in 2011.
That’s interesting. Seems like it puts the onus on the community to serve as a watchdog, rather than on the candidate themselves.
Hypothetically a candidate has no incentive to turn down illegal donations, rather the incentive is to accept them and use them during the campaign. Only if they win, and then only if they get caught, would they have to repay the money. That’s an odd system.
#4 I agree, I’m not implying there’s anything nefarious going on here in this instance. Although I wonder if any of the other developers that have come before the council made contributions to the candidates and/or the pass-through entity.
But I do think the hypothetical I posed above could be done to abuse the system in the future.
Believe me I have checked every developer that has come to Belmar for donations. Nothing ever. And before this I have never found any pass-throughs either.
Of course in his 2016 freeholder race Matt took all sorts of pass-throughs, all reported on these pages. But he chose just to accept the sanction of not being able to vote on development, liquor licenses, etc.
7 Comments
Can the council members really argue that they were not aware of donations they accepted, when they, themselves, filed the forms that clearly show the contributions coming from the pass-through entities?
Wouldn’t that call into question all votes they have taken on redevelopment matters?
No because they were not officially notified until the end of the last meeting. Votes that took place before they were notified shouldn’t be affected. I also believe they can still vote up until the 30 day deadline to cure the problem and if they cure it within the 30 days no votes should be affected. That is the way they handled it when the Democrats had a similar problem in 2011.
That’s interesting. Seems like it puts the onus on the community to serve as a watchdog, rather than on the candidate themselves.
Hypothetically a candidate has no incentive to turn down illegal donations, rather the incentive is to accept them and use them during the campaign. Only if they win, and then only if they get caught, would they have to repay the money. That’s an odd system.
I am certain that they never would have accepted them if they had known they were not allowed.
Just another average screw up in Belmar
#4 I agree, I’m not implying there’s anything nefarious going on here in this instance. Although I wonder if any of the other developers that have come before the council made contributions to the candidates and/or the pass-through entity.
But I do think the hypothetical I posed above could be done to abuse the system in the future.
Believe me I have checked every developer that has come to Belmar for donations. Nothing ever. And before this I have never found any pass-throughs either.
Of course in his 2016 freeholder race Matt took all sorts of pass-throughs, all reported on these pages. But he chose just to accept the sanction of not being able to vote on development, liquor licenses, etc.
Post a Comment