Quid Pro Quo?

It is interesting to watch the flow of campaign money back and forth between counties. Of course, it is a given that George Norcross owns Cumberland County. It is a given that Cumberland County is the dumping grounds for the rest of New Jersey – they push the prisons on us with 30% of the inmate population in the state, and then when North Jersey’s trash is released, they stay here.

Our crime rate is out of control, gang activity on the increase, we have the highest unemployment, poorest children, and yet the Cumberland County Democratic Organization sees fit to give commanding donations to Gloucester County, even though that organization raised the most cash this year!

To add insult to injury, the CCDO sent money to candidates in Hamilton Twp, NJ. At $300 each, one has to wonder which Hamilton Twp. donor gave that money to the CCDO to then transfer to Hamilton Twp. candidates, so that said donor can avoid Pay-to-Play laws?

The shenanigans continue, and judging by ELEC reports and based on past experience where the county Freeholders barred local businesses that don’t contribute from working in the county (Comtec) does anybody with half a brain expect that this Democrat slate of candidates will work in the best interests of Cumberland County taxpayers?  They owe TOO MUCH to the Camden Machine – and with all of the union money flooding this campaign from Camden and Philadelphia, you can count on more jobs leaving Cumberland County!


2 Responses to Quid Pro Quo?

  1. John says:

    In Gloucester Township, George Norcross has his buddies set up Dirty Laundering Pacs for and gives millions in contracts for kickbacks. Check out this story and check out the clip of the solicitor and his wife who serves on housing authority.
    The head of a conservative government watchdog group on Monday called for Township Solicitor David Carlamere to step down, citing his wife’s and his assistant’s connections to a Democratic Party fundraising committee.

    South Jersey Citizens (SJC) Executive Director Tom Crone fired a series of questions during the public portion of Monday’s Council meeting aimed at getting Carlamere and Council President Glen Bianchini to acknowledge that Carlamere’s wife and his assistant are the chairwoman and the treasurer, respectively, of Gloucester Township Citizens for Government Reform, a political action committee.

    “I find it … disturbing that the solicitor of this township, who gives advice to you, Mr. Bianchini, on pay to play, has his secretary, or assistant—whichever word we want to use—and his wife sitting as PAC chairman and treasurer,” he said.

    SJC has been pushing since May for Council to adopt a pay-to-play ban it says would end a decades-old cycle of political patronage in the township. It has since mobilized a petition drive aiming to put the measure to voters in the form of a referendum next April.

    Carlamere, a former Democratic township councilman, said following the meeting that there is no conflict between his role as township solicitor and the political activities of his wife, Cindy, who is also chairwoman of the Gloucester Township Housing Authority, and his assistant, Marianne Coyle, a Gloucester Township Public Schools board member.

    “I’m not directing them, ‘Yes, you should,’ or, ‘No, you shouldn’t,” Carlamere said of his advice to Council on SJC’s proposed pay-to-play ordinance. “I’m just directing them as it applies to compliance with laws and regulations.”

    The solicitor also indicated he was aware of his wife’s involvement with the PAC, but he asserted he did not know that she held title as its chairwoman.

    Crone clarified his group’s position on Carlamere following the meeting. SJC does not merely want Carlamere to recuse himself from providing Council with advice on its proposed pay-to-play ordinance; they want him to resign as solicitor.

    “He’s compromised. He should not be giving legal advice to Council as a pay-to-player, the husband of a pay-to-player and the employer of a pay-to-player,” Crone said.

    Mayor David Mayer stated following the meeting that he believes the proposed pay-to-play ordinance would result in vendors contributing to so-called super PACs, which political operatives use to hide the sources of campaign contributions.

    “I don’t agree with it. For one, I believe in transparency,” Mayer said, noting all campaign contributions under the current pay-to-play law can be traced to individuals or businesses. “And, if you look at the ordinance they’re proposing, if we pass it, we would be going backwards.”

    SJC political director Joshua Berry has noted during prior Council meetings that the proposed ordinance aims to also prohibit contributions via super PACs.

  2. Link exchange is nothing else however it is only
    placing the other person’s webpage link on your page at suitable place and other person will also do similar in favor of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: