Christie's Book-Deal Bill Killed, Newspaper 'Revenge Bill' Delayed

UPDATE: Lawmakers delayed a vote Monday on legislation that could kill hundreds of newspaper jobs, while also killing a bill that would have allowed Gov. Chris Christie to get rich on an book deal.

Lawmakers announced late Monday that the so-called newspaper "revenge bill" was "held," meaning that it was delayed. The book-deal bill was also "held," but that legislation "would not be reconsidered."

Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, D-Hudson/Bergen, said the caucus "engaged in a robust discussion today about the publication of legal ads and, clearly, opinions varied as to how best we can maintain transparency in this ever-evolving information age. We will continue this discussion and consider all options.

Tom Hester, a spokesman for Assembly Democrats, added: "And to be clear, A4429 [the legal ad bill] is being held today. So is A4430 [the book-deal bill], which will not be reconsidered."

Hester was then asked, "So the legal ad bill is delayed, essentially, and the book deal bill is killed?"

"That's accurate," Hester said.

"Unfettered open debate among my caucus has been a priority for me as Assembly Speaker," Prieto said. "Today's discussions were another great example of this caucus' willingness to hear and consider all opinions.”

ORIGINAL: A defiant Gov. Chris Christie pushed for votes Monday that critics say may devastate newspapers — an industry he hasn't really had much affection for — while also benefiting himself.

Reports say Christie may be reaching an undisclosed compromise on a plan that could kill hundreds of newspaper jobs. But either way, it looks like he's getting surprising support from Democrats on both pieces of legislation while also getting some strong opposition from others who view Christie's actions as acts of "revenge" and self-serving.

Both bills were fast-tracked through the legislature in just one week. The bills include:

• One bill, S2851 and A4430, would be part of reported negotiations between Christie and top Democratic and Republican lawmakers that would change existing law and allow the governor to cash in on an undisclosed book deal.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat in Union, has called on Christie to resign first, then cash in on the book deal. New Jersey state law says a sitting governor is barred from receiving or agreeing to receive "any compensation, salary, honorarium, fee, or other form of income from any source, other than the compensation paid or reimbursed to him/her by the state for the performance of official duties."

The book-deal bill would also get what Democrats want: An increase in legislative staff salaries and an annual 3 percent salary hike in 2017 and 2018 for Supreme Court justices, who make more than $185,000, and Superior Court judges, who make between $165,000 and $175,000.

The nonpartisan state Office of Legislative Services estimated that the legislation would have cost state and county governments $7.45 million next year and at least $10.6 million annually after that.

Democrats aligned with South Jersey political boss George Norcross, who is friends with Christie, support the legislation and have helped him fast-track it through the legislature.

Indeed, lawmakers have been downright flippant when asked about the potential political blowback, and why they would make deals with a governor with nearly record-low popularity numbers that match former Gov. Jim Florio's historically abysmal approval ratings in 1990.

"Why not?" Sen. Brian Stack, a Democrat from Hudson, told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "I don't see what the fuss is being made. . . . Maybe when all is said and done, I'll write a book about Hudson County."

Some Republicans, however, have also criticized the deal. Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, a Republican in Somerset, told nj.com that the book-deal bill "almost sounds like the equivalent of — and I hate to use this word — the equivalent of a bribe."

• The other, S2855 and A4429, would allow governments, businesses and individuals to publish legal notices online rather than in printed newspapers. Critics say the legislation is merely the governor's revenge for the news business' extensive coverage of the Bridgegate scandal, in which the governor was accused of being involved in a political payback scheme that involved closing lanes to the George Washington Bridge.

In a statement released over the weekend, Christie said requiring local governments to post legal ads in newspapers costs New Jersey taxpayers and private citizens more than $80 million per year.

"That is $80 million annually from property taxpayers, including those facing the nightmare of foreclosure," he said. "The taxpayers and citizens of New Jersey can no longer afford this arrangement, and thanks to technology, they don’t have to."

The Office of Legislative Services, however, said the impact on taxpayers is not known — and, in fact, the OLS suggested that maintaining the current system could even cost less based on technology and labor expenses.

Indeed, the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which passed the legislation last week, reported in a statement that the Office of Information Technology would be required to establish a webpage containing a directory of all government agency notice websites.

At the same time, the office would have to continuously maintain the directory webpage and update the directory webpage to include each legal notice.

Some, like the New Jersey Press Association, have said the legal ad measure could kill one of the last remaining consistently profitable revenue streams for newspapers, lead to hundreds of job losses and perhaps put some publications out of business.

Tom Moran, a columnist for The Star-Ledger editorial board, wrote an editorial entitled "Christie's campaign to kill newspaper jobs based on a lie."

The column, which can be found here, says:

"At the core of Gov. Chris Christie's campaign to kill newspapers jobs is the claim that his bill will save money. He puts the number at $80 million. I've spent three days digging at that, and the conclusion will come as no shock: It's another lie."

In the face of such criticism, however, Christie has remained defiant, saying:

Contrary to the flailing assertions of the NJ Press Association, there will be no lack of transparency and no harm to the public as a result of this reform. These are merely scare tactics by their paid Trenton lobbyists designed to protect the interests of newspaper companies who argue for a free press, but are really arguing for a taxpayer funded subsidy in disguise. This bill, and their fight over it, unmasks their greed. In fact, their true disinterest in transparency and the public’s access to information through a free press — not to mention their undeniable hypocrisy — are fully displayed by the fact that this op-ed was refused publication. I was therefore left with no choice but to disseminate this opinion myself, which will no doubt be read by a vast majority of the population online.

Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and Senate Majority Conference Leader Bob Gordon, meanwhile, issued a joint statement expressing their opposition to the Christie book deal and legislation that they say "would greatly harm the newspapers of the state."

"While it’s been touted as a cost savings measure for local governments, we have yet to see any sourced data for the savings the governor’s office claims will come from eliminating this requirement," they wrote. "Despite any reduction in cost, local governments would still be required to post their advertisements, and for many of them, online advertising could actually cost more than the current process to implement."

The lawmakers said the revenue derived from this service "is also an investment in the press, a collective entity that serves as a much needed government watchdog."

"It has been reported that as many as 300 newspaper jobs will be lost due to the reduction in revenue," the said. "Some publications will close entirely. Investigative reporting will suffer. Already strained news reporting outlets will be forced to cover far less, particularly at the local level."

They also said the book deal legislation "is the ‘cherry on top’ for a governor who has been absent a good deal of his tenure and who instead of focusing on the state’s issues, is now pushing legislation for his own gain.

“We oppose and will be voting ‘no’ on both bills.”

Patch file photo