Bigger Campaign Donations? Hoboken Council Flip Flops, May Have Faltered

HOBOKEN, NJ — After several members of the public complained about a Hoboken City Council proposal last month to raise campaign donation limits from unions from $500 to $7,200, the council voted against the measure — a vote that stood for about 18 minutes.

Then, one council member, who was in the last meeting of her term, asked to reconsider her vote, allowing the measure to pass.

Weeks later, the flip-flop was followed by another twist.

Hudson County View reported last week that the city attorney said the vote probably wouldn't survive a legal challenge. He recommended that the council re-introduce the ordinance soon.

Controversial Measures

At a council meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 15, several members of the public spoke out against an upcoming vote to raise the limit for union campaign donations to local political candidates from $500 to $7,200.

Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher — who had been opposing the increase since its introduction Dec. 1 — had noted before the meeting that a previous administration lowered the donation limit in order to lessen union interference in Hoboken campaigns.

A member of the Fund for a Better Waterfront, a Hoboken-based nonprofit, agreed with Fisher, writing on Twitter the day of the meeting, "Some remember Hoboken from the bad old days when contracts & board approvals were doled out in exchange for campaign cash. Today Hoboken serves as a model of campaign finance reform. Tonight, the City Council could do serious damage to these reforms. https://bit.ly/3F1dcwK."

Several members of the public agreed with Fisher and allies, coming to the Dec. 15 meeting and speaking out against the potential change.

Revising The Ordinance

But earlier on the day of the Dec. 15 meeting, council members who supported the increase made a change to the ordinance before that night's vote, tweaking it.

They added a "trigger clause." The clause meant that should the increase be approved, it would only take effect if a pending court matter against Councilman Michael DeFusco — for possible campaign violations in the past — was not resolved by the courts.

There had been a past court filing against DeFusco for possibly violating donation limits during a past campaign. Council members said that the difficulty of penalizing those who violate the low limit rendered it unfair, and raising the limit would at least "level the playing field."

The ordinance's supporters also said that the low limit was unfair to unions who wanted to participate in public elections like others, and who want the best for their workers.

Finally, supporters of the ordinance noted that an outside attorney had given a legal opinion to the city in 2019 saying that the low local limit might be unenforceable, as the state limit is much higher.

Fisher, feeling that the last-minute change was too "substantial" for a final vote to be legal, encouraged the council to hold off on voting that night. City Attorney Brian Aiola also said he had "reservations" and the "same questions" about voting on a substantially revised ordinance, but did not recommend that the vote stop.

The council majority then resisted a motion to postpone the vote.

"How do you think this reflects the will of the people?" Fisher asked. "Have you heard one person, one person, come and say they are okay undoing our pay-to-play? This vote tonight ... is absolutely not representative of the people. And I literally promise this group that if this gets passed tonight, I will personally take all of my time to get every signature and put this on the ballot in November. There is universal support in our community to keep big money out of our elections."

Council members Phil Cohen, Jim Doyle, Emily Jabbour, and Michael Russo voted yes on the amended ordinance. DeFusco recused himself.

Council members Ruben Ramos, Tiffanie Fisher, and Jen Giattino voted against it.

After the matter was voted down, the council went forward with other votes. But 18 minutes later, Councilwoman Vanessa Falco, who had abstained, said she wanted to reconsider her vote. Then, she voted yes.

Falso was in her final meeting on the council, as she has moved into a new job running the city's new Housing Division.

The Dec. 15 vote (seen at 10:12 p.m.) and subsequent reconsideration (at 10:30 p.m.) brought jeers on social media.

The Fund for a Better Waterfront Tweeted, "On a motion to reconsider. Falco changed her vote to yes & the ordinance passed. So much for the city's progressive reputation."

"I wish I could say unbelievable but I can’t," Fisher Tweeted.

Final Twist

Last week, Hudson County View published a story noting that City Attorney Brian Aiola said the "trigger clause" likely changed the ordinance too substantially from what was originally voted on. The public needs adequate notice of votes on ordinances, and they must be voted on at two separate meetings.

As a result, Aiola said in a written opinion,"The safest course of action in order to avoid the possibility of an adverse ruling in the event a challenge ... would be reintroduce and reconsider the Ordinance in January 2022 or shortly thereafter."

If the council does so, they will have to re-introduce the ordinance at a future meeting, then hold a second reading, public hearing, and final vote at a subsequent council meeting.

The Dec. 15, 2021 meeting can be viewed here.

The next Hoboken council meeting in February can be viewed virtually with this link.

The meeting agendas on the city website also list directions to watch and participate via Zoom. Here are the agendas.

Did you know? You can sign up to get breaking news alerts in Hoboken and a free daily newsletter each morning at 6 a.m. with local news. Sign up with your zip code and email.

Get a free morning newsletter with news in Hoboken or your town: https://patch.com/subscribe