Last week, for the good of the Democratic Party, U.S. Senator
Robert Torricelli dropped out of his re-election campaign.
In a relatively liberal leaning state, the Democratic Torricelli
was having trouble with a no name Republican challenger, Doug
Forrester. By the end of the summer, it didn’t take an expert
to see that Torricelli was in trouble.
The problem now is he and his party decided to break the law,
and insert another Democratic candidate on the ballot. New Jersey
law is clear ““ the ballots cannot be changed 51 days or fewer
before the general election. After this date, parties can still
change their candidate, but the ballots won’t be changed.
Senator Torricelli decided to end his campaign 36 days before
the election. The Democratic leadership scrambled to find a
replacement, and settled on Frank Lautenberg, a former senator with
name recognition within New Jersey.
The Democratic Party knows as well as anyone that since write-in
candidates don’t win elections, their only hope was to get
Lautenberg on the ballot. The Democrats were aware that Torricelli
was losing ground. Unfortunately, they didn’t pull him out
before the deadline.
Although New Jersey law cannot be any clearer, the Democrats
argue that the state should “allow the voters to have a
choice.” Evidently the Democrats are oblivious to the fact
the voters did have a choice, and they chose Republican Forrester
so strongly in the opinion polls that Torricelli decided to
quit.
What is most troubling is the entire process of exchanging
Torricelli for Lautenberg is completely undemocratic. The
Democratic voters did not choose Lautenberg in their own primary,
but instead voted for Torricelli. The Democratic leadership then
went over the heads of their voters and picked Lautenberg.
Additionally, it was the elected officials of New Jersey ““
both Republican and Democrat politicians ““ who voted into law
the rule that candidates can’t put their names on the ballot
after the deadline.
Despite all this, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that the Democrats could put Lautenberg on the ballot. They would
only have to pay $800,000 for reprinting the ballots.
An undemocratically elected body, the court, has superceded this
expressly written legislative mandate. Instead of ruling according
to the law, the New Jersey Supreme Court broke the checks and
balances of good government, and made their own law. Because of the
close balance of power in the U.S. Senate, it affects the entire
nation.
The ruling is a problem not only in this case, but also as a
precedent for future campaigns. Republicans have called for the
U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. They observed that,
“Political parties will be encouraged to withdraw losing
candidates on the eve of election, replacing them with candidates
who have not gone through the rigors of the nomination process, in
hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.”
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case because it
isn’t a constitutional issue, but the court fight isn’t
over. The Republicans are attempting to keep Torricelli from giving
his $5 million-war chest to Lautenberg.
What led to Torricelli’s downfall is as old as politics
itself ““ bribes. David Chang, a former fundraiser and
confidant was jailed for making illegal contributions to
Torricelli’s successful 1996 campaign. The gifts included a
large-screen TV, antiques, jewelry, a $9,200 watch, cash, a
cashmere coat, diamond earrings for his girlfriend, cuff links,
suits and a Persian rug. A $4,000 grandfather clock alone was twice
the legal limit of campaign contributions in one election
cycle.
Torricelli, the man who received the gifts, managed to escape
responsibility until now.
When the gifts became public, Torricelli turned on Chang and
called him a perjurer and a liar. It’s been said that
absolute power corrupts absolutely, but a Senate seat seems to do
the trick.
It’s wrong to incriminate the Democratic Party for
Torricelli’s ethical problems, even if several other
Democrats have had similar problems in recent years. Corruption
runs deeper than one party. But it is wrong that the Democrats are
trying to supercede election law, instead of facing the
consequences of their candidate’s unethical actions.
When Torricelli announced his intention to dropout, Sean Hannity
said he just wanted to know if the suit he was wearing was his own
or a gift. I’m not sure about the suit, but my guess is those
weren’t Torricelli’s cuff links.