THE COLOR OF MONEY IN NEW JERSEY (1999–2001)

Campaign Finance, Race and Civil Rights in the Garden State

New Jersey Citizen Action and the
Citizen Policy & Education Fund of NJ

---

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed – we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

– Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
March on Washington, 1963.

---

Table of Contents

• Background
• Methodology
• Major Findings
• Conclusions
• 2003 Report: "The Color of Money in New Jersey 2003" (will open as a new page)
• NJCA's Campaign Finance Reform (will open as a new page)
• More Information
  
  

Background

While the United States today may be closer to realizing Dr. King’s dream than we were in 1963, people of color are far from equal participants in the major political process of our time: campaign financing. In its national analysis of federal campaign contributions and race, Public Campaign found "over and over, in city after city,?that the vast majority of contributions came from areas that are primarily white and wealthy. The pattern held in all 50 states. [The] findings depict the inherent inequality in our campaign finance system and how it puts people of color at a serious political disadvantage."

Members of New Jersey Citizen Action (NJCA) and the Citizen Policy and Education Fund of NJ (CPEF) wanted to know if people of color face the same exclusions from the political system in our state elections as they do in federal campaigns. Using 2001 general election campaign contributions and 1990 census data, we have compared contribution levels and racial composition in the highest giving zip codes areas and the per capita expenditures in these areas with contributions from the zip code areas with the highest concentration of people of color.

This analysis clearly shows that the current system of privately financing New Jersey’s political campaigns negatively impacts people of color, who contribute only a small fraction of what their white counterparts donate. In general, people of color have less wealth and lower incomes than white residents do. As a result, they have fewer funds available to put into campaign coffers for candidates. In turn, they are less likely to be included in the political process, as most elected officials and even reformers agree that campaign contributions pave the way for access to politicians. Privately financing state elections disenfranchises African American and Latino voters precisely because they cannot afford the "pay to play" system in place now.

In New Jersey’s 1999 and 2001 elections, candidates for the State Legislature who raised the most money (or were incumbents) won their contests. As such, campaign financing and the urgent need for reform are not academic issues for communities of color. Participating in the political system and getting results from elected officials is a question of civil rights. Whether the issue is racial profiling or predatory lending, people of color are more likely to have their voices drowned out by the constant flow of money to Trenton.

NJCA and CPEF are pleased to have worked with the Fannie Lou Hamer Project on this report, and concur with the Project’s assessment that campaign finance reform is the next step in the fight for civil rights. We also would like to thank the NAACP-National Voter Fund New Jersey office and Public Campaign, the national clearinghouse for campaign finance reform, for their assistance in the publication of this study.

Major Findings

There is a large disparity between aggregate contributions made by residents of the highest giving areas, who tend to be predominantly white, and the contributions from areas with residents who are predominantly people of color. Additionally, the comparison of per capita contributions made by each group shows a stark contrast in the giving power of predominantly white, wealthy residents and people of color, who are more likely to have low or moderate incomes.

• Excluding Trenton’s 08608, contributions from the highest giving zip code areas to 2001 Gubernatorial candidates, Senators, Assembly candidates, parties, and PACs totaled $7,734,700. This is 18 times greater than the total contributions from the zip code areas with the highest percentages of people of color, $416,576.
• When Trenton is included, the difference between the two sets of contributors is still substantial. The top giving zip codes contributed $10,428,378, compared to $3,110,254 from the zip code areas with the highest percentage of people of color.
• Mullica Hill, 08052, which ranked third highest, contributed $697,378. Mullica Hills has a small population of just fewer than 9,000 people, with less than 4% people of color. The average per capita contribution in Mullica Hill was $77.
• Newark’s South Ward, 07108, which has the highest concentration of people of color anywhere in New Jersey contributed a total of $1,050 in 2001. Approximately 34,000 people live in this zip code area, making the average per capita contribution 3 cents. Even if the same number of people lived in the South Ward’s 07108 area as live in Mullica Hill, they would have only contributed 11 cents per person last year.
• The average per capita contribution from residents in the city of Woodbridge was 4400 times greater than that from residents of the Newark-South Ward zip code in which people of color comprise 99 percent ($134 compared to 3 cents).
• People of color do not comprise a majority in any of the top 20 giving zip code areas.
• Excluding Trenton’s 08608, North Bergen is the only city on the highest giving list to have a near majority of people of color (46%) in its demographics. Latino residents make up the largest segment of the North Bergen community of color.
• Average family incomes in the highest giving zip code areas range from approximately $75,000 in Cherry Hill to $30,000 in Rio Grande.
• Average family incomes in the areas with the highest concentrations of people of color range from $42,000 to $16,000

Conclusions

From this analysis, we can conclude that New Jersey’s reliance on individual and political action committee contributions unfairly diminishes African American, Latino and other minority group’s political involvement. Despite equal voting rights and an increase in the number of elected officials representing people of color, wealthy white residents are in a far better position to access politicians based on their campaign contributions.

Full, voluntary public financing of state legislative and gubernatorial elections can help level the playing field for all New Jersey residents. A Fair and Clean Elections (FACE) system, similar to Clean Money Initiatives enacted in Maine, Arizona, Massachusetts and Vermont, would provide qualified candidates with competitive funding and eliminate the need for private financing. Such a system would not only balance contributions from white residents and residents of color, it may also allow more African American and Latino candidates to run because they would not have to rely on private financing.

The civil rights movement has identified campaign finance reform as a major struggle in the fight for equal opportunity. Interim steps to curb soft money and limit political advertisements are appropriate changes, but they do not address the fundamental inequality that results from relying on wealthy individuals and corporations to fund our political system. Real change must address thus imbalance and level the playing field for all New Jerseyans. All people, regardless of race or income should be able to exercise their right to vote in a meaningful way. Our political principle of "one person — one vote" has been replaced with the reality of "one dollar — one vote." Anything less than a return to this standard is campaign finance deform. Or, as Fannie Lou Hamer told the Democratic National Convention in 1964, "We didn’t come all this way for no two seats."

More Information