1. Eliminate dual-office holding
2. Eliminate dual public employment
3. Require forfeiture of public pensions for corruption convictions
4. Require strict disclosure of conflicts of interest in the Legislature
5. Establish an elected state auditor to be an independent watchdog
6. End pay-to-play for everyone
7. Strictly prohibit the use of campaign funds from criminal defense costs
8. Suspend all public officeholders charged with a crime
9. Require a new, detailed annual disclosure form of all public officials
10. Require mandatory forfeiture of convicted officeholders' campaign accounts

This is not a bad start, but there are some flaws here, and some additional ways to really give this plan teeth.

Dual-office holding and pension forfeiture

Dual-office holding and dual public employment (Christie Points 1 and 2) are not inherently related to bribes. They instead mostly concern the accumulation of overblown pension rights, especially when little work is actually required or done. In small communities, part-time work may well be the most practical arrangement, but such occasional work hardly justifies pension rights unless it fills in for a regular (8-hour-day) job. The rule fix here is quite simple, and not actually "conservative" so much as just practical:

1. No person's total state pensions can amount to more than the pension for one full-time public position at the grade which is the average of all positions in which the pensioner earned state pension rights;
   
2. The pensioner's state pension will be reduced in proportion to any private pension earned over the same period, with such reduction being the proportion of an eight-hour day (five days per week) occupied in private labor during the state-pension earning period (so no pension-worthy "overtime"); and
   
3. Knowing misrepresentation of a position's hourly requirements or a pensioner's work (as shown by time sheets or affidavits) shall be deemed criminal fraud, although violators may withdraw the representations and renounce pension claims within a "safe harbor" prior to making a pension claim.

As to forfeiture of a corrupt official's pension (Christie Point 3), this is certainly a good way to tilt the cost-benefit scales against corrupt activity when an official weighs his or her options. There is one possible flaw, however, and that is with respect to an innocent spouse. We can't assume that a dishonest official has weighed his or her family's interests, or that a spouse knows what is going on. It would in such case be fairest to allow the innocent spouse to apply to a NJ court for a reduced pension equivalent to the pension's death-benefit upon the innocent spouse's attainment of retirement age. If the innocent spouse can reasonably show that he or she was unaware of the corrupt activity, then the reduced pension could be ordered paid to the spouse. The application should, however, be publicly posted and open to challenge by public officials or private citizens on the basis that the spouse can be shown not to be innocent of such knowledge. A bit more complicated than a straight pension forfeiture, admittedly, but not unreasonable and certainly a bit fairer to innocent spouse-bystanders. It's a "hang the right people high" alternative.

Pay-to-Play and Disclosure

Ending pay-to-play for everyone (Christie Point 6) is not only a good idea, it's necessary. Allowing some to avoid the rules is to privilege one group over another in the political process. That's just plain wrong, and it doesn't take a conservative to realize this.

Requiring disclosure of all conflicts of interest by Legislature members (Christie Point 4) and disclosure of financial interests by all public officials (Christie Point 9) are good steps to take, but why not require all public officials to complete both forms? One of the most notorious types of corruption in NJ has been the "eminent domain" gambit where land is taken at a low forced price and given to a developer who strangely has connections to the official's cousin, if not the official himself or herself. Requiring all public officials, from the governor on down to a local zoning board official, to disclose the following would go a long way to establishing a basis for a corruption charge if the official fools around:

"Please list all of your relatives, friends or professional associates who have or are objectively likely in the future to have a financial interest in any of the matters with which you will be concerned. ___________________________"

"If any person is listed in the question above, please explain what matters or types of matters you must recuse yourself from, or what measures might be needed to ensure that no conflict of interest will arise in respect of such persons. _______________"

Suspension, Defense and Campaign Funds

Suspending a public official charged with a crime (Christie Point 8) is a no-brainer. It happens everywhere else, and it doesn't take a conservative to say that an alleged criminal should not be handling public affairs, especially when those affairs are the basis of the criminal charge. Reinstatement would equal exoneration if the official is found innocent or the charges are dropped.

Things become more difficult when forfeiture of campaign funds is at issue (Christie Point 10). If the fund is the personal property of the official, who is also liable for campaign debts, then the open-ended quality of such a fine poses a problem. If the fund is not the official's personal property, then it becomes even more problematical. A less legally questionable alternative may be to permanently disbar the official from state public office, and then liquidate the official's now-unneeded campaign funds through a quasi-bankruptcy proceeding. The campaign's valid debts will be paid out, and the remainder would be refunded to donors pro rata, with expenses paid by the fund. This makes the donors more or less whole, and removes the official from a public perch. If a fine is to be levied, do it against the official personally, not against his or her donors.

Preventing the use of campaign funds to defend against criminal charges (Christie Point 7) has the downside of depriving candidates or officials lacking personal means to fight spurious or unwarranted charges. Not every official sees campaign funds as a way to fight off justice. If the goal is to prevent corrupt officials from using political funds to defend illicit private gain, simply require the official to file a personal security with the state to cover any campaign funds used for criminal defense, before the official is allowed to use such funds. If found guilty, the state may collect on the security and disburse the proceeds to donors. It's not as sexy as just forbidding use of the funds, but it should help to protect innocent officials.

Auditors and Private Action

The Christie Plan calls for a new state auditor to be elected as an "independent watchdog" (Point 5). This is fine, but without guaranteed and significant funding for the auditor's office, the auditor would be completely hobbled.

What would be preferable would be a private incentive to root out corruption, Sherman Act-style: lawsuits allowing for treble damages. Give any person a private cause of action for corruption when the plaintiff has been harmed personally or as a member of the community by a corrupt public act (such as by having a local wildlife reserve turned into a connected guy's estate). If the person wins, he or she gets treble damages on the value of the transaction in question (i.e. three times the estate's market value).

The standard for winning would have to be high given such stakes. Perhaps there would have to be clear and convincing evidence of a quid pro quo, or that unauthorized acts took place, or that usual procedures were circumvented. After a criminal conviction, however, it would be fairly easy for private persons to exact vengeance on all of the corrupt parties, private and public. Such an arrangement would get the trial lawyers interested in corruption, and pressing for criminal investigations. This would raise the perceived costs of corrupt behavior, and discourage corruption. It might prove to be a jackpot for the intrepid few, but cutting down on dishonest government would be great for everyone.