pay to play | Pension360

New Jersey Senate Moves To Tighten Pension Pay-to-Play Rules

A New Jersey Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill that would broaden the state’s pay-to-play rules regarding pension investments.

The bill intends to further strip out politics from pension investments: the new rules would prohibit the state’s pension fund from investing in firms that have recently made donations to national political groups.

Reported by NorthJersey.com:

The legislation would broaden the New Jersey conflict of interest restrictions that apply to the pension system to cover national party committees and organizations like the Democratic Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association, an agency that’s being led this year by Governor Christie.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Shirley Turner, D-Mercer, passed the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee by a 3-1 vote.

That vote came just weeks after the state Division of Investment, which manages the $80 billion pension system, decided to sell its stake in a venture capital fund with ties to a Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate who donated to the New Jersey GOP. The state Department of Treasury is also in the midst of an internal audit of the investment to determine whether state regulations were violated.

But labor union officials in New Jersey have also questioned other political donations made by investment firms that have been hired by the Division of Investment to manage state pension funds, including several to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association. Both organizations supported Christie’s successful bid for a second term last year, but are not covered by current state law.

Right now, the Division of Investment regulations bar the agency from investing pension funds in a firm only when the fund management professionals have made contributions to New Jersey candidates and political committees within a two-year period.

Any hint of politics and political favoritism should be kept away from the public employees’ pension funds, Turner said.

“The method of investment should be selected based on performance and merit, not because of campaign contributions,” she said.

The bill would also require the State Investment Council, which oversees the Division of Investment, to provide quarterly reports to the Legislature disclosing the fees being that are paid to the investment management firms. Treasury right now does not list those fees on its website as other states do and requires an Open Public Records Act request, which can be a lengthy process, be filed to obtain the information.

“It’s not their money, nor does it belong to any governor or any other political figure,” Turner said.

The Senate drew up the bill after an uproar caused, at least in part, by a recent series of articles by journalist David Sirota about conflicts of interest within the State Investment Council.

Photo by Truthout.org via Flickr CC License

New York Comptroller DiNapoli Touts Pension Reforms in Letter

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli is likely to win re-election to his post without much trouble, according to recent polls.

But amidst questions about conflicts of interest in the New Jersey pension system, DiNapoli seized an opportunity to tout his own pension reform measures in a letter to the editor of the Times-Union:

A recent commentary rightfully condemned the culture of “pay to play” in which politically connected financial executives gain access to public pension money in exchange for political campaign contributions (“Public pensions, politics don’t mix,” Oct. 3).

After I was appointed state comptroller, my top priority was to restore the office’s reputation after it was badly tarnished by a scandal based on this corrupt practice. We took immediate steps to set new standards and controls to codify ethics, transparency and accountability.

In time, we have returned the office’s focus to where it should be – on the investments and performance of the New York State Common Retirement Fund. This was accomplished by: Banning the involvement of placement agents, paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists in investments; issuing an executive order and pressing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to prohibit “pay-to-play” practices; and expanding vetting and approval of all investment decisions.

I’m proud to say the latest independent review of the pension fund by Funston Advisory Services found it operates with an industry-leading level of transparency and that our investment team acts within ethical and professional standards.

This review is a validation that we are on the right path and should reassure the people of New York that the pension fund is being managed properly and ethically.

DiNapoli (D) is running against political newcomer Robert Antonacci (R).

Photo by Awhill34 via Wikimedia Commons

Christie Dismisses Conflict of Interest, Pay-to-Play Allegations as “Garbage”

Journalist David Sirota has written a series of reports since over the last five months detailing the possible conflicts of interest and pay-to-play violations under the surface of the New Jersey pension system.

On Monday, Christie gave his first extended response to the allegations and denied them categorically. From Politicker NJ:

“There’s no appointed people in my administration that make those decisions,” Christie responded when asked about the allegations, reiterating an earlier defense of his administration and brushing off the accusations as innaccurate. “Those decisions are all made by folks in the Department of Treasury who are career employees. And the appointed folks on the pension board, both Republicans and Democrats, don’t make decisions about individual investments.”
[…]

“So all of those are just factually incorrect,” Christie said. “Nobody in my office had any input or discussion in any way with anybody from Treasury or the pension board for that matter about how we invest our pension funds.”

He also said “nobody should be complaining” when it comes to the state’s pension fund, lately burdened with millions in underfunded liabilities, given a high rate of anticipated returns– 7.9 percent — on the fund’s investments.

“And over my fours years as governor we’ve made 12 million over the 7.9 percent,” he added. “So the investments have gone very well.”

A major New Jersey union filed an ethics complaint against the pension system earlier this summer. The union said in the complain that the chairman of the State Investment Council “violated the Division’s own rules barring politics in the selection and retention of such funds and investments, and has further created an appearance of impropriety.”

The Lawsuit That Could Legalize Pay-To-Play For Pension Fund Investments

Here’s a scenario to chew on:

An investment firm makes a campaign contribution to a city mayor. Later, the mayor appoints members to the city’s pension board. The pension board decides to hire the aforementioned investment firm to handle the pension fund’s investments.

Does something seem fishy about that situation?

The SEC says yes, and they have rules in place to prevent those “pay-to-play” scenarios.

But a recent lawsuit says no: investment managers should be able to donate money to whichever politicians they choose, even if those donations could present a conflict of interest down the line.

The lawsuit, filed last week by Republican committees from New York and Tennessee against the SEC, wants the court to affirm that political donations are free speech—and, by extension, current SEC pay-to-play rules are unconstitutional.

Under the SEC’s current rules, investment advisors can’t make donations to politicians that have any influence—direct or indirect—over the hiring of investment firms.

In many states, it’s the job of the governor or mayor to appoint members to the state or city’s pension board—the entity that controls pension funds’ investment decisions.

The lawsuit claims that it’s not fair to make investment firm employees choose between their career and their First Amendment rights.

But does the lawsuit have a shot?

If past court decisions are any indication, it certainly has a fighting chance. David Frum writes:

It’s a good guess that the federal courts will listen sympathetically to the challenge to the SEC rule. The Supreme Court has made clear that campaign contributions are protected free speech, both for individuals and for corporations. While protecting against corruption remains a valid basis for restricting contributions, the Court has defined corruption narrowly: In the words of the majority opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC, the most recent major campaign-finance case, corruption is “an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties.” And as Justice John Roberts wrote in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the courts “must err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.” It seems very conceivable that the courts will find the SEC rule overly broad.

It should be noted, the SEC didn’t put these rules in place for no reason.

Over the course of a few years in the mid-2000’s, then-New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi accepted over $1 million in campaign donations and gifts from investment firm Markstone Capital.

Hevesi, who at the time was the sole trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, subsequently decided that the Fund should make a $250 million investment with Markstone.

Hevesi eventually pled guilty to corruption charges and served a little less than two years in prison. He is banned from holding public office again. The case was the catalyst for the pay-to-play rules the SEC currently has in place.

But Frum, in a piece written for the Atlantic today, wonders aloud whether the SEC rule targets the right people. Frum writes:

It’s a valid question whether the SEC rule is actually achieving anything.

The people with the most sway over state pension-funds decisions are not always—nor even often—elected officials. And those who exert the most effective influence over them are not always—nor even often—campaign contributors.

Frum points that it’s often placement agents who are helping to pull strings from behind the scenes. That’s been the case in California, Dallas, New Mexico and Kentucky, and those are just the high-profile ones.

From Frum:

In our belief that it’s politicians who are always and everywhere to blame for everything that goes wrong in a political system, we consign to the financial pages the abundant evidence that the most fundamental vulnerability of state pension plans to corrupt influence is located less in politicians’ need for campaign funds, and much more in the weak governance of state pension plans themselves.

As the New York Republicans’ case against the SEC winds its way through the courts, and if it begins to succeed, you’ll hear a lot of agitated discussion about what this all means for campaign finance, for Chris Christie, and for American elections. But the most important trouble—and the most disturbing practices—are located quite elsewhere. It will be worth keeping that in mind.

That doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that the SEC rule should be repealed and the floodgates opened.

It just means that the stuff happening behind closed doors—the opaque world of placement agents—is what we should be worried about, too.

Here’s a summary of current pay-to-play regulation:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Summary of the SEC&#x27;s Pay to Play Rule on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/236911281/Summary-of-the-SEC-s-Pay-to-Play-Rule” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Summary of the SEC&#x27;s Pay to Play Rule</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/236911281/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_2716″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo by Truthout.org via Flickr CC License