'More money, less disclosure': N.J.'s new elections law fails a key test
- Bias Rating
-78% Very Liberal
- Reliability
75% ReliableGood
- Policy Leaning
-90% Very Liberal
- Politician Portrayal
-55% Negative
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias Score Analysis
The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Sentiments
20% Positive
- Liberal
- Conservative
Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
---|---|---|
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan. |
Reliability Score Analysis
Policy Leaning Analysis
Politician Portrayal Analysis
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Contributing sentiments towards policy:
51% : In an unattributed statement released last month, Jersey Freedom said it complied with the Elections Transparency Act and pointed out "there are no 48-hour notices required to be filed by independent expenditure committees in the law."49% : A little-noticed amendment in the law allowed outside groups to legally bankroll so-called phantom candidates -- whose main purpose is to siphon off votes from "legitimate candidates," according to a lawsuit -- without disclosing their donors' identities before Election Day.
49% : "Joe Donohue, who leads the state's election watchdog agency, said the law in some ways did increase transparency.
46% : He asked the agency and "whatever law enforcement resources from the state are required" to investigate and prosecute any potential crimes.Brighter Future Forward and its attorney Bill Tambussi, who also represents Jersey Freedom, did not return calls.
45% : Henal Patel, law and policy director for the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, said the law was the product of behind-the-scenes wrangling between the governor and Legislature and did not benefit the public.
44% : The opaque campaign finance activity wasn't limited to state elections -- or Democrats.
42% : Donohue, the acting executive director of the Election Law Enforcement Commission, said that while the law had some positives on transparency, the special exemption for independent expenditure groups is "frustrating.""The whole thing was trying to put everybody on an even playing field.
40% : He said he would consider tweaking the law yet again but that the bigger problem was in groups not complying with it.
40% : "Everything I've seen indicates they did not follow the law in place for the 2023 election," Polistina said.
36% : Opponents of the law fear it will further shroud the source of political spending and breed more public distrust in a system still reeling from controversial federal campaign finance rulings.
35% : Scutari did not respond to questions about the law, and a spokesperson for Gov. Phil Murphy -- who quietly signed the bill in April, declined to comment.
33% : The lawsuit alleges Jersey Freedom was supposed to file with ELEC before it started spending money, not after, "an obvious violation of the law.
*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.