"The Attorney General’s decision to remain silent on this critical campaign finance issue is not only abhorrent, it is irresponsible," said Rep. Robert Menendez (NJ-13). "Clearly, defending the law as well as 30 years of campaign finance practice should have been the paramount consideration of the Attroney General's office."

The Attorney General’s office had initially submitted a brief early in the trial in support of the plaintiff’s belief that the court had the authority to overturn the results of an election. Although the brief was submitted by Deputy Attorney General Alan Stephens, it was almost immediately withdrawn by Senior Deputy Attorney General Paul Josephson, whose political background includes serving as a lawyer for the New Jersey Democratic State Committee and for the McGreevey for Governor campaign in both 1997 and 2001. Josephson telephoned Judge D’Italia but did not provide notice to either the plaintiffs or their legal representatives.

"By failing to act, the Attorney General and his deputies have now effectively thrown thirty years of campaign finance law out the window," said Senate Majority Leader Bernard F. Kenny, Jr. (LD 33), who also serves as chairman of the Hudson County Democratic Organization. "Are we to believe that the Attorney General has no opinion on a ruling which is going to benefit campaign finance law violators to the detriment of those who abide by the law? Does the Administration really believe that it has no input to give in this monumental legal decision?"

The Attorney General is charged by law and swears to uphold the laws and defend the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Office of the Attorney General assigned numerous Deputy Attorneys General to attend the many depositions that were taken and appear in Court on every pre-trial and trial day. Yet, despite Deputy Stephens’ attendance at the trial, he was not allowed to submit a brief defending a state agency’s right to enforce the law in a primary election.

"The Attorney General’s actions really do belie all reason," said Hudson County Executive Thomas A. DeGise. "It is incredible that the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, decided not to act with respect to a law that has been in practice for over thirty years. If the Attorney General was going to remain neutral in this case, why did his deputy attend the trial in the first place?"

On three separate occasions, the court asked Deputy Attorney General Stephens his opinion on the proceedings. After Mr. Josephson pulled his initial brief, Mr. Stephens advised the court each time that the Attorney General was neutral in the case. In one instance, Judge D’Italia noted that, "perhaps the Attorney General who has been benevolently neutral in this case, since we're now talking about such a matter of major public policy might be willing to offer an opinion on the subject?" [September 9, 2003 transcript]. Per his instructions from Trenton, Mr. Stephens remained silent.

"I have served in the legislature for almost a quarter of a century and never have I seen this kind of neglect by an attorney general," said Assemblyman Joseph V. Doria (LD-31). "What will the impact of this law be when a single person donates millions of dollars to a candidate and effectively pulls the puppet strings once the candidate is in office? The Legislature addressed this same concern thirty years ago in setting up its guidelines. It is a shame that the Attorney General refused to fight to uphold them."

Largely due to Mr. Harvey’s inaction, the Election Law Enforcement Commission has decided to mount a challenge to Judge D’Italia’s findings on its own and to appoint both in house and outside counsel in this matter. Despite this, the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to uphold laws passed by the state legislature, has steadfastly refused to take a position that sides with ELEC, the body regulating campaign finance laws in the state.

"Strike another blow for campaign finance reform," said Assemblywoman Elba Perez-Cinciarelli (LD 31). "In this case, not only are we not moving forward, we are actually moving back to the old Watergate days of corruption in government."

The Attorney General’s decision to withhold opinion in this case is even more troubling due to indications that it had never notified ELEC that a case it was involved in might undermine ELEC’s authority. Nor is there any indication that the Attorney General notified anyone at ELEC that he was not defending the very law it has required all primary candidates to abide for thirty years.

"The fact that a deputy attorney general went to the trouble to research the law, write a brief and present it to a judge does not sound like a secret and spontaneous act," said Jersey City Council President Harvey Smith. "Someone must have known that he was working on it, just as someone must have received instructions for Mr. Stephens to pull his brief and take up a position of neutrality."