‘Oh, you mean that investigation…’

It was a bad day at the mailbox. It was late February 2018. Mixed in with the junk mail and bills, at least 10 Middlesex Borough Democrats each received letters from the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). 

The recipients were the candidates and treasurers from Middlesex Borough Democratic campaigns stretching from 2013-17. ELEC wanted to see the initial account statement for each campaign, the receipts ledger of all contributions received, and disbursement records including invoices, receipts, bills and contracts.

Nearly a year ago, then-Mayor Ron DiMura was indicted. He later pleaded guilty to one count of laundering campaign money. Now, in the home stretch of the 2020 general election, Middlesex finds itself playing the social media game, “Who Knew What When?”

The ELEC letters – obtained through an OPRA request of certain DiMura mayoral emails – don’t prove who knew what. But they can lead to conclusions of who should have been asking questions in the early months of 2018. If those letter-recipients weren’t spurred to curiosity about the ex-mayor’s activities, it’s fair to ask why not?

ELEC told the past Middlesex candidates and their treasurers what documents it was looking for in the 2018 letters.

The OPRA request found that DiMura emailed copies of the letters from his municipal mayoral account to his business and personal accounts on April 3, 2018. As a group, the letters mention nearly all the candidates and treasurers from the five years’ worth of campaigns.The only exception is the 2015 Borough Council candidates. Perhaps they didn’t receive ELEC correspondence or maybe DiMura didn’t bother to email it with the rest.

The letters prove that DiMura and the others named knew more than two years ago that ELEC had serious questions. They centered on how the Middlesex Democratic Party had spent recent years’ campaign money. ELEC eventually forwarded its findings to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office. The rest, as they say, is Middlesex political history.

Two of those whose filings were called into question by ELEC are now officers in the reorganized Middlesex Borough Democratic Organization. The AG’s office has stated nothing to suggest those officers – or anyone other than DiMura – has done anything wrong. But how can those officers and others claim they had no suspicions about DiMura’s activities until his December 2019 indictment?

‘DiMura for mayor’

You would think anyone who received a letter in February 2018 would have asked questions immediately and checked the ELEC reports for themselves. Had they done so, certain expenditures should have set off alarm bells. You would think anyone in that position would distance themselves from the person who nearly landed them in hot water. Instead, some had “DiMura for Mayor” signs on their lawn in fall 2019 and defended him on social media.

Here’s some of the expenditures DiMura listed on 2018 campaign filings. Remember, these were filled out only months after ELEC sent letters pretty much saying it had suspicions.

• 9/6/18 – $1,400 to Comprehensive Communications Group in New York City for “campaign consulting.”
• 9/6/18 – $2,400 to Comprehensive Communications Group in New York City for “campaign consulting.” (That’s not a typo. Two checks in one day for the same purpose.)
• 11/3/18 – $7,200 to Comprehensive Communications Group in New York City for “campaign consulting.”
• 11/15/18 – $11,000 to the ex-mayor’s infamous scholarship fund called a “contribution.”
• 11/25/18 – $9,000 to the ex-mayor’s infamous scholarship fund called a “contribution.”
• 12/1/18 – $7,000 to the ex-mayor’s infamous scholarship fund called a “contribution.”
• 12/20/18 – $3,000 to the ex-mayor’s infamous scholarship fund called a “contribution.”

An $11,000 “contribution” to a scholarship fund failed to set off alarms within the Middlesex Borough Democratic Party in late 2018 despite an inquiry launched only months earlier by the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission.

These peculiar expenditures related to the general election campaign. There’s more curious findings in the primary election filings from spring 2018. As treasurer, DiMura amassed $32,500 in donations for that primary, primarily from engineers and other professionals familiar in his party’s fund-raising circles. The then-mayor built this bank account for two candidates who had no primary opponents. There was no clear political need for that large amount. So, why raise it?

Victims and pawns

Recently, Middlesex Democrats have started a Facebook narrative that they were “victims” or “pawns” of DiMura. It’s been a very public effort to equate party members to the investors who lost money in the parallel Ponzi scheme the ex-mayor was accused of running. It could be argued this victimhood claim gives short shrift to those who were financially cheated in the scheme, some of them seniors.

This convenient victimhood marriage camouflages an apparent unwillingness by DiMura’s fellow party members to dig into campaign finance. Local Democrats got a heads up from a state investigative agency that something might be wrong with their party’s bookkeeping. The Ponzi victims got no similar warning. In fact, it appears the investors would not have learned the truth without the campaign finance probe. Too bad the bilked investors didn’t get a letter two years ago advising them to watch their wallets.

So what about local Republicans? There is no documented evidence they were privy to the ELEC letters. In another attempt to mix messages, local Democrats have dragged in social media assertions about the depletion of municipal surplus. Since Republicans participated in council budget votes, Dems have suggested the GOP was somehow up to something.

If so, wouldn’t it have been uncovered during the AG’s investigation? Those investigators found the Ponzi scheme after looking at financial records. In terms of the burned surplus, Republicans were quiet over a period of years. Maybe they looked to one day hang it on DiMura politically. That’s no violation of the law, but not exactly a profile in courage.

For the “Who Knew What When?” game to end, some local politicos will have to take truth serum and publicly fess up. They’ve all had almost a year to issue the predictable denials of any suspicions about the ex-mayor. Time for more transparency, though it might verify what some taxpayers have concluded on their own. Anyone paying attention has already seen through the flimsy excuses.