Dump Mike Ferguson (NJ7)

Members of a New Jersey group traveled to Washington, DC to advocate for more action in stopping the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. They received warm welcomes from a number of Congressman from New Jersey's delegation, but not Congressman Mike Ferguson's office.

They came to ask for more humanitarian aid and military support in a land where hundreds of thousand of Darfurians have been slaughtered, raped, wounded, driven from their homes, and attacked again while struggling for survival in the refugee camps of neighboring Chad.

Delegates met with NJ Reps. Steve Rothman (D-Dist. 9) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-Dist. 11), both of whom signed on as sponsors to the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, a bill the lobbyists believe is vital to the salvation of the Darfurian people.

At the office of Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-Dist. 7), the delegates were seen by Amanda Tharpe, the congressman’s legislative aide. Ferguson has not signed on as a sponsor of the bill.

Describing Ferguson’s aide as “very cool” and not “terribly sympathetic,” Linda Kohl of Short Hills, president of AJC’s Metro NJ chapter, said both Frelinghuysen and Rothman were “very positive. They are really on our side. That was obvious from everything they said and everything they did.”

This is not the first time that people have reported Ferguson's constituent services have been weak. A number of people have told Dump Mike that when they call to get information from Ferguson's NJ and DC offices they are told that the staffer doesn't know the answer, and that an answer can be expected in two to three weeks. Others say that their questions by phone and submitted on Ferguson's web site go unanswered.

This is unacceptable. The people who Ferguson represents have a right to know where he stands on the issues important to them, and waiting three weeks or receiving no answer is poor constituent support.

The Rev. Luke Davis of the Greater Harvest Baptist Church in Newark, a delegation member who serves as vice president of the North Jersey Committee of Black Clergy ... said he “felt a bit that we were put off by the fact that we did not actually get to see Mr. Ferguson. The aide did not give the impression a real interest was there.” ...

Susan Shapiro, the associate director of the American Jewish Committee’s New Jersey chapter, who led the delegation, said, “When we met with Amanda Tharpe, she started out by telling us that Ferguson was very supportive of Israel. We told her, ‘That’s not the issue we’re discussing.’”

Shapiro said she returned to New Jersey feeling both optimistic and frustrated.

Ferguson's spokeswoman, Abby Bird, said when contacted later about the complaints of the Darfur advocates that Ferguson would be signing on to the bill.

Posted by admin at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Regular readers of this blog know that Mike Ferguson is tightly connected with indicted Congressman Tom DeLay's inner circle of legislators, lobbyists and political influencers known around Washington DC as "Delay, Inc." We have, to day, been able to track close to $200,000 Ferguson has taken from DeLay and his current or former employees, and that in the first year of Ferguson's PAC he gave almost half its money to DeLay's candidates from Texas.

That same PAC has as it's treasurer a lobbyist -- Mark Valente -- with business in front of Mike Ferguson's committees and has raised close to $200,000 for Ferguson's use. PACs run by House members are used to contribute money to other congressional candidates to curry favor, and the more money they can give the more influence the House member has. Valente's position as teasurer and fundraiser for Ferguson is a very good inroad into influencing Ferguson himself.

Today, while researching another subject, we found out that not only is Valente a lobbyist with business in front of Ferguson's committees, but he is also a member of Tom DeLay's inner circle.

Valente, an influential member of House GOP Whip Tom DeLay's leadership steering committee, has contributed to the campaigns of three House D.C. subcommittee members since 1999.

Valente objected to suggestions from unhappy Republicans that his ties to DeLay (Tex.) and other GOP House leaders influenced the outcome. "Tom Delay isn't on the subcommittee; he never voted on this," Valente said.

Will the connections to DeLay and the Washington DC Culture of Corruption never end?

Posted by admin at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some jackass is going around doing fake polls called "push polls" around the country. A push poll is essentially a partisan attack done as a fake poll, and it is considered an extremely dirty political trick. Supporters of George Bush in 2000 did it to Senator John McCain in 2000 suggesting McCain had post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the prison camps and had fathered an illegitimate black child.

This is illegal, becausse it is a political activity and the callers do not identify themselves. This is not helpful because this kind of garbage makes it harder for legitimate organizations -- like Blue 7th PAC -- to conduct legitimate political education and polls without being distrusted.

Now the jackass has come to the 7th district, and is push polling against Mike Ferguson. While it has to be obvious to anyone who knows the name of this site, we are interested in defeating Ferguson in November. We are not interested in doing it by cheating, as we will leave that to Ferguson who has a record of it.

You can listen to a recording of the fake poll here. Unfortunately, it is a robo-voice and you can't yell at them.

Posted by admin at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From the Jan. 19, 2006 issue of the News Record/Patriot and the Jan. 20, 2006 issue of the Atom Tabloid & Citizen~Gazette, a column by Michael Shapiro:

Congressman Ferguson & the Franking Privilege

The franking privilege enables a member of Congress to mail official letters and packages without being charged for postage. Current regulations limit the privilege to correspondence “in which the member deals with the addressee as a citizen of the United States or constituent.”

Typical mail subject to the entitlement includes newsletters, questionnaires, and government publications. The use of the franking privilege is prohibited for mail that is purely personal, related to a political campaign or “laudatory and complimentary.” Because of rampant abuse of the franking privilege by members of Congress and its heavy cost to taxpayers, in 1989 Congress considered eliminating it but decided instead to reduce the number of mailings allowed each year from six to three.

Congressman Mike Ferguson’s mailings are typically double-sided glossy cards showing the Congressman catering to various constituents, with his face pictured prominently in every conceivable scenario. Minimal factual information is provided. Obviously, the mailing is nothing but campaign literature paid for at taxpayer expense.

In his most recent distribution, a double-sided multi-color card with numerous photos, one side features a large portrait of Ferguson with the phrases “Congressman Mike Ferguson” and “Fighting for Us and Delivering for our Communities.” This segment of the mailing, alone, appears to violate the ban on franked mail that is “laudatory or complimentary.” Below these words are pictures of a fireman, children in a classroom, and a doctor speaking with a patient. So far, no information has been provided to Ferguson’s constituency except for extolling the “virtues” of the Congressman.

The second side of the mailing features a large photo of Ferguson with a Coast Guard official and a prominent quote from Ferguson, “I work hard for you and to deliver for Union County.” This side of the mailing is entitled: “Congressman Mike Ferguson” “Delivering for Union County.” Again, this appears to be “laudatory and complimentary” and therefore would violate the proscription on such mailings at taxpayer expense. The remainder of the mailing consists of dollar amounts and the entity in Union County that has received that amount. At the very bottom of the card, in small print, it reads “Appropriations, grants, reclassifications requested or voted for by Congressman Ferguson.” It appears that, at most, the figures listed are monies Congressman Ferguson “helped” procure for Union County. This is the only information provided and is a classic example of abuse of the franking privilege. Congressman Ferguson should be called to task for it.

A missive to constituents in Union County can run upwards of $100,000. Over the course of the year, Congressman Ferguson’s franking privilege allows him to mail to Union County residents three times, amounting to taxpayer expense of approximately $300,000. And for what purpose? So all residents of Union County can be provided campaign propaganda, masked as official literature. Of course, Congressman Ferguson offers similar mailings in the other counties he represents: Middlesex, Hunterdon and Somerset.

If Mr. Ferguson wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mail campaign propaganda to his constituents, he is entitled to do so as an American citizen. But he should not be allowed to do so at taxpayer expense under the guise of the franking privilege. Let him spend some of the millions of dollars he raises for his re-election or some of the wealth he personally owns on this campaign literature masked as franked mail, rather than having his hard-working taxpayer constituents pay for it.

Posted by admin at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Congressman Mike Ferguson's opposition to contraception and family planning services is a lesser known cousin to his fervent opposition to abortion. It is all tied up in the Right to Life community he is beholden to. His positions on contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other issues are so far out of the mainstream that his colleagues in the House jokingly call him "Mr. Embryo." He opposes such common sense programs such as requiring hospitals to inform rape victims that emergency contraception is available.

Recently a constituent received a letter from Ferguson that further illustrates his radical position, and his willingness to ignore facts and research to support it. The entire letter is printed after this post, with the recipient's name and address redacted, but here is the relevant part:

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on June 16, 2005, offered an amendment to H.R. 2862, the annual appropriations bill that finances the State, Justice and Commerce departments, which would lift restrictions on U.S. taxpayer assistance to UNFPA. [United Nations’ Population Fund]

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced July 17, 2004, that UNFPA helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions. Powell said at the time that the administration would continue to help women and children around the world through other programs. The United States is the largest donor of bilateral assistance to help improve the health of women and children and provided more than $1.8 billion in 2004 through a U.S. Agency for International Development fund

Rep. Maloney’s amendment failed 192-233, and I voted against the amendment in the House. I believe it is wrong for U.S. taxpayers to subsidize a program that aids in coerced abortions and forced sterilizations in China.

It's true that the administration claims that the UNFPA is involved in China's programs, but it's also true that they have no evidence to back up the claim.

President Bush and Powell's own handpicked panel, called the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, went to China and reported the following in July 2002:

Dear Secretary Powell,

We have just completed an intensive 14 day visit (May 13-26) to the People’s Republic of China. Prior to our trip, we met in Washington with inter alia members of Congress and/or their staff, Madame Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the UNFPA, U.S. Government officials and representatives of the Population Research Institute. During the trip, we talked extensively with Minister Zhang Weiqing, Chairman of the State Family Planning Commission, with UNFPA officials in Beijing, with non-governmental organizations in Beijing, and with a variety of PRC health officials, as well as ordinary Chinese citizens in five of the 32 counties in which the SFPC conducts, with UNFPA support, a special family planning program.

There follow our findings and recommendations:

First Finding
We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.

First Recommendation
We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. …

In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices.

That's a pretty clear statement from a group of former ambassadors and other dignitaries appointed by the President.

The only evidence that the Bush administration has to support its claim that the UNFPA is involved in coercive abortions in China is that UNFPA operates in China. No kidding. By providing family planning services in China at all the administration, and Ferguson, claim that they are supporting the "Chinese coercive birth-limitation program" though they admit the following in the 2005 press announcement denying funding for UNFPA:

The United States understands that UNFPA does not approve of these policies. Nonetheless, UNFPA’s continuing support for the Chinese coercive birth-limitation program unfortunately provides a de facto UN "seal of approval" on these activities. UNFPA should insist that all coercion end in the counties where it operates.

The only way to provide family planning in China is to do so through the government, and so UNFPA does so. But they do not participate in any coercive birth-limitation programs themselves, and the Bush administration readily admits it. And, as noted above, according to Powell's own committee the UNFPA has already condemned "coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

And UNFPA itself states:

For the past two years, the United States Administration has withheld funds appropriated for UNFPA, claiming that the Fund provides indirect support to a programme of coercive abortion in China. UNFPA and several independent monitors have refuted the claims. The Fund does not support abortion and does not participate in or facilitate coercive activities in China or anywhere else in the world.

The UNFPA programme in China is designed to show the effectiveness of a fully voluntary approach that offers clients a range of contraceptive choices along with information and counselling. In addition, the Fund has strongly urged Chinese authorities to end coercive policies such as the “social compensation fee” imposed on couples who have more children than are allowed.

Numerous delegations, including a team from the United States Administration, have visited family planning programmes in China and found no evidence of UNFPA support for coercion. Last month, a group of United States religious leaders and ethicists released a report on their September 2003 mission to investigate the Fund’s activities. The group found, “UNFPA neither supports nor participates in managing China’s family planning programme,” and that, as a result of the UNFPA-supported programme, “abortion and sterilization rates are declining as contraceptive choice increases.”

The interfaith delegation reported, “UNFPA repeatedly states its opposition to the Government’s one child policy,” and was the first international agency to publicly voice concerns about China’s law advocating a “social compensation fee” as contrary to the principle of free choice in the matter of family size.

Somehow Ferguson translates this blunt disavowal of China's policies as, "[UNFPA] aids in coerced abortions and forced sterilizations in China." That is simply untrue, as UNFPA states above that is doesn't support any kind of abortion. Either Ferguson is intentionally misleading his constituents or he is ignorant of the facts of the matter.

The blocking of funds is not just for China, however, but complete and for the entire program that serves 140 of the poorest countries around the world, none of which beyond China has a policy of forced abortions or sterilization. Because the Bush administration denied the UNFPA a sixth of its budget -- $34 million authorized by the Republican Congress -- women in those countries are denied basic family planning and contraceptive services that can prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that "the $34 million in U.S. funds would have helped prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 noncoercive induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths."

That is, perhaps, the saddest thing about Ferguson's position. Because of his unalterable position there are hundreds of thousands of additional abortions he says he opposes, tens of thousands of childhood deaths and thousands of women who died. All because the UNFPA operates in China.

But the issues don't stop there. If UNFPA is guilty of crimes committed by China simply by operating in China, how does Ferguson reconcile his support for giving Most Favored Nation status to China? Surely if UNFPA is guilty of complicity with the Chinese forced abortion and sterilization then Congressmen who vote to give China advantageous trading privileges are equally guilty?

Summed up, Ferguson's position on UNFPA is not supported by the facts and is actually working in conflict with his own stated goals. Worse, it is hypocritical that he would deny hundreds of thousands of women cheap, safe access to contraceptives because of China's practices yet is willing to give trade benefits to China itself.

February 21, 2006

Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA). I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on June 16, 2005, offered an amendment to H.R. 2862, the annual appropriations bill that finances the State, Justice and Commerce departments, which would lift restrictions on U.S. taxpayer assistance to UNFPA.

The UNFPA, established in 1969, is the world’s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2003, the organization provided services in 136 countries, with funds totaling $398 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 149 nations.

In 12 of the past 20 years, the United States has not contributed to the organization because of executive branch determinations that UNFPA’s program in China was in violation of a U.S. law banning U.S. taxpayer funding to organizations involved in the management of coercive family planning programs, including forced abortions.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced July 17, 2004, that UNFPA helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions. Powell said at the time that the administration would continue to help women and children around the world through other programs. The United States is the largest donor of bilateral assistance to help improve the health of women and children and provided more than $1.8 billion in 2004 through a U.S. Agency for International Development fund

Rep. Maloney’s amendment failed 192-233, and I voted against the amendment in the House. I believe it is wrong for U.S. taxpayers to subsidize a program that aids in coerced abortions and forced sterilizations in China.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your opinions, and please visit my website at www.house.gov/Ferguson for more information on issues important to New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District.

Sincerely,
Mike Ferguson
Member of Congress

Posted by admin at 06:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We have long maintained on this site that Congressman Michael Ferguson presents a moderate face to the 7th Congressional District, but that when he goes down to Washington DC he removes the mask and votes as the true right wing conservative he truly is. For a time, he could get away with it and even fool progressive organizations into believing they could work with him.

As a result, early in his tenure Ferguson received endorsements from groups like the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), a non-partisan organization that endorses Democrats and Republicans. In 2001, LCV gave Ferguson an impressive 71 percent rating for his first year in Congress and endorsed his reelection in 2002.

Then things changed, and Ferguson's true voting patten emerged. After starting well, Ferguson finished his first full term with a lowly 59 percent rating. His second term score dropped even farther, slipping to 35 percent over 2003 and 2004 and losing the LCV endorsement.

Today the LCV ratings for 2005 came out and, as predicted last week, his environmental record plummetted to a lowly 17 percent.

This is from a guy who says this on his campaign website:

"If I think our leaders in the House or President Bush are wrong in advocating policies that would weaken our environment, I have and I will continue to stand up for what is right," Congressman Ferguson said. "As the father of three young children, I believe I have a responsibility to protect our environment, preserve open space and ensure our children and grandchildren inherit an environment that is vibrant and strong."

According to the League of Conservation voters, he stopped standing up for what is right years ago.

Posted by admin at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As noted a few weeks ago, the Bush administration's proposed 2007 budget includes huge cuts to student loan programs totaling $12 billion. These cuts will make it harder for middle class students to go to college, and will increase the interest rates on existing loans people are struggling to pay off.

Calls to Congressman Mike Ferguson's offices to see if he supports these cuts have gone unanswered for more than two weeks. Staffers from both the Washington, DC and Warren, NJ offices are unable to give a direct answer to a number of calls seeking an answer. Not one person who called the office has received a written response, either.

We may now have figured out why. One of the side effects of the reduction in funding for student loans noted above is that interest rates for existing college loans are likely to rise, creating a windfall for companies that process and manage student loans.

This includes companies like the College Loan Corporation owned by Cary Katz of Poway, California and the Student Loan Consolidation Center (now Goal Financial) owned by Ryan Katz of Alexandria, Virginia. The two are brothers in their mid-30s who started their companies in the past 10 years and now manage more than $7 billion of student loans nation-wide.

What does this have to do with Mike Ferguson and his position on student loans?

The Katz brothers and their wives have contributed $18,500 to Ferguson between 2002 and 2005. That's an average of more than four grand a year in Ferguson's campaign coffers from two families from California and Virginia.

But that's not all. Another $4,500 came in from College Loan attorney Mark Brenner and Manager Joseph Kakaty. Tack on $1,000 more from Student Loan Consolidation Center Director Robert Case.

Ferguson's personal political action committee, MIKE PAC, has more. Elizabeth Wood, an executive for College Loan, threw in another $1,000 in 2005.

Ferguson now has $25,000 in just four years, or more than $6,000 a year in campaign cash from one family with no connection to New Jersey at all. Internet searches pick up no personal connection other than the campaign cash between the Katz and Ferguson families.

Well, that's not quite true. It turns out that Ferguson and Ryan Katz share a connection with lobbyist Mark Valente, an associate of indicted Congressman Tom DeLay.

Ryan Katz's company, Student Loan Consolidation Center is a client of Mark Valente's lobby firm, Valente & Associates..

UPDATE: It appears that there is even more of a connection between the Katz family and Valente. Both Ryan and Cary, and their father Marcus, have all been employed by Mark Valente's firm, Valente, Lopatin and Shultze.

Mike Ferguson accepted Mark Valente's offer to be the MIKE PAC treasurer, handling almost $200,000 of contributions to the PAC and directing his clients contributions to Ferguson's campaign.

This plays right into the Republicans culture of corruption in Washington, with lobbyists having unfettered access to members of Congress, directing campaign contributions their way to influence their votes. Lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have plowed millions of dollars to influence Congress, apparently illegally, to pass legislation that makes their clients billions.

In Ferguson's case he is so close to K Street that his own unpaid treasurer is a lobbyist, and that lobbyist delivers tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to Ferguson's reelection efforts. Why would the lobbyist volunteer to serve as treasurer if not for access? Why would he direct his college loan clients to make contributions if not for support?

And why is Mike Ferguson refusing to answer questions about where he stands on reducing student loan funding?

Posted by admin at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In 2002 Ferguson's campaign trumpeted his 71 percent rating and 2002 endorsement from the League of Conervation Voters as evidence of his independence from the Bush administration and his "strong" environmental record. At that time, Ferguson obviously felt that the LCV was a good organization and value their opinion.

It's time to take a look at the whole LCV record, and decide whether a lifetime

• 107th, 1st Session (2001) 71%
  107th, 2nd Session (2002) 38%
  107th Congress (2001-2002) 59%
• 108th, 1st Session (2003) 30%
  108th, 2nd Session (2004) 45%
  108th Congress (2003-2004) 35%

This doens't include the 109th Congress, the first session of which wrapped up last December. Ferguson voted twice to drill for oil in ANWR, for the Energy Bill, for forcing states to accept liquid natural gas terminals off their shorelines, and for the Bush adminsitration's Clear Skies program.

Expect that lifetime 41 percent rating to fall after last year, as Ferguson moves closer and closer to lockstep with the Washington Republican's demans.

Posted by admin at 06:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Congressman Mike Ferguson gave his opinion in an October 17, 2002 New Jersey Jewish News article on how he feels an elected official should act if he wants to be reelected.

But Ferguson said there is no conflict between taking that money and standing for sound policy. "When it comes to doing the right thing, you can't be worrying about your campaign," he said. A candidate who is in office and wants to stay in office has to make decisions "based on doing the right thing. You have to keep your word and be honest." [emphasis added]

This means, we suppose, that Congressman Ferguson doesn't believe he deserves staying in office, since he is more than willing to be dishonest with his constituents.

• He lied in this letter about the vote -- which he supported -- loosening ethics rules to protect Tom DeLay;
• He intentionally and repeatedly misleads constituents and the media about his ANWR votes, referencing his three procedural votes against oil drilling but never his four votes for bills supporting drilling;
• The FEC found that Ferguson was involved twice in campaign finance violations involving more than a half million dollars and gave him the highest fine in history
• Ferguson mislead and misinformed constituents at "town meetings" on Social Security

If he can't be honest, he should be replaced. Help us do it:

Posted by admin at 07:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter was published in the February 16, 2007 Cranford Chronicle:

Ferguson Too Conservative for District

To The Chronicle:

Representative Mike Ferguson likes to pretend that he is a moderate Republican. He knows, after all, that a blatantly ultra-conservativecandidate would not appeal to the generally moderate voters of New Jersey's 7th District.

Fortunately, the numbers show the truth about Ferguson. The American Conservative Union has awarded Ferguson a lifetime score of 76 percent. Only one New Jersey representative -- Scott Garrett -- has a higher score.According to a respected and often-cited organization, then, Mike Ferguson is the second-most conservative representative in the state. Doesn't sound very moderate, does it?

Even more disturbing is Ferguson's rating by the Christian Coalition of America.Ferguson's 2004 score is 100 percent. This score was based upon voteson 13 House bills (Ferguson missed 3 votes) concerning issues such as abortion, scientific research, AIDS programs, school vouchers, and religious discrimination.On all of these issues, Ferguson voted the Christian Coalition way. Only three other New Jersey congressmen -- Saxton, Smith, and Garrett -- also scored 100 percent.

Ferguson consistently allows his religious faith to dictate his legislative decisions.Is this the voting pattern of a moderate?No, it isa sign of a right-wing extremist.

Mike Ferguson is the wrong person to represent the moderate citizens of the 7th District.For more information about Ferguson, visit the web site http://www.dumpmike.com/.

JOHN CANTILLI
Cranford

Posted by admin at 06:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just a reminder of where Congressman Mike Ferguson's loyalties lie, and who he has thrown his lot in with in Washington.

[W]e can look back at another year in which we've made tremendous progress in the pro-life movement. Our greatest victory this past year was to re-elect and re-inaugurate our great pro-life president, George W. Bush.

Posted by admin at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Roll Call, the newspaper for Capitol Hill (since 1955), has put the 7th District into play.

Outlook: Likely Republican

Ferguson has yet to solidify his hold on the swing 7th district, which extends from just outside the cities of Newark and Elizabeth all the way to the Pennsylvania border. But he defeated a highly touted Democrat fairly handily last cycle. This time, the leading Democratic candidate is state Assemblywoman Linda Stender, who just entered the race in December. If she can raise money quickly, she could be competitive.

Yeah, like in Charlie Cook's analysis the 7th is "Likely Republican" but both major callers of the horse race say Ferguson has not been able to lock down his district after being given a gift in the 2001 redistricting.

In short, we have a chance and we need your help. Please take a membership in Blue 7th PAC at just $25 a year, and consider giving more!

A great way to give is to contribute just a little monthly as a Sustaining Member and watch it add up! The ACT BLUE site lets you sign up to contribute any amount monthly for the next 10 months until election day. Click any link below to set up your monthy Sustaining Membership.

• Just a $5 monthly contribution is $50 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $10 monthly contribution is $100 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $25 monthly contribution is $250 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $50 monthly contribution is $500 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $100 monthly contribution is $1000 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $250 monthly contribution is $2500 to defeat Mike Ferguson
• Just a $500 monthly contribution is $5000 -- the legal FEC maximum -- to defeat Mike Ferguson

Every dollar counts, so please consider contributing a little or a lot today. Together we can put together a winning team on November 7, 2006 and take back the 7th District!

Posted by admin at 07:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A Courier News editorial takes Mike Ferguson to task for toting water for the Bush adminsitration in the budget vote last week, taking the same position Dump Mike did last week.

In New Jersey, there are more than 124,000 student borrowers who will graduate from college with a sheepskin diploma and an average of $17,000 in student debt. With tuition prices continuing their upward spiral at both public and private universities, it should come as no surprise that more students are going into debt, taking out more loans and struggling to pay them back.

So what did Congress do about this student debt crisis? Instead of helping to pull students out of increasing debt loads, it threw them a shovel. Last week, Congress voted to pass the federal budget reconciliation act, which includes more than $39 billion in funding cuts. More than $12 billion -- roughly 30 percent of the cuts -- will come directly from student loan programs. The cuts are staggering; they are easily the largest cuts in student aid in history.

The mainly party-line vote was decided by a razor-thin margin of 216 to 214 -- one vote would have made the difference. Thirteen moderate Republican congressmen, including Rep. Chris Smith, voted against the bill, citing the vast level of funding cuts. Four of those "no" votes were from Republicans who reversed their votes from last December. Rep. Mike Ferguson, who had expressed concern with parts of the bill and held one of the decisive votes, voted for the budget and the largest student aid cuts in history.

This debt has many consequences. It stops thousands of qualified students every year from attending college in the first place. It causes students to work more and study less while in school -- nearly half of full-time students work 25 hours or more every week. Right now, even with campus jobs, family contributions and federal aid, students still come up short with more than $3,900 in what is euphemistically called "unmet need." For low-income students, it's worse -- more than $4,900 of "unmet need."

Posted by admin at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter was published in the February 11, 2006 Courier News:

Ferguson budget vote disappointing

Congressman Mike Ferguson has always claimed to be an independent voice, not in lock-step with the Republican establishment, and ready to break with that establishment to stand up for mainstream New Jersey voters. If that is true, why then did he not join the 13 other Republican moderates in opposing a bill that comes down -- and hard -- on poor senior citizens, college students from the middle class, and moms trying to collect child support from deadbeat dads?

The health-care crisis, as we all know, is severe -- so he makes it necessary for some elderly citizens to have to sell their houses to get the care they need to survive? To compete in the global market, we need hundreds of thousands of new college graduates -- so he makes it much harder for a kid of modest means to get to college? And to make it tougher for moms needing child support to collect? Shocking, beyond the pale.

Mike Ferguson had a chance to back up his words, and he failed. He turned his back on moderate New Jersey voters. He sided with the Delay-Abramoff-K Street project wing of the Republican Party in its war on the middle class. He also supports a tax cut bill that will shower $70 billion mostly on the well-to-do in the next 10 years. Yet he voted to strip away almost $32 billion over five years from some of his most vulnerable constituents. All they had to do was cut the tax cut in half, and these harsh steps could have been avoided.

Mike Ferguson should know better. That he doesn't is, to say the least, disappointing.

MICHAEL PRATT
Skillman

Posted by admin at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter was published in the Courier News on February 9, 2006:

I had to laugh when I saw the recent letter from Mike Ferguson touting solar energy in the Courier News. Since he is coming up for re-election this fall, Congressman Ferguson obviously wants his constituents to think he cares about the environment and about the high cost of energy, but he does not.

Ferguson voted for $8.1 billion in energy tax breaks for oil and gas producers, and $2 billion for subsidizing development of oil and gas production in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. These subsidies were doled out to oil companies who are currently raking in record profits. Exxon Mobil just posted a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, the largest for any U.S. company, in any industry, ever.

Ferguson also voted for the disastrous 2005 energy bill that arose out of the infamous Cheney Energy Task Force. This bill does little to reduce our dependence on oil; weakens cornerstone environmental protections such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act; provides billions of dollars to polluting industries; requires damaging and invasive oil and gas activities on our coastlines; increases global warming pollution; and weakens the public's ability to give input into siting energy facilities. In fact, Ferguson voted against environment-friendly policies 80 percent of the time in 2005.

Ferguson also voted to increase Medicare premiums and to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, leading our nation to record budget deficits. Ferguson is a toady of the Bush administration. We need a representative who will think and vote independently. Ferguson is not the right choice for New Jersey's 7th Congressional District.

LISA TOTTEN
Bridgewater

Posted by admin at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Trenton Times' editorial staff slammed Congressman Mike Ferguson's vote for the budget bill that slashed services for senior citizens for the poor while increasing payments to insurers:

Under its provisions, by 2010 13 million low-income people eligible for Medicaid will be faced with significantly higher costs for medical care and prescription drugs because of co-pays that states will be allowed to impose. Many of these folks will forgo the treatment and medicine they need because they will be unable to afford it. Elderly persons in need of nursing-home care will find Medicaid eligibility requirements more stringent. Student financial aid will suffer the biggest cut in history, forcing students and parents to pay higher interest rates for their loans and making college unaffordable for some of them. The Congressional Budget Office says 255,000 fewer children in working families will get child-care help in 2010 than received it in 2004. And hundreds of millions of dollars in child-support payments from deadbeat dads will be lost because of cuts in aid for the enforcement of court orders.

These are some of the cruel consequences of a bill that slashes entitlement spending but extends generous breaks to health insurers whose lobbyists worked with GOP leaders of Congress behind closed doors. One Republican who switched his vote from "yes" to "no," Rep. Jim Gerlach of Montgomery and Berks counties, Pa., said he was "very concerned about how the legislation reduces funding for mental health and education as well as important health-care areas that will ultimately target our nation's most needy citizens."

Five New Jersey Republicans didn't see it that way, and their failure to oppose this bill made the difference: Jim Saxton, R-Mount Holly; Frank LoBiondo, R-Ventnor; Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Harding; Mike Ferguson, R-Warren, and Scott Garrett, R-Wantage. Some of the five are thought of as "moderate" members of the GOP. There was nothing moderate, or compassionate, about their votes on Wednesday.

Read our take on this vote.

Posted by admin at 07:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The 7th congressional district in New Jersey has a very high average family income, but it is also a district full of working poor, seniors and immigrants. The values we hold, to improve the lives of our families and communities and protect the most vulnerable, are universal. We have a right to expect that our Congressman would not only share them when giving speeches back home, but also when he votes for legislation in Washington.

Yesterday Ferguson voted for a bill a budget bill that included the following reductions in services to the most vulnerable Americans:

• Higher Medicaid premiums for all recipients -- senior citizens, widows and the disabled -- and freezing payment to home health care providers, two changes that will make it harder for senior to afford to stay in their own homes instead of being forced into nursing homes;
• Allow health care providers to deny care to any Medicare recipient who can't afford to pay required cost-sharing, denying poor and indigent seniors needed medical care;
• Increased Medicaid prescription drug co-payments for benefit recipients and reduced payments to pharmacists, moves that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will increase costs for 1.3 million Americans, half of whom live in poverty ;
• Remove seniors from eligibility for Medicare if they had donated significant money to charity in the previous five years;
• Count the equity in a home as wealth for determining if someone is eligible for Medicare, forcing seniors to sell family homes to receive benefits;
• Reduce student loan funding by $12 billion, increasing the interests rates and repayment costs for recent graduates; and
• Federal funds intended to help force deadbeat dads to pay for children they fatheres was cut. That's right, they reduced money to help single moms force the father of their children to pay child support.

These cuts will impact a large portion of the 7th Congressional District. The Census reports that in the 7th Congressional district there are 21,646 people living under the federal poverty rate who are eligible for Medicaid, and 80,6732 senior citizens who are eliigible for Medicare. That means at least 100,000 people in the district will be negatively impacted by these changes. Add in everyone with student loans and the number rises again, since there 24 percent of residents 25 years or older have at least a bachelor's degree.

The total savings envisioned by this bill is $31.6 billion* over a period of 10 years. At the same time, the House is considering a bill -- which Mike Ferguson supports -- to increase tax cuts by more than $70 billion in 10 years. All they would have to do is reduce their tax cut by half and they could afford to continue supporting the most vulnerable citizens.

The budget bill passed by a measure of 216-214, with 13 members of the Republican party voting against the bill. Had Mike Ferguson joined these 13 people the bill would not have passed. Instead, Fergsuon voted to increase the cost of living for 100,000 or more of his poorest and most vulnerable constituents.

So the question is, does Mike Ferguson represent our values?

* Plus $7.4 billion in new revenue from selling broadcast spectra to media companies

UPDATE: The Trenton Times calls Ferguson's vote "nothing moderate, nothing conservative."

Posted by admin at 07:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Newhouse News picked up again on Mike Ferguson's refusal to return money he has received from Tom DeLay, the indicted former Republican Majority Leader of the House.

Ferguson has refused to refund $47,403 he received since 2000 from Americans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee tied to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has been indicted on money-laundering charges in Texas and whose former aide Michael Scanlon has pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal.

Asked if he would refund the DeLay funding, Ferguson said, "No, I'm not going to. Those contributions were appropriate."

Ferguson appears to have some pretty loose rationale for determining what makes a contribution appropriate or not.

Four years ago, Ferguson accused opponent Tim Carden of being "President and CEO of Special Interests, Inc." for taking money from the brother of "ImClone Systems founder Sam Waksal, who recently pleaded guilty to bank fraud and conspiracy." So when it is the opposition, campaign contribtions from relatives are considered taboo.

Tom DeLay is under indictment on multiple counts of money laundering and campaign finance violations, and is under investigation for his involvement with Jack Abramoff. Abromoff plead guilty to bribery, wirefraud and other charges earlier this year.

It seems that Ferguson is more than happy enough to demand his opponent live up to ethics standards he is unwilling to live up to himself.

Posted by admin at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)