New Jerseyans aren’t always civil, but it’s still possible for a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican to have a rational and pleasant conversation about politics in the state.  Dan Bryan is a former senior advisor to Gov. Phil Murphy and is now the owner of his own public affairs firm, and Alex Wilkes is an attorney and former executive director of America Rising PAC who advises Republican candidates in New Jersey and across the nation, including the New Jersey GOP.  Dan and Alex are both experienced strategists who are currently in the room where high-level decisions are made.  They will get together weekly with New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein to discuss politics and issues.

It seems like the biggest news story of the week was the indictment of George Norcross, one of the most powerful people in New Jersey politics for the last 35 years.  What’s the short-term impact of these allegations?

Alex Wilkes: I don’t think it’s mind-blowing analysis to say that it’s not a great look for two of the state’s most prominent Democratic leaders to be under indictment at the same time. What might inure to the Democrats’ benefit here, though, is that there always seems to be a Democrat going to jail in this state, so how can we really fault voters for losing track of who’s in the hot seat this time?

I think the short-term implications are hardest on the South Jersey Democrats, especially Steve Sweeney in his gubernatorial run, who will need a strong and united region to counter his northern foes.

But it’s really the most devastating news for ghosts everywhere. Like a busted out Spirit Halloween store, what will become of Giuseppe Costanzo? Is Jersey Freedom seeking different representation now with Bill Tambussi indicted? Couldn’t have happened to nicer people! 

Dan Bryan: No doubt, the indictment was an earthquake in New Jersey politics. The South Jersey political machine, already somewhat lessened in political clout from its zenith in the Christie years, is reeling. I can’t speak to the legal aspect of the case (though I found Ed Steer’s take illuminating LINK), but I think the political ramifications are simple – South Jersey will need to focus on maintaining their local operation rather than getting engaged in statewide efforts, such as the ‘25 Gubernatorial. I have no doubt that progressive groups are giddy in anticipation of next year’s primary contests. The South Jersey political operation has plenty of talent though, so I wouldn’t count them out just yet.

Attorney General Platkin is proving himself unafraid to take big, bold steps if he feels like they are in the best interest of his responsibilities to the people of New Jersey. If he wins this case, he will go down as the most consequential Attorney General our state has seen in generations

Bill Spadea entered the race for governor on Monday.  How do you rate his chances to win the Republican primary?

Dan: Bill Spadea stands a good chance of being the Republican nominee. Unfortunately, his Trump worship, his covert (and sometimes overt) racism, his total and complete disregard of the truth, and his lack of any relevant experience aren’t deal breakers for a majority of modern day GOP primary voter. 

Jack Ciattarelli enters the 2025 cycle as the likely favorite for the primary. He was a good candidate in 2021, and I have no doubt he’ll run another solid campaign. 

Though I wish there were still room in the Republican party for candidates like Jon Bramnick, I doubt he stands much of a chance.

Alex: The outstanding questions we have on the county organization lines are critical to handicapping this race, though I think you could roughly say that in a scenario where there are no lines, name recognition and money will be the most important factors. The three major candidates who have announced each have elements of the two, but I wouldn’t say that 1 candidate has a clear, knock out punch of both. There’s still plenty of time for that to change. For years, we’ve heard candidates lament the organizational line as a roadblock to freedom, but without it, it’s put up, or shut up time. After all, as Republicans inevitably find out in November anyway, whining doesn’t pay the bills on Philly or New York broadcast.

The Election Law Enforcement Commission is holding a hearing to decide if the value of Bill Spadea’s morning radio show should be counted against his spending cap?  What’s the difference between Spadea keeping his job and other candidates, announced and potential, using their public offices to advance their candidacies?

Alex: I’ll start off with my usual disclaimer that contrary to popular belief, most of our campaign finance laws have only invited more money in the process and introduced even greater, more complex compliance burdens for ordinary, unsophisticated candidates to bear. Much to the chagrin of my friends on the left, I also believe that corporations have First Amendment protections and money is a form of speech. In working with the system we have (versus the one that we may want), however, this case will be a unique test of the rights of corporations and the limits the legislature has placed on them. 

I’m not sure that the advantages of incumbency are, as you suggest, equal to a corporate megaphone — although there are similarities in this case, specifically. For one, both scenarios advance the candidate (somewhat) on the taxpayer dime. Just as an incumbent Congressman can use taxpayer-funded franked mail to keep constituents “up-to-date,” so too can a corporation – namely, a radio station – license airwaves that belong to the public to advance their cause.

The difference, in my view, is that an incumbent elected official has limits and transparency layered onto their official activity in a way that a corporate candidate does not. Elected officials may push the envelope, but there still is a limit to what they can say, how they can say it, and where they can say it. We also have visibility into spending, such as what their staff members make and where they spend our money. Think that doesn’t make a difference? You can find countless examples of elected officials being exposed for embarrassing office expenditures or plum salaries for friends and family. Moreover, in addition to the oversight taxpayers themselves and the media provide, elected officials police their own body with ethics committee investigations and recommendations that can prove to be a huge drag on a campaign.

The activity of a candidate championed by a corporation, by contrast, is relatively opaque compared to what the average voter can see about how taxpayer funds are being used to support elected officials executing their official duties. A corporate candidate, for example, could have their own salary or advertising budget increased ahead of an election solely for the benefit of their campaign without the public ever knowing. If a corporation deems an in-house candidacy to be good for business, does that mean that more companies will join the game? What about ones that don’t have access to federally-licensed radio stations? Does it raise an equal protection issue for them? Love them or hate them, incumbent elected officials in any office or body are subject to uniform oversight with the rules evenly applied.

Getting my popcorn ready!

Dan: If Spadea wants to continue his daily barrage of lies, hate, and bullying, it should absolutely count against his soending cap. He should not be allowed a four hour per day broadcast that is unavailable to his competition – if it were deemed legal, it’d open up a massive loophole in ELEC rules. 

Obviously, public officials use their position to advocate for themselves and their electoral interests. But that is vastly different than being granted 20 hours per week broadcasting to millions of New Jerseyans in a manner that is not open to other candidates. 

Although, given Spadea’s severe unlikeability, taking him off the air may be a boon to his candidacy.


Three Republican county chairs lost re-election this week.  Is there a hidden meaning to this?  And in solid Democratic counties, with possibly no more organization lines, does it matter?

Dan: On first blush, I’m not sure it matters much. But both parties are clearly in an anti-establishment mood right now, in New Jersey and beyond. It hasn’t translated to general election outcomes yet (incumbent Democrats won big in last year’s Legislative races), but anyone in elected office in New Jersey should be on guard as we head into ‘25.

Alex:  I don’t think there’s much to read into other than the usual intraparty disputes to which leaders of both parties are susceptible. 

But I can’t stress this enough (generally, not specific to these races): Without lines, the only things that matter are the strength of an organization and its ability to raise money. It’s a hard truth for some, particularly in a state that has a tendency to wax nostalgic about its political leaders. Strong parties matter, both as a moderating influence in primaries and a winning force in November. With no lines and no money? That’s called a club. Plain and simple.