Senator-elect Corzine buys N.J.'s seat and Princeton's support

Though I am not surprised by yesterday's 'Prince' survey showing that students voted overwhelmingly Democratic, I am dismayed by the implications surrounding the huge support for New Jersey Senator-elect Jon Corzine. I can understand students' dislike of George W. Bush; at a world-class university, it would seem only natural for the community not to favor a candidate perceived as largely anti-intellectual.

I can also understand the overwhelming student support for Rush Holt; the 12th District Congressional race was a fairly typical clash of Northeast liberalism and conservatism, and our student body certainly leans to the left of center. But I was completely dismayed that this widespread support for Holt and Vice President Al Gore spread to the New Jersey Senate race.

First of all, this race fell a bit differently on the political spectrum than both the presidential election and the Holt race. Corzine was one of the most liberal Democrats running for office this year, and Congressman Bob Franks is a true moderate who voted for the Brady Bill, supports a woman's basic right to choose, and in the past few years, has won endorsements from such environmental groups as the Sierra Club. Moreover, while most area newspapers endorsed Gore and Holt, almost every major paper in the tri-state area — including The New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer — wound up endorsing Franks.

But the issues of this campaign transcended campaign promises and political ideology. Corzine shattered all records by spending about $65 million — mostly his own money — on this race, outspending Bob Franks by a margin of more than 10-to-one. To put that number in perspective, Ross Perot spent the same amount during his failed 1992 presidential bid.

Though I will not argue against Corzine's right to spend his money as he chooses, his record spending does set a frightening precedent. Does this indicate that if a political newcomer has enough money and doesn't say anything plainly stupid or incriminating, he can actually buy his way into office? The closeness of the New Jersey Senate race indicates that it was money that pushed Corzine over the edge. Is this the way that our political system is supposed to work?

In a post-election period dominated by talk of process — the costs and benefits of the Electoral College system, for instance — we would all be well served to think about campaign finance reform as well. Corzine didn't just buy a Senate seat — he turned up his nose at the entire notion of political fairness and forthrightness. He refused full financial disclosure, imported homeless people from a Philadelphia halfway house to work on his campaign and pulled off a media blitz rivaled by no other candidate. Is this a respectable way to run a Senate campaign?

In such a race, I am dismayed that 68 percent of the students surveyed decided that Corzine was New Jersey's best choice for Senate, better than a seasoned lawmaker who has devoted his life to improving New Jersey. I can think of only one reason Corzine should receive such high support from Princeton students, and that is ignorance. I fear that many students instinctually pulled the Democratic lever without understanding the full nature of the race.

If this is the case, then we must all reconsider how and why we cast our votes. Even if you prefer the platform of one political party over another, times will arise when you will discover the other party's candidate is actually a better choice for you. I believe that for many Princeton voters, this Senate race was one such instance. Lowell Schiller is from Warren, N.J. He can be reached at schiller@princeton.edu.