Rather than Address His Conflicts of Interest, Spiller Hurls Mud and Falsehoods (Again).

Sunlight is able to use the same headline as it did last May during the mayoral election because NJEA Vice President/Montclair Mayor Sean Spiller is once again resorting to hurling mud and falsehoods in order to deflect attention away from his all-too-real, ongoing conflict of interest.

Recall that last May, after Sunlight’s report detailed candidate Spiller’s legally actionable conflict of interest, Spiller’s campaign sent out a mailer (largely funded by the NJEA) attacking Sunlight with demonstrably false accusations.  Now, as Montclair mayor, Spiller is openly siding with his union and against his own superintendent.  Sunlight’s newest report calls Spiller out for his blatant conflict of interest.  Rather than address these uncomfortable FACTS, Spiller has again resorted to slinging mud and falsehoods at Sunlight in an attempt to deflect scrutiny of the real issue: Spiller’s conflict of interest.

Here’s a list of Spiller’s falsehoods:

1. Sunlight is not “neo-conservative:” Sunlight takes no position on America’s military interventions overseas.  Clearly Spiller does not even understand what the term means and is simply hurling it as a poll-tested epithet.  This attack is laughably and DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
2. Likewise, Spiller uses “right-wing” as more poll-tested mud to throw at Sunlight.  This, too, is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.  As Sunlight’s website shows, our research is non-partisan and does not espouse any “right-wing” policies.  In fact, the major policy that Sunlight praises the most is Democratic Senate President Steve Sweeney’s Path to Progress plan.  Does Spiller consider Sweeney “right-wing”?
3. Spiller claims that Sunlight is “solely fixated on Montclair.”  This is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.  Even a cursory glance at Sunlight’s website reveals that Montclair makes up a very small part of our work.  The only reason Sunlight has called Spiller out is that his conflict of interest and his political ambitions are large and real, which has broader implications for the state (as we made clear in our May report, which was titled “Councilman Spiller, Mayor Spiller, Governor Spiller?“).

Easier to throw mud than address your clear conflicts of interest, Vice President – er, Mayor –  Spiller?