The consensus is that the New Jersey clean elections pilot program was a success that needs to be expanded to include primaries and cover all statewide races.  The New Jersey media have generally done a good job, in news coverage and editorials, to drive that point home.

So it's disappointing to read a headline such as, ""Opinions divided on 'clean elections': Some, but not all, call experiment a success."  Scan down the article and you'll find that the first (of just two) people who criticized the program is Mike Schrimpf, who works for the anti-clean elections group Center for Competitive Politics, a group that expressly advocates against all campaign finance regulation and was founded by Brad Smith, the avowedly anti-reform former FEC commissioner.

The article quotes various sources--university institutes, Democratic and Republican candidates alike--highlighting support for the program and praise for the improved voter experience it wrought.  That's worth covering.  But Schrimpf calling it a "waste" and providing no evidence for his claim does not merit the suggestion that there's a great divide over whether the New Jersey clean elections pilot worked.