Talk from would-be politicians is cheap. Any sap can, and does, offer up countless statements like, "If I'm elected Alderman, I'll do X"-- the only cost being whatever energy it takes to move his lips (and maybe make a few sweeping arm gestures). Of course, smart voters can catalog these statements and compare them the candidate's actions once elected. But by the time he or she is in office, accountability has to wait-- in the case of alderman, another 4 years. This is an unavoidable feature of our political system, and the only thing voters can do is make a judgement on whether a candidate is trustworthy on a certain issue, and then have a steel trap for a memory.
The great thing about campaign financing, though, is that it's one of the only issues on which a candidate can show their bonafides before they're elected. There's no need for cheap promises on how you fund your campaign-- if you're running for office and taking contributions, you've already got a record by which voters can judge you. Unless you're Don Gordon:
"And most importantly I have pledged to accept no campaign contributions from anyone as long as I’m alderman. With no financial conflicts of interest, I’ll be accountable to 49th Ward voters."
I'll give it to Gordon, it's a very clever way to phrase things. He won't accept campaign contributions "as long as he's alderman". Conveniently enough for his current campaign, he's not alderman right now. So he has and will continue to take the same kind of developer money that he's been blasting Moore about. Here's a link to his D-2's, with all the sad sordid details.
Gordon is a challenger with no previous political experience, so he's understandably making his fair share of "Once I'm elected..." type promises. Unfortunately, on the one issue that gives him a chance to actually step up to the plate right now, he's decided to stick with the cheap promises and easy money.
Note: When he says "with no financial conflicts of interest [next election], I'll be acountable to 49th Ward voters", does that mean that this election cycle, while he's raking it in, he's not accountable?
Note 2: I posted something along these lines on Craig's blog-- perfectly polite and disclosing my volunteer work for Ginderske-- and he deleted it within the hour. Ready to give up the pretense that you're impartial yet, Craig?
2 comments:
I kind of don't blame Craig for deleting these types of comments actually. It seems like all the Ginderske people do is tear down Don Gordon. Those of us who support Don (and there are many) must all be idiots or deluded in your book right?
Maybe we just see things differently. No candidate will be perfect. You can point to the fact that Ginderske is not taking any contributions and say he's "pure as the driven snow," but perhaps some of us see this approach as unrealistic. I'm not sure taking no contributions is the way to go.
I suspect that Mary Ann Smith takes them and people seem happy in her ward. The issue is what is done with them and how much sway they carry. If Joe truly used $100K of them for the community, that would mitigate things, but he doesn't.
Things are not so black and white as you make them out to be in my opinion. I don't take Don's stance as BS at all. I think he really means to do this. You guys just can't see anything good in Gordon and that my friend is your problem.
Many of us don't see it that way. Perhaps even a majority- we shall see come Feb. 27th!
Hi Jocelyn,
I don't care that Craig's put up a wholesale ban on anyone who supports Ginderske (but allows campaign volunteers from everyone else). It seems a little overboard to me, but hey, it's his blog he can do what he wants with it. If you've read my posts there (maybe there's some that haven't been deleted), you'll see that I didn't do anything but very politely and respectfully posted things that disagreed with Gordon's and Adams' offical press releases that Craig transcribed directly to his site. I didn't call anyone trash, or make any personal attacks, as Craig feels the compulsion to do on a daily basis.
I don't see this post as "tearing down" Gordon, at least not in any unfair way. He wants to make campaign financing a big deal, but wants people to ignore the money he's taking right now. That seems pretty disingenuous to me.
I'd love it if he actually followed through. Maybe when he does actually refuse developer donations, I'd consider supporting him myself. But whenever that day might be, I'm guessing it probably won't be before Feb 27th. So if he wants to make campaign financing a big part of his platform, I think the smart thing to do is look at his actions. And his actions right now-- especially taking a good share of developer money-- are giving him "conflicts of interests" and hurting his accountability to those in the 49th Ward, in his own words and by his own standards.
I don't think that you're an idiot or deluded for supporting Don. I'm sure you have your own reasons, and maybe campaign finance issues for this cycle just aren't the most important thing to you. It's pretty high on my list, for the simple reason that it's an opportunity for candidates to prove themselves pre election, beyond just the rhetoric.
And yes, Jim is "pure" on this issue-- in this election, even. It really couldn't get any more black & white. Every single candidate, Don included, is taking developer donations right now except for Jim. That's a big reason I'm continuing to support him. But different people are going to prioritize these issues differently. I may disagree, but I don't think they're idiots.
I see plenty of good things about Gordon. Just not on this issue. I don't even care so much that he is taking developer money-- again, so is everyone else but Jim. What really goads me about this story is that he's jumping through rhetorical hoops to make it SEEM like he's not. It's extremely misleading, if not as bad as an outright lie.
By the way, I think we've actually met at Ginderske's office a few weeks back. Sad to see you go over to Gordon's, but again-- nothing personal. Best of luck to you next week.
Post a Comment