Political Payoff: No money? No endorsement

[Cheshire Cat]

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Political endorsements are rolling in before Jacksonville's March 24 elections. But voters might be surprised to learn some endorsements are less about a candidate's values than cold, hard cash.

"I was shocked," says Jason Tetlak, who is challenging incumbent Jim Love for the District 14 City Council seat in the Avondale/Riverside neighborhood. "An endorsement doesn't mean what you think it does."

New to politics, Tetlak says he always assumed endorsements meant a candidate shared the views and aims of endorsing agencies. Not so much. At least three groups Tetlak supports and whose goals he shares have decided he's not viable, because he hasn't raised enough money.

Of course, economic viability isn't a new concern for candidates. What is new is the fixed dollar amount that some groups are setting as a baseline requirement for endorsements. The upstart, socially progressive Young Voters Coalition, for instance, won't back any candidate that hasn't raised at least $5,000. Equality Florida requires a candidate to raise at least 1/3 as much as the top fundraiser in a race before they give their stamp of approval. And the local Sierra Club didn't set a dollar amount, but Tetlak says officials there told him Love simply stood a better chance of winning.

Tetlak doesn't have much money – he swore off political donations – but he says the emphasis on money over message has led to misplaced endorsements. "When you have an organization that backs someone who stands against their core beliefs, for example the Sierra Club backing my opponent, who wants to dredge the river [for JaxPort expansion], it just doesn't make sense to me."
JIm Love says he was surprised to learn about some

JIm Love says he was surprised to learn about some groups' minimum fundraising requirement for endorsements. (Photo: Jim Love)

Jim Love says he shared Telak's bafflement with the endorsement process in his first election, and even he found the Jax Young Voters Coalition $5,000 requirement unusual.

"I was surprised, not concerned, not shocked – that's too strong -- but didn't know they would have a number like that," Love says.

For full story and video click link:  http://www.firstcoastnews.com/videos/news/politics/elections/2015/02/20/23768657/

[spuwho]

Its almost always about the dough.

We had former House Rep. Henry Hyde speak at a banquet to raise money for our agency that helped find homes for immigrants.

I remember how flustered he got when the photo op time started and he bristled and wanted to know if he was at least going to get a gold watch for his work that night. Hey Henry, dude......its about the agency, not you!

There are politicos who don't always have their hands in your pocket.  US Rep. Peter Roskam helped us raise money and awareness with a community homeless effort. He had the right attitude. "If me being there will help, I will come". And he did.

Call me naive perhaps, but if the Sierra Club can give up an endorsement that easily, then the system has really gone to the dogs.

[urbanlibertarian]

Sounds to me like these non-profits want the most bang for their bucks by backing the candidate who is slightly better than their main opponent and has a decent chance to win.  Logical.

[Tacachale]

Yeah, backing people who stand a chance of winning makes sense to me.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Yeah, backing people who stand a chance of winning makes sense to me.

Even if that person's agenda doesn't align with your own?  Yeah, perfect sense. 

Don't get me wrong, I feel like I understand both sides of the argument, but this is a perfect example of voting for a ?"least likely to fuck you over" candidate opposed to "a best/most qualified to represent you" candidate.

[Tacachale]

Uh, no, the person whose views most align with yours who stands the best chance of winning. Backing candidates who can't win is the opposite of a winning strategy.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Uh, no, the person whose views most align with yours who stands the best chance of winning. Backing candidates who can't win is the opposite of a winning strategy.

Sounds like the Catch-22 that is today's politiks.

[Cheshire Cat]

Uh, no, the person whose views most align with yours who stands the best chance of winning. Backing candidates who can't win is the opposite of a winning strategy.

Sounds like the Catch-22 that is today's politiks.

Exactly and underlying all the discussion about all the races here in Jacksonville is the reality that our currently political system and ways of choosing candidates needs an overhaul.  Money has become a problem in the process.  Who has it and who doesn't have it in sizable amounts has too long been the accepted criterion for judging a candidate.  Those who see this as the only measure of politics sometime also complain there are not good candidates running or to vote for.  The reason for that is largely money.  Many competent folks do not want to step into the fray and find themselves at the core of political debates about their financial worth as opposed to their experience and competence.  The system is not working well for voters or candidates when it comes to delivering the best candidates to our process and then electing them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Uh, no, the person whose views most align with yours who stands the best chance of winning. Backing candidates who can't win is the opposite of a winning strategy.

Sounds like the Catch-22 that is today's politiks.

Exactly and underlying all the discussion about all the races here in Jacksonville is the reality that our currently political system and ways of choosing candidates needs an overhaul.  Money has become a problem in the process.  Who has it and who doesn't have it in sizable amounts has too long been the accepted criterion for judging a candidate.  Those who see this as the only measure of politics sometime also complain there are not good candidates running or to vote for.  The reason for that is largely money.  Many competent folks do not want to step into the fray and find themselves at the core of political debates about their financial worth as opposed to their experience and competence.  The system is not working well for voters or candidates when it comes to delivering the best candidates to our process and then electing them.

Correct.  And as long as career politicians continue to benefit from the status quo, I will continue to expect more of the same.

IMO, the overhaul that you speak of Diane would have to come in the form of a complete and unified public revolt and/or someone to martyr their career with a political suicide of sorts.  The catch is that that person would have to be elected in the first place.

[Cheshire Cat]

Uh, no, the person whose views most align with yours who stands the best chance of winning. Backing candidates who can't win is the opposite of a winning strategy.

Sounds like the Catch-22 that is today's politiks.

Exactly and underlying all the discussion about all the races here in Jacksonville is the reality that our currently political system and ways of choosing candidates needs an overhaul.  Money has become a problem in the process.  Who has it and who doesn't have it in sizable amounts has too long been the accepted criterion for judging a candidate.  Those who see this as the only measure of politics sometime also complain there are not good candidates running or to vote for.  The reason for that is largely money.  Many competent folks do not want to step into the fray and find themselves at the core of political debates about their financial worth as opposed to their experience and competence.  The system is not working well for voters or candidates when it comes to delivering the best candidates to our process and then electing them.

Correct.  And as long as career politicians continue to benefit from the status quo, I will continue to expect more of the same.

IMO, the overhaul that you speak of Diane would have to come in the form of a complete and unified public revolt and/or someone to martyr their career with a political suicide of sorts.  The catch is that that person would have to be elected in the first place.

Your opinion is bang on.  Which is why I keep saying to folks that who we choose to back and do so without regard to financing is one way to change the tide.  Right now on Capital Hill there is a fight going down with regard to how money is being used to derail the political process and appropriate legislation is now being filed to combat that.  I expect a sizable fight at that level.  However, it is only because we have been "programmed" to believe that we cannot change the status quo simply by using our vote and voices is precisely why only 25% of people in Jacksonville believe they can impact local government and politics.  The belief makes it real.  Changing the belief changes the dynamic.  We can change the local political dynamic as soon as we the voters decide to do so and we don't need legislation to do that.   We need clarity of thought and deprogramming that says we are at the mercy of money in politics.  We are not, we just believe we are.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

...who we choose to back and do so without regard to financing is one way to change the tide
...we have been "programmed" to believe that we cannot change the status quo simply by using our vote and voices is precisely why only 25%
...We can change the local political dynamic as soon as we the voters decide to do so and we don't need legislation to do that. 
...We need clarity of thought and deprogramming that says we are at the mercy of money in politics.

This is the crux of the problem.  We tend to be an independent thinking group and typically make an attempt to see both sides of an issue.  We are also such a minority that I personally have lost all hope in seeing anything change.  And the part that disheartens me and literally puts me in a depressed state when I think about it, is that it seems whenever we might get some momentum and some legitimate potential for a grassroots groundswell of change, we still manage to get tripped up over our own ideals and allow outside groupthink to take over. 

Election season is a time when we collectively seem to lose about 80 IQ points each and I continue to see extremely intelligent people make absolutely dumbass decisions -  All in the name of politiks.

[Cheshire Cat]

Actually many on this board supported Audrey Moran who to my view was a great candidate who ticked off a number of positive boxes as well.  It was after she lost in the primary that her supporters went to Brown.    Brown was the person elected but as in all things political many of those who supported him last time around are not supporting him this time with good reason.  Just for clarity Stephen, is the "some of us" a reference to Metrojacksonville?  I didn't see NRW refer to this group in his statement and took it to mean politics in general which I agree is the current sentiment of many.  But it can change as long as the free and independent minds stay in clarity of thought.  IMO

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Who won, despite the prevailing group think, I might add.

I don't think Brown being elected was viewed as much of a surprise.  The only variable in the last election was making sure it was going to be him against Hogan in the run-off and the rest would fall into place.  Where did those additional 40k votes come from that gave him the 'sight' margin of victory?

Hogan wasn't wanted because of his dead-right politikal thinking.
Brown, a career photo-op politician, had slightly less moxy (and visible strings) than any of Henson's creations.
Mullaney and Moran were the wildcards and were the two candidates than NONE of the decision makers in this city wanted to see elected.

We'll see with the cc elections.  I agree that the selection is better, but that doesn't mean that the better of the group are 'electable'.   IMO, the best candidates are not the ones who already know how to navigate the system, but the ones who will be forced to ask why & how.  Until then, nothing changes.

[Cheshire Cat]

Who won, despite the prevailing group think, I might add.

I don't think Brown being elected was viewed as much of a surprise.  The only variable in the last election was making sure it was going to be him against Hogan in the run-off and the rest would fall into place.  Where did those additional 40k votes come from that gave him the 'sight' margin of victory?

Hogan wasn't wanted because of his dead-right politikal thinking.
Brown, a career photo-op politician, had slightly less moxy (and visible strings) than any of Henson's creations.
Mullaney and Moran were the wildcards and were the two candidates than NONE of the decision makers in this city wanted to see elected.

We'll see with the cc elections.  I agree that the selection is better, but that doesn't mean that the better of the group are 'electable'.   IMO, the best candidates are not the ones who already know how to navigate the system, but the ones who will be forced to ask why & how.  Until then, nothing changes.

To the last paragraph, I agree on one level and disagree on another.  Depending upon district, especially those in the districts facing down serious problems someone who has to ask the why and how is looking at a serious learning curve that does not happen overnight. That takes a lot of time and that time of unknowing will cost the district in one way or another.   In some cases it is a toss up between going with a candidate who knows the ropes and can be trusted to giving the seat to a new individual who starts at square zero.  Good point and worth a discussion or two.    Then you have situations where people are running who have not held the top set but know the ropes as in the case of Scott A. Wilson who to my view can think new yet has the needed experience. 

[Cheshire Cat]

I have begun that quest already via phone and email.  I can't get out and about the way I used to, at least not now so I can't join you in person in that endeavor.    I look forward to hearing feedback on what you learn and your interpretation of the candidates.  I think our local media needs to update themselves as well when it comes to when they hold debates and release their endorsements if they have any.  Right now the mail in ballots are in the hands of thousands of voters.  My family has theirs.  Having done my own due diligence I can send in my vote now.  My concern is now and has always been that the voting public does not have an accurate understanding of who the candidates are and their platforms before entering the voting booth.  Right now all the debates for mayor via television will be happening in March and some after early voting has begun.  That needs to change.  imo