(http://i.imgur.com/dgUMQA7.jpg)
QuoteJACKSONVILLE, 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/
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.
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.
Yeah, backing people who stand a chance of winning makes sense to me.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 22, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 22, 2015, 03:22:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2015, 03:43:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 22, 2015, 03:22:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 22, 2015, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2015, 03:43:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 22, 2015, 03:22:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2015, 04:43:40 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 22, 2015, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2015, 03:43:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 22, 2015, 03:22:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 22, 2015, 04:48:32 PM
...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.
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
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2015, 05:25:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2015, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2015, 05:25:27 PM
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.
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
Note from Jerry Holland from his FB page:
Today is the Last Day for Voters to Register to Vote for the March 24th First Unitary Election. Citizens must register at least 29 days before any election, February 23, 2015 to be eligible to vote in this First Unitary Election. Voters can pick up a voter registration application at one of our office, at any regional branch library or by visiting Duvalelections.com.
Like ·
Quote
GUEST COLUMN
MONEY TALKS IN THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS
(http://folioweekly.com/uploads/original/1424888162_8c8e.jpg)
A candidate for Jacksonville City Council says you shouldn't have to raise a bunch of money for your ideas to be taken seriously
Posted: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:22 pm
Jason Tetlak
Up until about a year ago, I was just another average voter. I'd never worked on a campaign or run for office, and I assumed, like many people do, that the endorsement process was in place to help educate voters like me on which candidates most closely aligned with my core values. Now that I am running for office, I'm learning more and more each day how that isn't necessarily the case, and how money influences politics more than most people realize.
When I'm out meeting voters, people routinely talk to me about what they refer to as the "good ol' boys network," and how politics is just for people who are part of some mysterious group of people already in power who are helping each other stay in charge. They tell me how politics is off-putting and how it discourages people from voting because there is a sense that you have to "play ball" in order to get anywhere. The truth is, when people do step up to try to change that perception and offer a different choice for how things should be done, they're shot down without ever being considered by many people, specifically for not fitting in with the typical mold of how a politician should look.
I came out strongly against how money influences our local politics, and early on swore off taking money for my campaign because I believe that things need to change. People told me I needed money to win, but what I'm finding out now is that candidates really need money to even be taken seriously at all.
Most organizations offering endorsements for our local elections have created their own ways of determining if a candidate is a viable choice, and more often than not, that threshold for viability revolves around how much money a candidate has raised. I had always just assumed that if an organization I trusted and respected endorsed a candidate, then that candidate shared the views of the organization. What I've found out is that often, that isn't the case. A lot of otherwise great organizations simply endorse the candidate who has the most money or who raised enough money to satisfy some financial metric they've created, so people can essentially be tricked into voting for someone with values they don't support.
There are many groups, unions and organizations whose endorsements have been announced recently who never even interviewed or contacted me or candidates like me who have little or no money in their campaign accounts.
The newly formed Young Voters Coalition, a group focused on getting young voters more engaged in politics, in part by "endorsing like-minded City Council candidates," has a minimum threshold of dollars that a candidate needs to raise in order to be considered viable. Even the Sierra Club, which has endorsed candidates who support dredging the St. Johns River, cited a candidate's "chances of winning" as a major factor in whom they endorse.
I bring up these specific organizations not to defame them, but because I think it is important to let the voters know the real reasons organizations endorse candidates. For example, if I saw a candidate at Equality Florida events, marching in the pride parade, coming out as a straight ally, and celebrating wedding ceremonies in Hemming Plaza, but then saw that Equality Florida had endorsed his opponent (an opponent who actually voted against a fully inclusive human rights ordinance when he had the chance), then I'd be confused. I'd wonder what's going on. Equality Florida's main goal is to pass an inclusive HRO, and they didn't even endorse James Eddy, the only openly gay candidate running, because they didn't consider him "financially viable." It all seems very counterintuitive, if you ask me.
I think these groups are great organizations, with great missions and great people. I just think it's sad that the system essentially forces them to endorse someone who may not completely represent their mission simply because money is the only way to determine if a candidate is "viable."
I didn't raise funds for my campaign because I saw it as extremely wasteful and because I don't want to owe anyone any favors when I get elected, but the system we have in place makes it unnecessarily difficult for regular citizens to run for office, even on a local level. You run because you want to make a difference and then find out that you really do have to buy your way in. Then we all wonder why things are the way they are.
I still think people should donate money to these causes instead of to my campaign. Your money will do a lot more good there than buying me 10,000 "Vote for Tetlak" buttons, or an advertisement for a book I wrote, or whatever else candidates waste their money on these days. I just think it's important for people to know that an endorsement, even from these great organizations, may not mean exactly what you think it does. It truly is up to voters to know for whom they are voting — otherwise we'll just end up getting stuck with even more of the same.
The author is a candidate for Jacksonville City Council, District 14.
http://folioweekly.com/MONEY-TALKS-IN-THE-ENDORSEMENT-PROCESS,12118
So basically lend your campaign $10k, then you can go around and say "I have raised $10 thousand dollars so far" and when the campaign is over, pay the loan back.
Its not uncommon for candidates to lend to themselves to burnish the war chest, but in this case its to get your foot in the collective door.
I feel your pain and agree that elections should be about ideas and the ability to lead amd less so about money and influence. But American politics have been hand in hand with money since the Revolution Any acquisition of political power is usually not free.
^This happens in several camps. Candidate Garrett Davis loaned his campaign $8000.00 for example. Kimberly Daniels loaned her campaign $50,000.00 initially then added another another $7,000.00 in during another cycle. Financial shell game.
@spuwho, so then only people who can afford to lend their campaign $10k+ should get to run for office? Some people working hard to make Jacksonville a better place are not independently wealthy, so writing a check that large isn't possible. Money (and those with access to it) has been running the show for years and look where it has gotten us. IMO, voters should base their votes on the individual candidates and their ideas, not on who has raised the most money or who has the most endorsements.
Quote from: Jtetlak on February 25, 2015, 04:06:56 PM
@spuwho, so then only people who can afford to lend their campaign $10k+ should get to run for office? Some people working hard to make Jacksonville a better place are not independently wealthy, so writing a check that large isn't possible. Money (and those with access to it) has been running the show for years and look where it has gotten us. IMO, voters should base their votes on the individual candidates and their ideas, not on who has raised the most money or who has the most endorsements.
I think I was agreeing with you, so no worries there. And I wouldn't expect one to spend the money you lent yourself. Just use it to show you have something while you follow your principles. $10k was an example and definitely not the standard.
What about "in-kind" donations? Not cash, but someone who agrees with your direction on reducing the money component and supplying the needed materials? Are you good with that, or do you consider that the same?
Also of note, typically when running under a party apparatus you have to "pay some dues" to the apparatus before they will consider you as someone they want to support. If you run as an Independent, then there is no apparatus to support (you or them), you have to build those relationships one day and one person at a time. Lots of door to door and lots of handshaking in public spaces. Going to community and neighborhood meetings. Visit lots and lots of churches, synagogues or mosques. Meet all the old folks drinking coffee at the McDonalds for the morning gab, or better yet, hit all of the nursing/retirement homes and introduce yourself. Word of mouth is a powerful election tool.
Sometimes elections can be a way to get name recognition for the future. You may not win this time, but people will see you on the ballot and remember you the next time you run. Essentially this election will position you better for the next one, what ever office of service you choose to pursue.
Quote from: spuwho on February 26, 2015, 12:12:50 AM
Also of note, typically when running under a party apparatus you have to "pay some dues" to the apparatus before they will consider you as someone they want to support. If you run as an Independent, then there is no apparatus to support (you or them), you have to build those relationships one day and one person at a time. Lots of door to door and lots of handshaking in public spaces. Going to community and neighborhood meetings. Visit lots and lots of churches, synagogues or mosques. Meet all the old folks drinking coffee at the McDonalds for the morning gab, or better yet, hit all of the nursing/retirement homes and introduce yourself. Word of mouth is a powerful election tool.
Funny you post this Spu. I read this comment a few minutes after checking FB and seems like you might be on to something:
QuoteDUVAL DEMS DISOWN DISTRICT 14 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE FOR SUPPORTING BILL BISHOP
February 25, 2015 By A.G. Gancarski
The drama started on February 19, when Richard Shieldhouse emailed Party Chair Neil Henrichsen to alert him to Tetlak's apostasy.
"Jason tells me he is supporting Bill Bishop for Mayor", claimed the longtime Democratic activist, "largely because of his vote on the HRO."
Shieldhouse then wrote that he "can't support a candidate who is effectively working to elect an opponent of our incumbent Democratic Mayor."
"While I wish Mayor Brown would take a position on equal rights," he continued, "I understand why he would avoid doing that for political reasons."
Those "political reasons", in the eyes of some, have to do with a play for Tea Party conservative support.
Shieldhouse then went on to reestablish the Herman Cain/Bill Bishop connection, then linking that to tacit support of Clarence Thomas on the Court and "all of the implications that has for fair and equitable rulings."
Shieldhouse then posited the fair and equitable question: "Is [Tetlak] a member? If so, he should be tossed out."
District 14 Vice-Chair Elaine Burnett then added fuel to the fire under Tetlak's ambitions as a Democratic candidate. "Jason is on his own" in this campaign, where he's raised less than $3k (by choice, as he has eschewed fundraising) so far against an incumbent who has many times that amount in his coffers. "I am sorry that the only person we had running is someone who thought so little of our efforts," she added.
District 14 Chair Bob Dorn followed up those messages with an ultimatum to the candidate.
"At the DCDEC monthly meeting this last Monday (Feb 16), the Chair of the Duval Democratic Party nail [SIC] us to the wall for supporting you in any kind of way, in your support of Bill Bishop for Mayor."
Dorn asked Tetlak to "with draw [SIC] your name, in all types of media, in your support of Bill Bishop for Mayor" so that the Party can continue to support him, such as it is.
We contacted Tetlak — and he's not budging.
"I don't really mind if they run me out of the party for voicing my opinions. That is their right and not something I am really concerning myself with," Tetlak emailed.
"I have been asked several times to backtrack and support Mayor Brown," the candidate continued, adding that Brown "unfortunately has failed to support members of the LGBT community or make a stand on the issue of the HRO and courthouse weddings, so I can't in good conscience say he is the best choice for leading our city forward.
"I have no plans to do anything about what the Duval Dems are discussing internally, I'm focused on doing what is right for Jacksonville and the residents of District 14," he concluded, adding that he feels no ill will toward "the party or its members".
The beneficiary of this scrum? Incumbent Jim Love and the Duval County Republican Party. It doesn't appear anyone minds that much.
I have actually accepted a small number of in-kind donations. The point of my stance on not taking cash was to show that running for office doesn't take a lot of money, that everyday citizens can be more engaged in the decision making process, and that people who have extra cash to give should donate it to any of a number of non-profit groups who are working hard to make Jacksonville a better place rather than giving it to politicians who will waste it on yard signs and smear ads.
The fact thats this is so disturbing and not unexpected hit me.
Quote from: spuwho on February 25, 2015, 03:47:59 PM
So basically lend your campaign $10k, then you can go around and say "I have raised $10 thousand dollars so far" and when the campaign is over, pay the loan back.
And even give yourself a return with interest
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on February 27, 2015, 02:05:30 AM
Quote from: spuwho on February 25, 2015, 03:47:59 PM
So basically lend your campaign $10k, then you can go around and say "I have raised $10 thousand dollars so far" and when the campaign is over, pay the loan back.
And even give yourself a return with interest
They can't charge interest on their own loans. They can only take out the loan amount itself. However if it were legal you bet many would do it. lol