The Political Whore

Should local governments have spent your tax dollars in campaigns for referenda such as the Penny for Pinellas?

Senate Bill 216 is now law, and its top advocate, St. Petersburg state Sen. Charlie Justice is pretty happy about it. SB 216 bans local governments from spending tax dollars to educate voters about referenda, a process that is both defended by government as a necessary means of explaining tricky civic issues and criticized by those who say it is merely advocacy campaigning with taxpayer money.

I’ve got both sides of the issue on it. First, Justice, who issued this statement upon Gov. Charlie Crist signing the bill:

I would like to commend supporters of SB 216 and Governor Crist for making such a valuable piece of legislation law. Today marks the beginning of a new era of government accountability, as this will ensure that governments will not be telling taxpayers how to vote, but rather allow voters to be the final arbiter in determining what is good policy for our communities. Gone are the days of unjust and irresponsible campaign spending from our government. I will continue to fight for campaign finance reform in Tallahassee, and I will continue to seek government accountability for our taxpayers.

On the other side, Gregory Wilson, a St. Petersburg-based political consultant who has run his share of  referenda campaigns, as well as Democratic candidate races. Wilson and I traded e-mails last week when he took exception to my characterization in a previous blog post about this bill.

He wrote:

As a former political consultant, you know that no credible candidate or cause ever TELLS people how to vote. They ASK for the vote. Or, at most, they advise or encourage a vote.

Using the expression, TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE, is intentionally and knowingly provocative, meaning to cause resentment and anger, rather than to characterize the situation in an unbiased manner.

Framed as a means to prevent cities and counties (but not the State Legislature, by the way) from spending tax dollars to TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE can also make this initiative appear more like a populist appeal designed to advance political ambition than a fix to a problem.

Additionally, by your own adoption of this provocative language, it gives the appearance that you have been co-opted by those who are advancing this campaign. Of course, as a columnist, that is your privilege. As a journalist, I would hope for a higher standard. But as a former political consultant, you are uniquely qualified to illuminate the use of language as a political tactic.

Cities or counties must publicly vote to spend money on campaigns, possibly with multiple readings, in front of a live or televised audience. I’m confident you will accept that it is a lot easier to hold a local, elected official accountable at City Hall, conveniently located in the community, than it is to drive countless hours to Tallahassee in hopes of being heard before an appropriate committee(s) at The Capitol. How many stories have we heard about people’s frustration with being heard by a committee of the Legislature? Of course we don’t hear many lobbyists complain about access.

If it is another illustration of SPIN you want, then consider how developers and other special interests celebrate this bill, are grateful to Sen. Justice, and are confident that Florida’s Puppet-In-Chief is sure to sign it. You need only consider SB 360 if you have any doubt. Developers certainly prefer for cities to bring pocket knives to gun fights. You can rest assured that developers will want to TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE, using all the compelling semantics they can hire people like you and me to create.

And just to throw more gas on the fire, here’s a popular line: This bill is some of the best legislation that money can buy.

You see, Wayne, anyone can play these kind of word games. That doesn’t make it right.

I responded (with my e-mail shorthand and typos intact):

but that is why govt’s hired consultants like us, to tell folks how to vote. they certainly had an outcome they wanted, never knew a govt that didn’t.

I don’t think govt’s should be involved at all in campaigns. politicians who are in the govt are certainly capable of raising money and mounting a campaign just like the other side (if it is developers, and that is not always the case) without tainting the effort by spending public dollars.

as a consultant, i might have a different opinion, but as a journalist now, i have to come down on the side of prohibiting.

And Wilson wrote back:

I guess my problem is with the use of the word “tell.” I still think you are using the word as a weapon, and that Justice is using it as a campaign tactic (good for him, mind you, but I’m not obligated to buy it). As a columnist, you’re free to use it, but if you’re a journalist, where’s the other side?

Perhaps I’m just being idealistic or naive, but I’ve always seen myself as a professional “asker,” not a “teller.” Is that too fine a distinction?

Even if they are telling me how to vote, I am under no obligation to follow. There is no consequence if I don’t. But at least my elected government voted to take a clear stand on an issue on the ballot and communicate it through conventionally accept paid media.

Using tax dollars to communicate a position or recommendation (or tell me how to vote) seems to be the real point of contention. Not sure sending part-time, elected officials into the community to raise money for a campaign is really any better. And then you get into the gray area of whether they were on the government payroll while they were out there raising money. Just by speaking out, were they doing so as a citizen, or a salaried, government employee? I think we’re going to see a lot of new ethics complaints as a result of this bill.

But please note that my tone remains respectful. No name-calling from me.

Posted in Issues & Wonky Shit, The Legislature | Leave a comment