Vote for the candidate with the smallest war chest

By Weekly Archive On Aug 13, 2008

Vote
for the candidate with the smallest war chest

By
Alvaro F. Fernandez
alfernandez@the-beach.net

Money,
The
Miami Herald
tells us, seems to have made members of the Miami-Dade Commission
almost invincible. A recent front page headline said, “In
Miami-Dade, it pays to be an incumbent.” The newspaper pointed out
that not one has lost in 14 years. “Between the mayor’s race and
six commission contests, no challenger has raised more than 15
percent of the money amassed by the incumbent,” two Herald
reporters write of this year’s races.

If
you live in Miami-Dade, don’t expect any surprises come Election
Day, which happens to fall in less than two weeks — August 26. The
decks are stacked against a normal citizen with good intentions and
great ideas who is running for office. Chances are, no matter how
good your plans, you’re going to lose.

And
part of the problem is
money. Without a minimum of a few hundred thousand dollars in the
bank there is no chance you will challenge any sitting commissioner.

Where
do the hundreds of thousands of dollars come from? Watch any
commission meeting. Look around. Note the Armani-clad vulture(s)
close to the dais or hovering on the sidelines. They are called
lobbyists. They rule the roost. Commissioners may posture and pretend
they’re doing the people’s business, but it’s the well-clothed
man or woman in the room who usually calls the shots. (At many
meetings they need not even be present. They sit in their offices and
watch proceeding on television and call the commissioner(s) on the
phone if they need to emphasize a point. Or even offer talking
points…)

These
lobbyists, who represent persons doing business with the county, are
later charged with raising commissioners’ campaign contributions.
One party with a group of the right people will net a sitting
commissioner 20,000 to 50,000 dollars (and more) at any one time. One
of these fund raisers may clear more money in one night than a
challenger can raise in months of campaigning.

Public
financing unraveled

In
2000, Miami-Dade residents approved a referendum creating a form of
public financing of campaigns for county commission seats, including
the mayor’s. Anyone interested in running had to gather a specified
number of signatures and a modest amount of contributions from
voters. One could then opt for public financing and live by their
rules — which limited how much you could raise, etc. — or adhere to
the old ways of raising money. Interestingly, in the early part of
the decade, immediately after public financing was approved, a number
of people did run for office and there were several interesting races
that developed. Along the way, though, a couple of candidates were
caught abusing the system which led to commissioners — most who had
opposed the system — to systematically unravel it.

Today
I am not sure if there is even a system in place and how it actually
works. But citing corruption, something Miami-Dade commissioners are
experts at, a number of them managed to undo what the voters had
approved.

Interestingly,
not one sitting commissioner defended the system — much. But almost
every single one of them, in one way or another, opposed it. They
cited corruption, as I’ve mentioned, but also the waste of
taxpayers’ money. These are many of the same persons (I’m talking
about the commissioners) who have held a blind eye to corruption and
waste of taxpayer money with cost overruns at the airport, our white
elephant Performing Art Center, lost transportation tax dollars, and
now would like to spend three billions dollars for a tunnel in
downtown Miami along with a new baseball stadium built.

By
the way, studies have shown that a system of public financing of
elections would cost taxpayers an infinitesimal amount. And in the
long run, in cities across the country who use the system, actually
end up saving money while increasing the pool of viable candidates
for elective office.

Don’t
bet on Miami-Dade commissioners to think of what’s best for the
voters, though. They are more interested in assuring their continuous
reelection and the benefits they may reap while in power…

Are
there solutions?

For
starters, we must reinstitute a workable and fair system of public
financing of campaigns. It’s the only way many of us will ever be
able to afford to run with any chance of winning.

We
can also limit the influence of lobbyists and people doing business
with the county. Press commissioners to pass a law prohibiting them
(any person doing business with the county) from contributing to
county commission races. The City of Miami Beach just passed such a
law.

The
media must play a role. The Miami Herald, television stations and
others must start asserting pressure on our elected leaders to do the
right thing. You must shame them into doing this. On their own, they
will not. Commissioners like the idea of staying in power forever
with few challenges along the way.

Also,
we must change elections and run them in November. Run it the same
day as the election for president. This guarantees a much greater
turnout and therefore a fairer chance of upsetting an incumbent. And
it saves the taxpayer money. Millions are spent in running these
elections.

We
must institute term limits: 12, maybe 16 years maximum. County
leaders and media must play a role here too. As we just saw,
commissioners recently turned down, much of it with very little
discussion, suggestions made by a county charter review panel who
worked long and hard to come up with ideas to make our system better.
It was a total disrespect of the panel, and the citizens of
Miami-Dade County.

One
last suggestion. Record number of voters turning out, thousands of
new voters exercising their right; this would be one other way of
beating the hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by incumbent
commissioners. Then taking it one step further: People voting against
the candidate with the largest war chest — a novel approach to
representative democracy. I’m not sure if it’s been tried
elsewhere, but it’s a plan we might want to look into.

Or,
finally, we can hope for indictments. It’s the only way we’ve
replaced commissioners for almost two decades. And there’s been a
few of those.