BY MIKE CETERA
Anyone donating to a political candidate expects something in return, no matter if it's a business or an individual, which is what makes this pay-to-play talk so complicated.
Is it OK to accept a contribution from someone who opposes abortion, knowing they expect you to do something about that clinic in town? Aren't they paying for some expected response -- even if it goes against the better financial interests of the city?
Is this different than the company that has contracts with the city (even though there's a sealed bidding process in many cases) making a donation? Are they trying to buy more contracts -- once again -- against the better financial interests of the city?
I'm not sure.
This brings me to the latest D-2s, which offer few surprises: Many of the ususual supporters of Tom Weisner are there. Weisner predictably raised much more money than his presumptive opponents, Stephanie Kifowit and Rick Lawrence.
Some thoughts from the D-2s:
* Weisner's single largest individual contribution ($5,000), came from the one-time operator of a number of area McDonald's franchises. Edward Schmitt now lists his occupation as "retired." Schmitt previously donated more than $4,000 to the Weisner campaign.
* Weisner paid $16,000 to Fako & Associates Inc., a Lisle-based Democratic polling firm. The payment came a week after Weisner announced his re-election bid. Did they do the work beforehand and what did the mayor learn?
* Lawrence says he's turned down money from people seeking to donate. Fine. So for now we can only gauge interest in his campaign by who he has accepted money from -- people connected to River Street Plaza and people mad about the opening of the Planned Parenthood Clinic.
* Lawrence spent ($2,700) almost as much money as he raised in individual contributions ($2,985) in donations/tickets to the Illinois State Crime Commission dinner where he accepted an award. A number of other winners statewide also used campaign money to buy tables at the event.
* Both Kifowit and Lawrence downplay their fundraising prowess versus the incumbent. When you trail the money race, what else are you going to say? I'd love to see some examples of candidates who were outspent badly who went on to defeat the incumbent. This is a tough burden to overcome, no matter how much they pooh-pooh it.
“[E]ven though there's a sealed bidding process [for city contracts] in many cases” Are you saying that this occurs most of time? Or just some of the time? And are you suggesting that these are given to the lowest bidder each time, with subjectivity never entering the process?
There is a world of difference between a company, or owner, giving HUGE amounts of money to a campaign and a local homeowner contributing a mere pittance in comparison.
A company/owner has their personal financial interests/ livelihood DIRECTLY tied to the administration by doing business with the city. A homeowner has a smaller MONETARY interest; in the form of property taxes and quality of life.
You will also note that many of the businesses/unions supporting the Mayor are not from Aurora. This bolsters the position that their interests are not tied to the success of the city, and the quality of life therein, but rather of financial gain. Given this difference, I would much rather see those living here financially supporting a candidate that is interested in issues affecting the local community rather than an out of town company/owner looking after their profit margins.
I actually agree with AR (gulp).
I think its more powerful for a candidate to receive donations from several small voting donators, even if they never match that of the large companies. The reasoning is that I believe if people donate even $5 to your campaign, they have a vested interest in you and will vote for you.
1,000 $5 donations from voters has more of a value than 1 contributor donating $5,000. I think in this type of mayoral election (for this type of city) it will prove itself true as well.
Kifowit seems to be the "people's choice" and Weisner seems to be the "big business choice". Lawrence gives off this rebel image... its not going to work for him.
Image is everything.
Dave,
You bring up some interesting positions. First I would like to draw your attention to the race for Mayor of Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter. He was down in the polls; he spent 50% less than the incumbent and went up against a self-funded millionaire, and won his primary and subsequent race. You can also look in Illinois to former State Representative Robin Kelly, who was outspent and challenged an incumbent and won. There are many stories like this when candidates take the time to actually get out and talk to the voters. That doesn't take money. While you can look at the Laesch/Foster race as a victory for Foster; I see it as a victory for Laesch. He spent ten times less than Foster and still managed to get his message to almost just as many voters. Thus, it is not always about money that decides an election.
However, your point is valid. Lately, news articles and politicos focus on money as the sole defining factor in an election. It is true that the more money a candidate gets, the easier it is to get the message out. However, I have always believed that people cannot be bought with flashy mailers; it is the character of the person that matters the most.
This race is going to be based on character; not how much money is in someone's wallet.
Alderman Stephanie Kifowit
Candidate for Mayor of the City of Aurora
e-mail: Stephanie@Kifowit4Mayor.com
website: www.Kifowit4Mayor.com
Phone: (630) 334-0341
The fact is, dollars don't vote; people do--and the person with the most votes will win the mayoral election.
Yes, money can buy advertising and publicity, which can influence citizens' views of candidates and issues. But the bottom line is, most people will ultimately vote for the person whom they feel is most qualified for the position. And a lot of us are fed up with the cronyism Weisner is so famous for.
Remember how much $$$ was spent on Weisner's DUI buddy Jim Nesbitt's campaign? The voters saw right through the BS and re-elected Kifowit by a landslide.
I'm voting for Stephanie. We deserve "Leadership that Listens".
Yeah money doesn't vote but I would rather run with it than without out it...
I did find it interesting when looking at the D-2's that as of June 31 Terry Wintermute had almost twice as much on hand as Linda Holmes.
I don't think there are too many incumbents who have opponents that have a 2-1 cash advantage on them. that I think was the biggest surprise with the local races.
That is going to be an interesting race again, assuming Linda takes a decent chunk of money from Emil again, how will the pay raise stuff and the other issues play out...
Mike
You wrote, "Is it OK to accept a contribution from someone who opposes abortion, knowing they expect you to do something about that clinic in town? Aren't they paying for some expected response -- even if it goes against the better financial interests of the city?"
Are you suggesting that the presence of the Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora is financially advantageous to Aurora?
Maybe the Beacon could explore that question.
How much sales tax does the City receive from PP?
How much real estate tax does the City receive from PP?
How much has the City paid and continuing to pay in legal fees, costs and expenses related to the facility?
How much has the City paid and continuing to pay for police presence at the facility?
How much did the City expend during the approval process that was not reimbursed by PP?
I am suggesting that the PP facility is a black hole of money and is not financially advantageous to the tax payers of Aurora.
So do a story with real data and let's see just where the tax payer stands on this one.