Issues vs Party Label

I have had an ongoing debate with a few people about whether or not people in Fishers will vote for a Democrat with whom they agree on issues, or if they will vote solely on party label.

Despite past history of "knee jerk" party line voting - something both parties have been guilty of - I hope and believe that the voters of Fishers will look at who is right and wrong on the issues, and vote accordingly.  I already have some Republican supporters, who see me as an independent, honest watchdog, and more fiscally responsible than my opponent.  So let's look at a few of those issues.

• Last fall the Fishers Council proposed adopting a new food and beverage sales tax.  I spoke against it at two council meetings, along with other citizens of various political labels.  My opponent not only supported the tax, he was adamant about it.  But it failed for lack of a majority.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I was the first chair of CityYes, the bi-partisan group that was successful in pushing for adoption of City status for Fishers, and protecting the right of citizens to vote for a Mayor.  My opponent waffled at first, then campaigned against the City referendum, and supported the failed "merger" that was walloped in the vote.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I spoke at the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting of the Council in opposition to the "no bid" contract with  a group of campaign donors to tear down the train station and "redevelop" the site with public land and $15 million in borrowed taxpayer dollars.  This form of corporate welfare was wrong, and I opposed it.  My opponent not only supported it, he touts it as a major accomplishment.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I have openly opposed the $35 million total being spent on the various downtown projects, all in borrowed money.  My opponent again embraces all of this spending.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I opposed the over-use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) which uses borrowed money to give to developers, and results in tax dollars being diverted away from schools to repay this debt. I oppose TIFs, my opponent has voted to make nearly all land in Fishers capable of development into a TIF, which kills our tax base growth.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• My opponent was a main figure in the disgraced and now-disbanded Royal Tiger PAC, which got campaign contributions from insiders and city contractors by promising them insider information before it was news.  One of the candidates supported by this corrupt bargain has been arrested on drug charges.  ALL of my campaign donations are from individuals, or me personally, not city contractors.  I have proposed a city ethics ordinance to end this practice. Again, I was right, and my opponent wrong. 

I have to say, I like John as a person, and his happy, engaging family.  But you vote for and against candidates based on their record.  And sorry John, there are way too many mistakes here.  So yes, I am a Democrat, but that actually means little on local issues. I could not identify a "Republican" or "Democrat" position on the things that come before the Council if I tried. So the main thing voters should judge by are the record of the candidates, and their positions.  Will this be enough?  We will find out on November 4th.

An Ethics Proposal

I have at various times written about the unseemly influence of those who receive government money from the Town of Fishers making campaign donations for the re-election of the incumbents who granted those contracts.  (See, "Is Fishers For Sale?" April 20, 2011, in my Hamilton County Politics blog).

Sadly, the current crop of incumbents learned the wrong lesson from their peers.  Several of the council incumbents formed and participated in a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the "Royal Tiger PAC", which promised donors inside information about what is happening in town government, of course in return for donations.   The donors to that PAC ended up being a veritable "Who's Who" of insiders in Fishers.

This was written about in scalding terms by Republican blogger Paul Ogden, in his Ogden on Politics blog in April 2014.  Ogden's post is here:  http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/04/is-3500-price-of-political-influence-in.html.  Ogden referred to this as "unseemly", which it certainly is, at a minimum.

Not only was Pete Peterson, the Fishers Council's vice-president and treasurer of the Hamilton County Republican Party, a central figure in this, but also Fishers Council President John Weingardt (my opponent), new Fishers Council member Eric Moeller, and defeated County Council candidate Andrew Dollard, who after the primary was arrested in a pill-peddling scheme.  (The lawyer in me notes the case is pending, and Dollard is entitled to the presumption of innocence,)  Royal Tiger has since been disbanded over the furor over what seems to be yet another instance of "pay to play" politics in Hamilton County.

Now, nothing about this is APPARENTLY illegal, although it would not take much for it to be illegal.  The town's vendors who make such donations clearly are expecting to get their money back somehow.  But to make it a "quid pro quo", such as "I will donate to your campaign $3500, and in return, you will vote for the contract that I want to build a new office building", would be a criminal offense.

Similarly, if someone were to have gone to a vendor, or group of them and said that they HAD to contribute to Royal Tiger or some other committee if they wanted to continue to get government contracts, that too would be criminal.  But as of yet, no one has stepped up with any details of such pressure, perhaps because if they DID, they would be cut out of the lucrative government contracts.

The "appearance of impropriety" can be as bad as the improper behavior itself. It corrupts the public's faith in government by making it appear that the People's Government is for sale to special interests who make campaign contributions. It makes government contractors think they HAVE to support incumbents if they want to keep government business. And it blurs the line between "legal" and "illegal".

So, I have a proposal.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions that say that in some cases, campaign contributions cannot be restricted.  So what I propose is to give those who want government money a choice.  I propose a Fishers ordinance to prohibit the giving of a Fishers government contract, or any other financial benefit including economic development incentives, to anyone who donates to a political candidate for Fishers' office.  And this is not an unusual restriction. The U.S. Government has prohibitions against Federal government contractors making campaign donations in a Federal election.  Several states and municipalities have either adopted or have considered a similar restriction.

Let's get the corporate welfare and cronyism out of our local politics.  I pledge that if elected, I will work with other members of the City Council, regardless of political party, to adopt such an ordinance, and let Fishers be an ethical example for the rest of the State of Indiana.