The people have spoken. Well, at least 15.6 per cent of the people. That was the percentage of the electorate who troubled themselves to vote last week in the races for mayor and city council.
Sure, it’s an off-year and the top of the ticket didn’t even feature a competitive mayor’s race – but 15.6 per cent?
As to the other 84.4 per cent, we don’t want to hear from you. You’re a large part of the problem. Your abdication from responsibility debases democracy, unless we all agree to redefine it as motivated-minority rules. The idealistic, the pragmatic, the purely habitual and the narrowly self-interested determine elections. In this case, about one in six registered voters.
A final point. To lazy non-voters: shame on you. To clueless non-voters: thanks.
*Retail politics? It used to be that at the ultimate, grass-roots local level, politics was decidedly different. It was certainly the case in Tampa. By charter, party affiliations were not determinative, fund-raising was reasonable and negative ads were rare.
Those were the days.
It was obvious that partisan politics was driving some races. In District 4, for example, rookie candidate Julie Brown became the fan favorite of builders and developers and her consultants were Republican regulars. The Brown-John Dingfelder race was only “non-partisan” to those not privy to the party-line winking and nodding.
District 2 clearly matched the Republican Shawn Harrison and the Democrat Mary Mulhern. After the latter’s upset win, her campaign manager, Mitch Kates, underscored Tampa’s realpolitik. “This race was a partisan race, but as far as I’m concerned, this is the new Democratic team and the new Democratic Party,” he said. “And folks around here better start getting used to this because we know how to win, we know how to organize, and we know how to spend our money wisely.”
City councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena, who had no opposition in District 3, regularly implored voters to elect “progressives” to the council. That was transparent code for fellow Democrats Mulhern and Dingfelder.
Defeated city council (District 2) candidate Shawn Harrison raised a record-setting $215,000. Incumbent winner Dingfelder and challenger Brown each raised about $150,000 in their District 4 race. Even Charlie Miranda, who had token competition in District 6 from Lisa Tamargo, raised more than $100,000. (Mayor Pam Iorio raised about $123,000.)
The upshot is that Dingfelder announced on election night that he would be making a motion at city council to reform campaign financing for city elections. Florida law caps contributions from individuals and organizations at $500. He would limit it to $100. He’s also pondering what might be done to at least rein in the third-party, soft- money 527s as well.
“We’ll see what legal has to say,” says Dingfelder. “This election was a wake-up call for me. We need to clamp down on this and bring some sanity back. And, who knows, maybe some other cities might want to jump in too.”
But first things first. Campaign-finance reform should be a political winner. But not all candidates — or would-be candidates — agree it’s a swell idea to limit the name-recognition-enhancing, get-your-message-out money that supporters can bestow.
The final fortnight of the District 4 race turned noticeably mean-spirited. On behalf of the Brown campaign, Election Watch Florida, an independent electioneering committee, skewered Dingfelder in a series of (“DING’FELDER FOLLIES”) mailings impugning his character and priorities and even distorting his facial features.
It likely backfired.
At the ultimate retail level — city council — voters can actually know their incumbents. If an attack ad doesn’t ring true, it could be counterproductive — not just ineffective.
“As a wife, it was devastating to read that,” says Lynn Marvin Dingfelder, who is also the candidate’s campaign manager. “That’s not John. I was nauseous for days. We didn’t expect it – all that 527 stuff.
“This district is all about neighborhoods,” she points out. “It’s like insulting the family. I think it hurt her, and I think it reinforced a principle about what people will tolerate with local grass roots politics.”
*The rule of thumb is that District 4 voters will turn out in numbers greater than any other district. This was borne out again. The turnout: 21%. Still a disgrace.
*There was little question that New Tampa’s Shawn Harrison, term-limited in District 7, would have used the citywide District 2 seat as a pivot point for a run at the Mayor’s office in 2011. So much for that seamless scenario. Shows you what $215,000 doesn’t buy.
*To anyone watching any of the public forums — or noting the endorsements of both the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune — the biggest surprise in the District 1 results had to be that Randy Baron fared so poorly. Not making the March 27 run-off had to be disappointing. But finishing last in a relatively undistinguished field of six?
*Now District 1 features the political junkie’s supposed dream: strip-club icon Joe Redner, 66, squaring off with current city council chairwoman Gwen Miller, 72.
Memo to Redner:
Demand a debate. Maybe more than one. Your opponent has been given a minority pass for 12 years, getting by as the nice, quiet lady of inclusion who listens. This is euphemistic, political-speak for lightweight who still hasn’t mastered subject-verb agreement. Nobody will say it on the record, but Miller as city council chairwoman is an embarrassment for a city of Tampa’s stature.
It may be too late in life, but limit if not eliminate the attitude. You’re more than conversant on the big issues, so come across as knowledgeable about the environment, mass transit, property taxes and growth paying for itself – not as a dismissive smart ass. Don’t berate; don’t belittle. Don’t act like the millionaire renegade with nothing to lose except a seventh try at public office. In fact, you do have something to lose: the sort of legitimacy that your money has never been able to buy you.
And, yes, it will be especially challenging when the inevitable question arises about your adult-club background. Take a deep breath, especially if a panelist just implied that you and Luke Lirot pervert the First Amendment. And remember this is not an imposition-of-morality issue. But, yes, it is a priority and (legal) cost issue.
And, yes, it is also a quality-of-life issue. Sorry, but even consenting adults don’t want a Mons Venus in THEIR neighborhood.
Lose the pony tail; this isn’t a beach community. Even with a coat and tie, it’s the look of the bohemian, the aging hipster, the provocateur. A candidate’s debate is manifestly mainstream stuff. Image, as you know, matters.
*Imagine, another 90 votes and Charles Perkins (31 per cent) would have made the run-off in District 7. Sad commentary when no public-forum appearances and no discernible aptitude for public office is no problem. Was there that much nostalgia for “White Chocolate”or was this the practical-joke vote?