Voters should be wary of candidates who are “rich” with endorsements. Many of them have sold their souls and our taxpayers dollars to the highest bidders. Quid pro quo is the order of the day— campaign contributions for undying devotion (at our expense).
Union endorsements often come with a hefty price— a pledge that the endorsee must sign before they are even interviewed. A recent “labor pledge” demanded: “I, (candidate), pledge to do the following if elected: I will unflinchingly support organized labor, collective bargaining and workers’ rights. I will not support the subcontracting of public services…… I will not support any automation that eliminates jobs……” The list is quite extensive. The greed and manipulation are blatant.
Paid walkers who knock at your door include various public employee unions and are solely interested in lining their pockets with pay raises, pension spikes and perks that will be voted on by their favored candidate. Never mind that every time we have City budget meetings, it is always a “crisis.” Never mind that unfunded liabilities (due to previous irresponsible pension give-aways) have undermined public safety with repeated cuts to personnel and facilities and compromised our parks, libraries and other services. These are the same concerns that have threatened to bankrupt this city.
And, speaking of draining the city coffers, let’s not forget the “donning—doffing” lawsuit slammed against Long Beach by the vast majority of the police department. Some of the activities for which they expected compensation were dressing, shaving, exercising, getting their hair cut, shining boots, studying for promotional exams, feeding and watering their dogs and assisting with the Explorer Program. Voters should never forget this ludicrous and mercenary grab for money that cost the city taxpayers millions of dollars. While this suit was settled out of court in 2010, in January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that donning/doffing of safety gear was not subject to compensation.
A dead give-away that large amounts of money are being thrown at a campaign by “special interests” are the proverbial deluge of slick, expensive campaign mailers. PACs (political action committees) often mail independent literature to “get around” campaign contribution limits. Recipients of these advertisements should check on who is sending them and whether there might be a possible conflict of interest. As well, contributions from entities connected to City projects need to be scrutinized.
Other endorsements by political party clubs/organizations are just as corrupt. A number of the candidates “packed” the groups with one-time paid memberships just to capture the vote. Several of the clubs’ memberships swelled to numbers at least ten-fold when the endorsement vote was scheduled. Win at any cost seemed to be the theme.
Another very important consideration is a candidate’s plans for the future. Will they be just using their elected office as a stepping stone? Do they have their sights set on elected positions outside of this city? Will they be making “feel-good” decisions that might garner votes in the short run but harm the citizens of Long Beach for generations to come?
The educated and responsible voter will consider a person’s public service, decisions they have made and their effects on the city, their commitment to transparency and future plans. Equally important is analysis of endorsements. Are they tied to monetary rewards? Did they originate inside or outside of Long Beach? And, what of contributions? Are there conflicts of interest? Will the candidate be voting on matters that involve the entity?
The entirety of a candidate’s proven record must be scrutinized thoroughly— the end vote should be cast accordingly. In the long run, it will facilitate us all in building a much more viable, economically sound and vibrant city.
Diana Lejins
Long Beach
