Skip to main content

Why I support Levine-Cava's campaign fundraising transparency ordinance!

(the following is still a draft, and should be edited for accuracy and clarity)

I begin with the short and sweet of it.

County Commissioner Daniella Levine-Cava's proposed ordinance to increase campaign fundraising transparency is a step in the right direction. There is little burden in a simple disclosure in campaign finance reports accounting for when candidates and officials raise funds on behalf of political organizations. Any notion that politicians should spend their time raising money, but that it's a burden to do so in the light of public view calls in to question the purpose of  public service. What's more, I question the integrity of any politician who opposes this legislation because they think it would burden them. Here's looking at Barbara Jordan, and others on the commission.

I previously criticized the proposal in hopes that it could promote public discourse about what transparency really means in our times, but unfortunately none of the county commissioners I reached out to took my words to heart, and instead hide behind ennui. Laziness. In that regards I will clarify my criticisms so that people understand I do not oppose this ordinance, as I find nothing egregious about it.

While I still hope for more discussion on the topic, I don't see a need to continue criticizing this particular effort, as my criticisms receive no actual conscious attention. I prefer a move in the right direction, than to stifle progress over knit-picking. I still think find critique valid and important to the over-all issue of transparency in government, but future ordinances can address this--the proposal in no way limits possible increases of transparency in the future, which is precisely what establishment fears. Don't buy the disingenuous suggestion this ordinance would burden politicians. Even if it does, they accept that burden as servants of the public. They serve special interests, or their own, when they oppose transparency.


Popular posts from this blog

To Be or Not to Be, Part 1: WHEREAS

I remembered quickly in the last weeks...
As stories about the Beckham group soccer deal coalesced around a last minute vote of the City of Miami Commission to approve a referendum on leasing public land. A soccer stadium deal, eventually revealed as a gigantic real estate deal for a local hotshot.
I remembered: No matter what happens it seems the people will lose.

Much closer to home, the County Commission voted in June for a referendum in my neck of the woods, North East Municipal Service Area, an unincorporated sector of the county, will get to choose to become a city. However this offer comes with many strings, and lots of loopholes. Citizens beware.
I continue my series with an extensive analysis of the June 5th, 2018 resolution. I plan at least two more posts on this county law, with a particular concern for responsibilities or debts the proposed city would owe the county from the start.

June 5, 2018 Resolution calling special election in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to be held in conjunction with the General Election on November 6, 2018, for the purpose of submitting to the electors residing within the proposed new municipality in unincorporated Northeast Miami-Dade the question of whether the BCC should be authorized to create the new municipality with the following general outermost boundaries: County line to the north; the city limits of the City of Aventura to the east; the city limits of the City of North Miami Beach to the south; and Interstate 95 to the west; and designating Greynolds Park, Water and Sewer pump stations, and the Ojus Urban Area District as areas of countywide significance.

If you found the title too long to read then society may have bigger issues than whether NE unincorporated Dade should incorporate into a city. However that title, dear readers, serves as the title of a June 5th ordinance before the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, proposed by District 4 Commissioner Heyman, to decide whether or not to give the voters of the affected area an election to incorporate. (form a new city)

While on face I like the idea of a smaller, more local government implementing policy in my neighborhood, my initial enthusiasm made way for more long-term critical thinking. As an idealist I regularly forget that other opinions exist in the universe, and likewise other concepts of local governance. What conditions would exist in this new municipality? What debts and responsibilities would it have before existing? And what would might it look like if we voted Yes to the ballot question in November on incorporation?

I have to wonder how anyone could make a reasona…

To Be or Not to Be, Part 2: Resolution

I continue my analysis of R-576-18, picking up here I left off yesterday. Luckily I don't have nearly as much to say today.