Carlos Gimenez’s Campaign Report Part 2 by Geniusofdespair

The comments on yesterday's post made me angry: People arguing that the campaign contributions I sited were within the letter of the law. "Don't argue semantics" is what I say. I am arguing what is right. Some things that are legal within the letter of the law are not right. Many are taking advantage of the system by using loopholes.

Does anyone believe, as cited in the last post, that two students in the Ron Book household, living in Broward mind you, got up the morning of September 28, 2007 and said to each other, "Hey, let's each take $500 of our money and give it to that guy running for County Commission in Miami Dade?" However, they had to have done that.

I have been told it is not legal for me to hand a friend or relative money and say to them "take this money and give it to such and such a campaign." They have to use their own money and you would hope their own free will. That is how people ran into problems with the $15 contributions years back. They were buying money orders for friends and relatives so they could qualify their candidate for campaign financing.

This post is not just about Gimenez, it is about all campaigns. You will find this sort of thing on every campaign report. If you put a $500 limit on a donation, in my ron book that is the donation limit from one entity. I don't care that someone has 10 companies and, thus, can legally give $5,000 or if they have 100 companies and can give $500 from each: $50,000. It stinks and is not right in my mind.

Hit read more to see how campaign financing reform was "unreformed" in Miami Dade County:

Miami Herald Op Ed By Jay Beskin (2006?)

In 2002, the United States Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), the act imposed significant restrictions on certain contributions to political campaigns. President George W. Bush signed this bill into law. Although the law was challenged on the basis of violations of the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on December 10, 2004, upholding all key aspects of the Reform Act. In explaining his vote, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer stated that "the First Amendment seeks to facilitate a conversation among ordinary citizens that will encourage their informed participation in the electoral process."

Interestingly, Miami-Dade County was far ahead of the nation in such reforms. In 2000, County Commissioner Jimmy Morales sponsored an ordinance that would have restricted the amount of money that could be given to political campaigns by individuals and barred contributions by corporations, lobbyists, developers, and businesses. Maximum contributions would be reduced from $500 to $250, and public dollars were allowed to match private donations. The true purpose of this ordinance – as was later the impetus for the Supreme Court decision – was facilitate a greater participation in the electoral process by the "ordinary citizens" of Miami-Dade County. Voters subsequently approved public financing for campaigns for mayor, commissioners, and members of community councils.

The cumulative effect of this was so incredibly successful in that in 2005, five of the six mayoral candidates, as well as eight (need to confirm this) County Commission candidates, took advantage of public financing. This significantly opened up the process, created a debate that might otherwise not have existed and, in the end benefited the residents of Miami-Dade County. Maurice Ferre, former mayor of Miami, former County Commissioner, and former candidate for Miami-Dade County Mayor, was one such beneficiary of the 2000 reforms, having taken advantage of public financing in the last go around.


ON Tuesday, 6 December, the county commission passed two ordinances that slow if not kill, the interaction of voters with a variety of strong and interested candidates. In the first ordinance, sponsored by County Commissioner Sally Heyman, the campaign contribution limits were raised from $250 to $500, and corporations are again permitted to make contributions. This also raises the question as to who will have more of a say in the outcome of County elections – the special interest groups, or the voters of Miami-Dade County.

"What should be more difficult is the financing by special interest groups of campaigns for elected officials that are going to vote on their special interests – not the financing by the people of Miami-Dade County," states Ferre. "The principle is ‘public financing’, and that does not need tightening up."

The second ordinance, sponsored by the Community Outreach, Safety and Healthcare Administration Committee, chaired by Commissioner Rebecca Sosa, greatly restricted the ability for candidates to qualify for public financing. In order to receive the available public funding, a candidate must now raise $30,000 from Miami-Dade voters, with a minimum of $100 from 300 contributors, a substantial change from the ordinance sponsored by Morales in 2000. The cap on spending ($150,000 unless both parties wished to break the ceiling) has also been eliminated for those candidates not availing themselves of public funding – the restriction stands for those using the funding.

With the passage of this ordinance, those candidates who would rely on public financing in order to run a viable campaign will find it much more difficult to enter and remain in a race, while those candidates supported by corporations and special interests, and not wishing – or needing – public moneys will have an disproportionate advantage over their competition.

The rest of the country followed the lead of Miami-Dade County, through the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act. The President of the United States, a bi-partisan Congress, as well as the Supreme Court of the Untied States, all recognize the need for such reforms. Sadly, not only has Miami-Dade County given up its spot in the lead of the race for equity amongst candidates, it has made a complete about-face.

Maurice Ferre: "I disagree with Charles Irwin Wilson, former President of General Motors, who said in 1953: ‘What is good for General Motors is good for the country.’ I say instead: What is good for special interests is not good for Miami."

Indeed. In its deliberations, the County Commission missed the point. It focused upon the ability of candidates seeking public financing to run a credible race. It should have focused instead upon the need for County voters to have a choice in a County race.