As I said in my opening statement at the second Commission Candidates’ Forum, my campaign is fueled by a vision of what small-town democracy can and should be.
That vision of democracy isn’t something I came up with by myself. I’ve arrived at that vision, in large part, thanks to my supporters, who during the last four months have taught me so much about what democracy is, and about why democracy matters. In political campaigning, as in so many of life’s big endeavors, you can start out with an idea or a plan, but really you figure out what you’re doing as you do it. And, again, as with so much in life, it helps to be surrounded by good people who can steer you in the right direction.
Tonight, my campaign for Town Commission draws to a close, and I want this final blog post of the campaign to be an opportunity to reflect on all the hard work that my supporters and I have done in the last four months. I want to say a bit more about my vision of democracy, mostly as a way of acknowledging and thanking the many devoted Surfsiders who have made my campaign what it is. In the process, they have helped me to understand what democracy means.
It may help to begin with a few concrete examples, taken from my campaign.
Yard signs
Probably the most visible symbols of my campaign are the approximately 110 yellow yard signs that you can see in the residential district of the Town, urging you to “Keep Surfside Special.” I’m proud to say that every single one of these signs is where it is because a human occupant of the house supports my campaign. And when I travel around the Town, every time I see one of those signs I’m reminded of actual people who have entrusted me with their support.
Two of my opponents in this race, however, cannot say the same. Many of their signs sit on lots owned by developers’ shell corporations, and I honestly don’t know what my opponents are reminded of when they see those signs.
Handwritten postcards
In the last few weeks, approximately 500 households in Surfside have received postcards from my campaign–some handwritten by me, many more by my volunteer supporters. The messages on the cards vary; what mattered to me more than the precise wording of the messages was that the messages be sincere, and that they come from individuals who could say, for themselves and in their own voices, why they’re supporting me.
Campaign financing
On Friday, March 15, I filed the last financial disclosure of my campaign. You can see my financial reports here, and you can find those of the other candidates on the Elections page of the Town website.
If you scroll through my reports, you’ll see that I raised a total of $7,589. All of that money came from individual donors–either from Surfside residents or from personal friends who live outside of Surfside.
The only Commission candidate who raised more than me in this campaign is Mr. Rose, with $8,500. But if you look past the totals, you’ll see that Mr. Rose’s financial reports look very different from mine.
Whereas my reports show page after page of small donations, Mr. Rose received only nine donations–eight, if you don’t count the $500 that he gave to his own campaign. As for those eight donations, each of them is for $1000 (the maximum permissible amount), and not a single one comes from within Surfside.
Mr. Rose’s handwriting on the first sheet is very hard to read, but what’s clear is that he has left blank the very important “Contributor Type” column, which is where candidates indicate whether each donor is an Individual, a Business, or some other kind of entity. From the descriptions provided elsewhere on the page, two of Mr. Rose’s donors appear to be fellow contractors, and two more seem to be in the business of “stone” (???). A quick Google search seems to indicate that the one individual listed in line 001 is yet another builder. Oh, and the most recent thousand bucks come from a real-estate-industry association.
Why does all this matter? Well, running a campaign isn’t easy, and it isn’t cheap. And so it’s natural, when the campaign is over, for newly elected officials to feel a debt of gratitude to the donors who helped them win office. Depending on the circumstances, that debt of gratitude can actually be a good thing for democracy. If discharging the debt of gratitude requires an elected official to keep an open mind, and to remember that political power ultimately rests with the people, and to remember that the people are not a monolith but rather a collection of individuals who deserve to be seen and heard individually–if the stars align in just the right way–campaign finance can actually work to promote democracy.
But an elected official’s debt of gratitude can also hurt democracy, when it’s owed to groups with special interests, or to people whose interests don’t align with those of the governed.
I think that, in the case of my campaign, the stars have aligned in the right, democracy-promoting way. My campaign has been, as I said at the Candidates’ Forum on February 28, resident-powered and resident-funded. If I should be lucky enough to win a seat on the Commission dais tomorrow, I won’t be able to forget how I got there.
Rejecting the shady “One Surfside” PAC
One of the most disturbing things about this election has been the emergence of “One Surfside,” a Political Action Committee, or PAC, based in Plantation, Florida. One Surfside PAC has raised almost $25,000 for the March 19 election–a huge sum for such a small town–and the PAC has been spending much of its money on attack mailers.
The largest donor to One Surfside–responsible for 80% of their funds, or $20,000–is yet another PAC, Floridians Together for Change, which happens to share the exact same address in Plantation as One Surfside. But because Floridians Together for Change is a state-level PAC, as opposed to a Surfside PAC, Floridians Together for Change won’t have to reveal its donors until after Surfside’s election is over. So you’ll have to wait until April to find out who, exactly, has been paying for all those mailers.
Though the finances of “One Surfside” have been obscure, the messaging has been very clear as far as whom the PAC supports: Shlomo Danzinger for Mayor, and Messrs. Brunnabend, Forbes, Landsman, and Rose for Commission. All of these candidates have benefitted by having their opponents attacked by the PAC, anonymously and expensively, and not a single one of them has repudiated the PAC’s tactics.
In my vision of democracy, elections are a time for neighbors to meet–ideally face to face, but also in direct, personal, written communications–to share ideas, to debate, and, in the end, to make a decision together. An anonymous, outsider PAC like “One Surfside” shouldn’t be part of that process.
A big part of what’s at stake in tomorrow’s vote is the decision over whether we want to encourage this type of anonymous, outsider-funded political activity in our Town. I hope Surfsiders will recognize the danger and vote to reject both “One Surfside” and the five candidates who, by their silent acceptance of PAC support, have endorsed the “One Surfside” style of politics.
Closing statements
Occupant-endorsed signs on the lawns of inhabited houses. Handwritten postcards. Small donations from named individuals. What all of it adds up to, I hope, is a reminder that elected officials are there to serve their constituents–a reminder that, ideally, democracy is an ongoing, dynamic relationship between elected officials and their constituents, between the Dais and the Podium.
At the final meeting of the 2022-24 Commission, on March 12, Mr. Danzinger and Mr. Rose concluded their terms by providing a vision of democracy very different from mine. That vision of democracy is evident in a “joke” made by Mr. Danzinger and in the snide laughter of Mr. Rose:
With that joke of Mr. Danzinger’s, the 2022-24 Commission has ended its work. The 2024-26 Commission will start its work on Wednesday.
What you, the voters of Surfside, have before you today are two competing visions of democracy. Only one of them, though, is sincere and human-scaled. Only one of them invites you, the voter, to continue to play an active role in the creation of law. And only one of them serves as a constant reminder to elected officials of their ongoing duty to their constituents.
I hope that my vision of democracy–as something sincere, human-scaled, and inviting–is the one you’ll choose tomorrow.
___
Want to learn more about the policies I support and my vision for Surfside? VIEW HERE