I begin this post with a quote from candidate Ms. Susan Brook which appears in today's South Bay Daily Breeze concerning her receiving a $1,000 campaign contribution from Trump National Golf Club:
"I have absolutely no problem taking money from Donald Trump. What is $1,000 supposed to buy me? A hedge, a ficus hedge? No," said Brooks, referring to a dispute over golf course shrubs.
Susan, it's not about what you can buy but what Trump might be trying to buy from you.
It has been obvious and proven over and over again that large entities use campaign contributions to, at least, gain more access to an elected official over access the elected official might provide to others.
In Tom Long's Emails today he offered facts about last night's council meeting where the Trump organization took back a proposal for something it sought approval for and Tom may be suggesting that the Trump organization will bring the issue back to the new council, after perhaps one or more of the up to four candidates it contributed $1,000 each to sit on the new council, beginning in December.
Tom also stated that the contributions made by Trump National Golf Course to Susan, and Dora de la Rosa were legal and they certainly are.
Two other candidates, Jerry Duhovic and Dave Emenhiser both received $1,000 contributions from "VH Properties" based in New York and that may also be from a Trump organization.
Only Susan and Dora received $1,000 contributions from "Trump National Golf Course".
It now seems not surprising whatsoever that the same twoTrump National Golf Course folks donated money to are the very same two candidates Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch, (PVP Watch) is endorsing.
PVP Watch also is endorsing Jerry Duhovic, who received a check similar in size to one received by Dave Emenhiser.
Now come to find out that Trump National Golf Course, PVP Watch and 'That Email' writer all endorse the same three candidates without any of those same candidates publicly stating any rebuke to the person who wrote 'That Email' mentioned in a recent mass Email from Tom Long.
Has racism and bigotry become a 'special interest', too? I sure hope it is not. But without hearing or reading any rebuke from PVP Watch and the three candidates Carol mentioned in her letter to the editor, I think it is shameful and I feel our residents are better served by those who would not even offer any condemnation to anyone who would write such a racist note.
What folks might also not know about Susan is that she has offered statements related to her loss to Jane Harman that suggests that Harmon may have won, in part, because she is wealthy or had a wealthy campaign war chest.
So when The Daily Breeze just released campaign funds information that show that Susan Brooks now has the wealthiest campaign war chest gathered from all of the seven active candidates, it seems odd that Susan would have made any negative comment about a candidate who has the most money to finance their campaign.
According to the information released today in The Daily Breeze, candidate Ms. Dora de la Rosa spent $13,783 on a campaign that raised "$9,704.
What might and should have anyone wondering is where did the $4,079 difference come from? Credit Cards?
Mr. Jerry Duhovic loaned his campaign just about half of what has been spent on his campaign. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but had he not loaned his campaign the funds, it appears he would be the third lowest fundraiser among the candidates, only besting the two candidates who, records indicate, received no loans to their campaigns, de la Rosa and Knight.
I also found very alarming is the paragraph in the newspaper that candidate Eric Alegria received all but one campaign contribution from outside Rancho Palos Verdes. I think when Eric runs again he will be mindful that the bulk of campaign contributions for a city council seat in R.P.V. should come from residents and business within Rancho Palos Verdes.
Did you read that, Jerry Duhovic, Susan Brooks and the rest of the candidates? I hope so.
Ms. Brooks, Trump National Golf Course did not contribute a grand to your campaign just so you could buy a hedge or "ficcus hedge" from them. They may have provided you with the contribution to 'buy' them a favorable vote should you gain a seat on our council. I am surprised you seemingly don't get that, with you previous campaigns and your one term on our council. Well, maybe you did get it, but decided to offer something completely ridiculous as a response. That seems something akin to when you were asked what was the one question you wanted to be asked during the earlier part of your campaign but wasn't asked.
If I remember what you said in your response during a Forum to that question, it had something to do with not being asked out on a date. Oh yea, I have an audio recording of that, don't I.? |
No comments:
Post a Comment