I’m a First Amendment guy. Unfettered, free expression is the ultimate sign of a free society. When SCOTUS ruled on Citizens United, I rejoiced that people were allowed to express themselves collectively. Corporations (like unions) really ARE made up of people — employees and stockholders.
As such, I don’t understand the outrage with Nathan Fletcher’s “make work” job at Qualcomm. If the employees and stockholders of Qualcomm want to get together and finance a mayoral candidate, why should I or anyone stand in their way?
People who disapproved of the Citizens United ruling could rightfully cry that the Qualcomm stockholders and employees are trying to buy our “democracy”. I don’t buy that argument, though. I might prefer that corporate stockholders and employees use this technique to finance their candidates’ elections because it’s completely transparent. In this case, the Qualcomm stockholders and employees want Nathan Fletcher to be mayor so much that they are willing to offer him a salary of $400,000, to wait out the mistake the unions and San Diego County Democratic Party gave the City of San Diego.
The Filner mistake and the way the Qualcomm coalition “attempted to correct” it bears examination, too. A teachers’ union president has already suggested that supporting Filner (despite Lori Saldaña’s warning) was a tacit plan to get Vargas into Congress, Hueso into the Senate, and Gonzalez into the Assembly. When one looks at the players involved in the not-so-secret plan to install a Qualcomm employee as mayor of San Diego, one wonders if the other Qualcomm employees and stockholders are trying to expand their influence in federal, state and now local government.
Nathan Fletcher is an ambitious politician with a less than robust work ethic. His flexible principles afford him the freedom to gravitate towards political organizations offering him a chance to realize that ambition without the commensurate industriousness required. That ambition makes him the perfect target for a “sponsor.”
The Office of the Mayor of San Diego is for sale. On it’s face, it looks like the Qualcomm employees and shareholders are trying to buy it.
Comments 33
Brian, while I agree with your idea that corporations should indeed be able to contribute to candidates, I do NOT think it should be a deductible business expense. By calling it “salary,” it seems to me that the corporation (owners) are playing fast and loose with the tax law — a law that should apply uniformly to us all.
Now, if we want to make ALL such political contributions tax deductible to businesses and individuals, that’s something I would not oppose, but such is not the case.
BTW, this same problem exists on a MUCH LARGER scale with labor unions, with employees who itemize writing off some or all of their union dues as a miscellaneous expense. To the extent that the dues are used for lobbying or political purposes, the code says it should NOT be deductible. But the IRS NEVER audits this game — the unions make up figures as to what portion of the dues are political, and the members use these bogus figures when filing.
In essence, we are fighting in the political arena with one arm tied behind our backs — using AFTER tax dollars for OUR contributions, while the unions use largely tax DEDUCTIBLE dollars for their causes and candidates (via IE expenditures).
He undeniably appeals to the don’t-work-hard-but-get-a-huge-paycheck-and-aren’t-qualified-to-ask-for-your-vote-and-will-tell-you-whatever-you-need-to-hear-to-get-that-vote demographic.
Very relatable.
So San Ysidro, City Heights, Barrio Logan, Clairemont…here’s your candidate!
Just because one “can” do something, does it immediately equate to one “should” do something? The quintessential difference is between a legal action, versus a moral action. Granted, there is a lot of present day moral relativism and those who are adamant about “who are we to judge?”
Like porn, or terrorism…you may not be able to define what is slimy about Fletcher’s actions legally, or administratively, but everyone who sees it for what it really is knows it doesn’t pass the giggle test. Would any decent parent instruct their child to take money for work they either didn’t do or do far below market expectations?
Another reason people are looking for honest, people of character and integrity…Fletcher, nor the people who hired him, are such people.
“Now, if we want to make ALL such political contributions tax deductible to businesses and individuals, that’s something I would not oppose, ”
Me either.
“but such is not the case.”
…but such is not the case. I”m making a point here (which I know you made). Jacobs is using stockholder money, and the reputation of the QCOM employees, to buy his own Mayor.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/09/10/inside-look-at-tense-la-jolla-confab-where-republicans-chose-faulconer/
BB,
you highlight a very important and revealing point.
“Jacobs is using stockholder money, and the reputation of the QCOM employees, to buy his own Mayor.”
If we are to accept the narrative in the link above, I ask rhetorically what precisely is the difference between Jacob’s “buying” of a mayor, and Manchester’s “buying” of a mayor in Faulconer or a congressman in DeMaio with back room graft and dealings with the Chairman of the Republican Party, and other key “kingmakers” acting like European Monarchs cutting up a post war map?
Where Jacobs is using “stockholder” money, the RPSD will be using membership and donor funds to push “their” guys for what sadly appears as concerns more about city-centric commercial development agendas and not the best candidate.
One major difference is the money, in the case of QCOM, belongs to the stockholders…they can decide if what Jacob’s is doing with their money is beneficial. Not sure that is the case with the RPSD turning on the proverbial funding “floodgates” for their handpicked nominees by a hand full of what could be described “cronies” in an atmosphere of can only be described as non-transparent…certainly “under the radar”…
Good points Brian.
Thankfully, the salary and what his “job” is came out. Transparency is needed in any form of political contribution.
The limits are ridiculous. The situation right now is biased towards candidates that can self-finance (like Scott Peters) while everyone else has to find $2.5K donors all over the place. This then creates the weird super-pac rules where a candidate may find a supportive billionaire but the billionaire can’t give them money directly but instead can hire a consultant to run “uncoordinated” ads.
Let’s drop the rules but require more transparency. Every ad or commercial you make you have to legibly list your top 10 donors (instead of the lame “I’m X and I approve this message). Then people can choose if they side with candidate and his/her backers.
“Where Jacobs is using “stockholder” money, the RPSD will be using membership and donor funds to push “their” guys for what sadly appears as concerns more about city-centric commercial development agendas and not the best candidate.”
I see the analogy but I think you’re forgetting an all important difference between the two; mission.
QCOM is a commercial enterprise, formed to serve customers and make a profit. The RPSDC is a political organization, designed to promote the election of public policy makers. QCOM is spending stockholders’ money on something which has little or nothing to do with their mission where the RPSDC is spending money on exactly what the donors want.
The good news is that both organizations are voluntary. QCOM stockholders have a ready and liquid market for shares and RPSDC donors can simply stop giving if they don’t like the results.
“QCOM is spending stockholders’ money on something which has little or nothing to do with their mission…”
This is a statement that, unless you get to sit in their boardroom, you are not informed to make. Companies oftentimes find stakeholder value is making such connections to their communities and local civic systems. I cannot speak for QCom or its industry, but it is true for large companies throughout the nation.
BB,
I agree, my friend, with the construct you have illustrated from an ideal view point…yes, the RPSDC “should” be promoting “policy makers” and it “should” be spending money on exactly what the donors want…however, the crass and nepotistic approach as highlighted in the VOSD article doesn’t appear to do either.
Yes, “a” policy maker will emerge, and yes, donor money will be spent, but the lack of transparency and apparent back-room dealings we Republicans often accuse and become so incensed with Dems and their union/media/special interest cabals as another comment aptly described, is at issue here.
The “Party” is the throughput and the mouth piece for what the membership and donors wish to lever and exercise. However, they only know, often, what the leadership tells them, and what the leadership is willing to support. Case in point; Carl DeMaio was allowed to speak at the last RPSDC meeting, ostensibly to introduce Faulconer. However, he is also a candidate for 52CD…as is Jorgensen, and ostensibly, Francis…they were not afforded the same exposure or opportunity as DeMaio was…just as in the back-room deal…
Takes us full circle to are original discussions; Many who have left the RPSDC and others unwilling to engage see what I talked about before..a lack of transparency, nepotism, and a small-oligarchic group of agenda driven leaders in key, select positions to tacitly, or directly influence the otherwise natural course of events by subtly allow somethings while disallowing, perhaps pressuring, or outright threatening some if they display a modicum of “not being on board” with the agenda…
In reality, I can’t think of a construct more un-American than that. As discussed before…it’s a branding issue as well as a moral one.
“Companies oftentimes find stakeholder value is making such connections to their communities and local civic systems”
You’re absolutely correct; it’s called rotarian socialism and it’s a more insidious brand of evil than real socialism. It’s evil dressed up in a Brooks Brothers suit.
You really can’t blame corporate America for rent-seeking though. We’ve permitted our government to penalize and subsidize businesses rather than adjudicating claims between them. My goodness, we have a whole industry dedicated to teaching the rent seekers how to game the kleptocracy. I guess QCOM is just playing the game.
Hey – good to see the Magic Democrat now supports the plastic bag ban. Too bad he couldn’t find a way to vote on it when in the Assembly (AB 1998 in the 2010 session)
Yes, QCom is just playing the game, but your cynicism is at least partially misdirected. These roles aren’t just for seeking freebies. To go back to my initial example, they are also part of the process for staving off the unnecessary and over-burdensome regulations and compliance costs that are inherent to a regulatory structure that infringes on capitalist freedoms, or for something as simple as to get a permit to build something.
DMorton-
Let’s start with our area of agreement– government is doing far too much….to help some and hurt many businesses
I am cynical because I know the source of government regulations– the industry players who are being regulated. When the rotarians (I use that term figuratively) use government, to eliminate their competition, I fail to see how that distinguishes them from the mafia.
I don’t have to be in a corporate boardroom to see the anti-capitalist tripe which it produces.
But gosh…to own the mayor of a big, prosperous city like San Diego? Even I might like that !
Brian,
Didn’t Qualcomm get the previous Mayor to allow them to temporarily change the name of the football stadium without paying the City for that privilege? Big Business has owned many a Mayor well before this election cycle began.
I think so, HQ. I recall it being “Snapdragon Stadium” for a few bowl games
BB: there is definitely more agreement between us than disagreement; as we would both prefer that the role of government make positions such as Fletcher’s pointless. However, we have also seen the exact same thing happen with the ‘secret meeting’ (cue Dr. Evil mannerisms) that Scott Lewis at Voice recently wrote an expose on? Are you willing to criticize that along the same lines? Am I somehow supposed to believe that Manchester, Sudbury, et al. are more benevolent?
“Are you willing to criticize that along the same lines?”
No because I think the lines are different. A group of people gathered and suggested that the candidates present for their support. Those candidates did and that group of people agreed to support one candidate. When I do that with mt friends, it’s called a Republican Liberty Caucus endorsement
“Am I somehow supposed to believe that Manchester, Sudbury, et al. are more benevolent?”
It’s their money so they can do what they want. I think those guys are more aligned with me than say…George Soros
BB,
I think what D. Morton and others see (fear) is the perception of impropriety. That is precisely why we don’t like Soros, that he has that “monocle/white cat” thing going on…it seems shady, hidden, spurious. It may not be…and I’ll stipulate (to you, because you are open, direct, and engaging) that perhaps in the aggregate, it isn’t. Yet, it is a real dilemma to consider…were the candidates in the room there with the “heavies” because they wanted their money??…or were the “heavies” in the room because they wanted to influence/impact these candidates…for whatever reason?
It is the undeniable perception of back-rooms, “grafty” dealings, and non-transparency that many find distasteful and unethical…the things Republicans often despise(d) about the nexus of democrat-controlled unions/media/special interests fueled by guys like Soros.
But, I’m an optimist. I think there are a lot of folks that are coming around to Kirk Jorgensen and his straight-forward/no-non-sense approach as a proven, competent, and capable leader in real crisis and a man-of-the-people that is rapidly becoming for many as both easily identifiable and truly relatable…and not as a career politician (i.e. Peters or DeMaio).
I dislike George Soros because of his political philosophy. Not because of perception or the type of pet he owns.
There was no “deal” made in the meeting. Why would private citizens need to be transparent to you regarding the way they spend their money, FF?
“were the candidates in the room there with the “heavies” because they wanted their money??…or were the “heavies” in the room because they wanted to influence/impact these candidates…for whatever reason? ”
Both. I want to influence elections otherwise I would be spending 10-12 hours a week more with my family than I am now.
Heck, you want to influence elections because you’re spending an awful lot of time changing subjects here to your candidate; I appreciate that.
The question you should ask “WHY does _____ want tio influence elections”? In my case, I want people elected to office who shrink rather than grow government. In QCOM’s case, they are rent-seeking.
You might call Messrs. Sudberry and Manchester and ask them their reasons.
YK…keep swinging…you’ll eventually hit the ball… 😉
BB,
OK…influence…got it. I think people’s consciences will be their guides. Again, I’m an optimist at heart. If the process isn’t “too” influenced, then like-minded, ethical, moral, practical, and informed people will come to like-minded conclusions on the candidates. It’s just a matter of time before they will begin to see the stark differences in positions, policies, character, and competency. Many already have!!
I’m looking forward to some debates.
We’ll repeat the question for anyone that may want to answer…
“Why would private citizens need to be transparent to anyone else regarding the way they spend their money?”
Discussion?
Bottom line-
They don’t…
There is no requirement for a major developer, a media mogul, the Chairman of the County Republican Party, among others, in this case to disclose how they will spend their money, for whom, and under what circumstances…what quid pro quos might be generated, or how they plan on edging out other candidates or potentially vested donors or voters that weren’t afforded a seat at the table. I wasn’t there…and no one cares that I wasn’t there…not even me…but, eventually, people will ask, “Why?” Why these guys…why with only “those candidates?”…
I’ve never said it was illegal…nor unacceptable in certain circles (like Dems with media/unions/and special interests…oh, and apparently some advocates on the SD Rostra rolls), I am saying it isn’t kosher…that it smells funny…that it appears hinky and suspicious…and, even though it may generate some scrutiny, and some follow on investigative reporting, even provide fodder for Peters and others as campaigns and debates loom…it is permissible and I am not in a position to stop, thwart, or otherwise curtail their ability to do so.
It doesn’t mean I have to like it, or agree with it, or not make comments on its perception of impropriety…and the voters get to as well.
Brian,
“A group of people gathered and suggested that the candidates present for their support. Those candidates did and that group of people agreed to support one candidate. When I do that with my friends, it’s called a Republican Liberty Caucus endorsement.”
The difference, of course, is that candidates don’t agree to drop out of the race if they don’t get your endorsement.
I’ve read Leviticus forward and back. I’ve yet to find the section pertaining to kosher law and political spending.
When asking “why?” the answer is simple: it’s their money. Who else would be in a room deciding how to spend it other than them?
You can like or dislike it, but making comments on the impropriety of a secret meeting we all know about and basing that accusation on your understanding of kosher law is a less than honorable act, FF.
A group of people with money asked each other their opinion and then based their political spending accordingly. The rest of your assertion is fantasy.
“There is no requirement for…”
there is also no obligation. Or reason. Or interest. Or purpose. Or responsibility.
Didn’t the story mention a poll? If they based their decision on how they are going to spend their own money on the results of a poll, why are you so against what they found the San Diego voters want? Because, that is who they polled. San Diegan voters.
Hypocrisy, according to the story not all candidates made that agreement.
Michael,
True, but the one who didn’t agree at the time dropped out of consideration soon after. We can justify it anyway we like, but I don’t think the general public would be too happy knowing that a few rich and powerful people get to decide which (of the serious) candidates get to run for Mayor.
Author
“The difference, of course, is that candidates don’t agree to drop out of the race if they don’t get your endorsement.”
I guess that’s something to shoot for 🙂
There really isn’t difference between what the Manchester, Sudbury, et al funders are doing, and what the QCom chair is doing. In both cases, private money is being spent. The only difference is that one worked as a coalition, the other as an individual. The crux is the idiocy of criticizing one while defending the other. BB’s points about why he’ll support one, but not the other, are actually the argument that they are the same.
Here is where there is a difference (this one is for you Michael Schwartz!): in the Manchester/Sudbury/et al meeting sat a “volunteer” who is ostensibly supposed to be leading the Republican movement in our county, building our coalitions, and empowering Republican voters through participation, turnout, voter registration, etc. Private citizens and organizations can and should do what they will. The RPSD is an entity legally defined in CA election law. Krvaric’s participation in this conclave accomplishes the exact opposite, and is deplorable.
D. Morton. Yes, it’s “private money.” Privately owned funds. Does that make it the same? Only in your fantasy parallel universe.
When I (or Sudbury ET AL) write a check to a candidate, it comes out of MY account, and is NOT deductible. When Jacobs “pays” Fletcher $400K to do imaginary work for Qualcomm, it’s paid by SHAREHOLDERS (it’s not just the Jacobs family money), and the corporation writes it off as a tax deduction (which means that about 40% of the salary/contribution is, in reality, paid by taxpayers).
Morton, somehow I suspect that if Qualcomm (or Manchester) did that for a Tea Party-endorsed candidate, you’d be incensed. Imagine it’s the evil Koch brothers doing what Jacobs is doing — liberals would be apoplectic.
But then, ye old double standard is actually part of the Democrat Party platform, isn’t it?
RR: Snarky, but dead wrong. Shareholder money is private, as is the decision to invest in a company and/or votes of confidence in the management that shareholders entrust their investments to. It is nobody’s place but theirs to make judgments on how management is handling their business. Including yours.
What IS a part of the Democrat Party platform is thinking that your political judgment should be substituted for that of the many QComm shareholders who (until action is taken to prove otherwise) are seemingly confident in how their management runs their investments.