Esslinger position on campaign contributions seems hypocritical
During his appearance on Eye on Oshkosh before February’s primary election, Paul Esslinger talked about special interest groups and what he perceives as their efforts to “buy” Common Council votes through campaign contributions. Esslinger has also made it known that he believes council members should abstain from voting on issues involving such contributors, though I don’t recall him ever saying where he thought the line should be drawn or how it should be determined which contributions must be considered in voting and which ones don’t need to be. For example, if someone gives $25 to a candidate’s campaign and that candidate is elected to office, should they later abstain from voting on a street project that affects that person’s property? See how crazy something like that could get?
In any event, soon after Esslinger’s comments were made public, different examples were given by people of situations where he did not recuse himself from votes on issues affecting supporters and/or contributors. But in true Esslinger fashion he offered “explanations” why those situations didn’t count. Despite his efforts, it appeared there existed a double standard, some hypocrisy or maybe just flawed thinking on Esslinger’s part with respect to these kinds of donations. On March 14 his logic looked even more twisted.
During that evening’s regular Oshkosh Common Council meeting, in what seemed to be nothing short of a self-serving speech during campaign season, Esslinger announced he would be abstaining from voting on an issue that involved one of his campaign contributors. I had no problem with that part and if he wants to abstain from voting because of that reason, so be it. I can’t even say I disagree entirely with his decision. But it was what followed next that I found bizarre and think made Esslinger sound ridiculous, particularly in light of his other comments of late. In making the announcement he basically said that he legally didn't have to abstain, but that he didn't want to give anyone the impression that his vote was being bought - though he then added that such a belief on someone's part would not have been true. He even said something to the effect that the person who made the contribution was an upstanding citizen.
That may all be true but that particular portion of his announcement seemed very odd and hypocritical to me. Esslinger essentially seemed to be saying that (a) some campaign contributors are upstanding citizens and others aren't, and more significantly (b) contributions to some candidates' campaigns are made in an effort to try buying those people's votes, but when made to his own campaign, nothing could be further from the truth. Interesting philosophy, don't you think?
Esslinger and a handful or less of others lately have also asked the question: Why would people who don't live in Oshkosh donate to someone's campaign unless they were trying to buy influence and votes? I realize some of these "outside" contributors are business people with interests in the city and some people may suspect that the contributions were or are made by these particular people with the hopes that they will be looked upon favorably in future business dealings. But the same suspicion could be raised about people who DO live in the city. I'm not saying that's why anyone – city resident and taxpayer or out of town business/property owner in the city – contributes to a campaign. But it just seems if the question is going to be asked for one group of people it needs to be asked of all. And shame on Paul Esslinger for suggesting that there is automatically something suspect or amiss just because a person or group contributes to certain people’s campaigns and not his, yet he adamantly states there is nothing wrong when business owners and the like donate to his campaign. Could it be they have all contributed because they like what their candidates of choice stand for, and that’s it? I think so. As has been stated time and time again by several others, it is unlikely someone can be bought for a mere $100 or so donation.
Whatever the reason, the bottom line here is Esslinger still seems to have one set of standards that apply to issues involving his own contributors/supporters and another that applies to others'.
- Cheryl
In any event, soon after Esslinger’s comments were made public, different examples were given by people of situations where he did not recuse himself from votes on issues affecting supporters and/or contributors. But in true Esslinger fashion he offered “explanations” why those situations didn’t count. Despite his efforts, it appeared there existed a double standard, some hypocrisy or maybe just flawed thinking on Esslinger’s part with respect to these kinds of donations. On March 14 his logic looked even more twisted.
During that evening’s regular Oshkosh Common Council meeting, in what seemed to be nothing short of a self-serving speech during campaign season, Esslinger announced he would be abstaining from voting on an issue that involved one of his campaign contributors. I had no problem with that part and if he wants to abstain from voting because of that reason, so be it. I can’t even say I disagree entirely with his decision. But it was what followed next that I found bizarre and think made Esslinger sound ridiculous, particularly in light of his other comments of late. In making the announcement he basically said that he legally didn't have to abstain, but that he didn't want to give anyone the impression that his vote was being bought - though he then added that such a belief on someone's part would not have been true. He even said something to the effect that the person who made the contribution was an upstanding citizen.
That may all be true but that particular portion of his announcement seemed very odd and hypocritical to me. Esslinger essentially seemed to be saying that (a) some campaign contributors are upstanding citizens and others aren't, and more significantly (b) contributions to some candidates' campaigns are made in an effort to try buying those people's votes, but when made to his own campaign, nothing could be further from the truth. Interesting philosophy, don't you think?
Esslinger and a handful or less of others lately have also asked the question: Why would people who don't live in Oshkosh donate to someone's campaign unless they were trying to buy influence and votes? I realize some of these "outside" contributors are business people with interests in the city and some people may suspect that the contributions were or are made by these particular people with the hopes that they will be looked upon favorably in future business dealings. But the same suspicion could be raised about people who DO live in the city. I'm not saying that's why anyone – city resident and taxpayer or out of town business/property owner in the city – contributes to a campaign. But it just seems if the question is going to be asked for one group of people it needs to be asked of all. And shame on Paul Esslinger for suggesting that there is automatically something suspect or amiss just because a person or group contributes to certain people’s campaigns and not his, yet he adamantly states there is nothing wrong when business owners and the like donate to his campaign. Could it be they have all contributed because they like what their candidates of choice stand for, and that’s it? I think so. As has been stated time and time again by several others, it is unlikely someone can be bought for a mere $100 or so donation.
Whatever the reason, the bottom line here is Esslinger still seems to have one set of standards that apply to issues involving his own contributors/supporters and another that applies to others'.
- Cheryl
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 8:57 PM
<< Home