
THE GUARDIAN has been following the latest brohaha over developer contributions to Commishes election campaigns just before a land use case is heard on appeal. We would offer the following for your consideration:
We did not elect these folks because they are saints. On the other hand we would like to think they are looking out for what is best for the folks who put them in office and are taking a long view of what is best in any given situation.
Everyone knows (or should know) we aren't going to be pleased with what our elected officials do 100%of the time. It would simply be an unrealistic expectation for all concerned if you disagree with the previous statement.
The first ammendment to the constitution allows freedom of speech and campaign contributions are a part of that free speech. That said, our elected officials owe it to the people who put them into office to not have even the slightest hint of the "APPEARANCE OF EVIL" on or off the job. When a developer and the realtor of a project contribute money to a Commishes campaign who will hear the appeal, it is more than a little suspect. The money is rightfuly viewed as influence buying of the worst sort by more than a few of the folks these guys work for (that would be the voters).
THE GUARDIAN finds himself agreeing with Mr. Bujack's thinking that no laws were probably broken here due to the free speech issue. However, an exchange of money in circumstances like this is a breach of community trust and calls the ethics of this into question. You can't put Humpty Dumpty back together on this deal. It is hoped the Commishes have learned a valuable lesson in the art of Public Trust with this dreadful episode with the money changers in the public temple.









