On pay to play and two gov’t jobs

Dear Editor:

When it comes to being forced into having one government salary, I believe it’s preposterous to indicate that anyone should no longer be able to work two jobs, whether their second job is in office depot or City Hall, be it in a blue uniform or brown. If a man or a woman has the strength and energy to hold two offices, putting in 12 to 16 hour days, whether it is in the private sector or in government as a civil servant (one cannot survive on a councilperson’s salary alone), what should it matter? More power to him or her.

We live in America, the land of the free and in most cases, these second jobs are attained and achieved by being elected by the people who count the most, the registered voters themselves. These are the people that will not let themselves fall victim to false persuasion; which brings me to the pay to play Ordinance. This too is merely a way of false persuasion, and when you really look at it, it’s just another means of prejudice. If a businessman wants to donate money to city candidates, it should be his or her right to do so, and they should be able to donate as much money as they like. It’s their money, and they have earned the right to do whatever they want with it. Setting limits violates free speech as well as equal protection provisions of the constitution, discriminating against the poor, middle class and minorities. Setting limits will make it more difficult for the poor, middle class and minorities to run because they come from areas stricken by poverty where their neighbors cannot contribute, so they are left no choice but to count on businessmen for donations.

I am proud to be a resident of the United States, being able to practice freedom of speech and stating this opinion that a true and real activist and/or civil leader, that sticks up for the poor, middle class and minorities will have none of it, will not stand for it and will do something about it. You don’t need to have money to respect yourself. If new limits are in place, so many good people who care to respect themselves by being voted into office will not be able to run because they just won’t be able to afford to do so. These limits will only make it more difficult for these individuals to get their message across.

Campaign limits are constitutionally untenable because they place a bull’s eye on the back of some entities doing business with the city and not others like neighborhood organizations and labor unions. Setting limits hurt true and real voices of our community by limiting their ability to raise money. It’s no secret that money wins elections. Registered voters should be educated on this matter and not fall into a trap set mostly in part by false persuasion.

James Francis Waddleton


© 2000, Newspaper Media Group