It’s not every day I decide to swap my pronouns from the likes of “they” and “its” to the first person “I,” “Me,” and “My.” But today seems like a good day.
I’ve been catching a lot of flak from people who support Lisa Wheeler-Brown for St. Pete City Council District 7. For those of you who may not have been following along, I started what has turned out to be a pretty nasty series of allegations.
See, Wheeler-Brown spent $500 of campaign cash to fix a tooth. A lot of people think that’s a misuse of funds and may even be illegal.
Worse, she didn’t report the expense for more than six months. The revelation when the expense was finally added to reports steamrolled into a host of others campaign whoopsies including not reporting in-kind contributions and overall sloppy bookkeeping.
Wheeler-Brown supporters have called me out for having an agenda – one that includes smearing her in order to boost her opponent’s chance of winning.
That would be Will Newton and, before I really dig in here, let me just say these Wheeler-Brown supporters have some reason to think that’s the case. First, Peter Schorsch, the papa bear of SaintPetersblog, penned an article quite critical of Wheeler-Brown accusing her of being a rubber stamp for Mayor Rick Kriseman. That was after Schorsch donated $500 to her campaign. And he’s also been known to write critically of candidates he openly supports including political powerhouses like Jack Latvala and Charlie Crist
And for the record, the Newton campaign has purchased advertising on our website.
Now that those skeletons are out of the bag, let’s take a look at what is really happening here.
I’m a reporter. I report on facts. Period. It doesn’t matter if I love it or hate it. It’s my job to report it.
Wheeler-Brown supporters, you may not think it’s a big deal that your candidate used campaign donations to pay for personal dental work, but there are a lot of people in this city who may think otherwise.
You may think it’s OK that she made a series of “rookie mistakes” in her campaign finance reports, but some people might not want to vote for a candidate who can’t get her books straight.
And the bottom line is, whatever side of that you’re on, it’s OK.
My job is to present the facts. Your job is to determine which of those facts you think are relevant and use them to formulate your own opinion.
Here’s something I hesitate to admit, but think a lot of folks are going to find shocking.
I’ve reported on every single whisper of scandal coming out of this campaign. But guess what …
I still have not decided which of these two candidates I want to vote for. I’ve met with Wheeler-Brown. She’s a lovely woman with a touching story of both loss and triumph.
When I think about her losing her son to gun violence and then bringing his killer to justice, it brings tears to my eyes. That’s a woman of resolve and strength. So maybe she can be given a pass on the “rookie mistakes.”
Or maybe that’s not someone I want voting on the city budget. I’m just really not sure yet.
You know what I am sure of? I sure am glad I have all the knowledge I have to make a truly informed decision.
And that’s not even the only thing to talk about here. My reporting looks lopsided. It’s become a scenario where SaintPetersblog is pro-Newton and the Tampa Bay Times is pro-Wheeler-Brown.
I’m not going to sugarcoat it: That’s definitely what it looks like. But perhaps readers should consider a few things when evaluating why that is.
First, reporters do a lot of their own digging. I found the dental expense because I was fishing through campaign finance documents at City Hall. But after that, tips started rolling in from all sorts of anonymous voters or various other interested parties.
I get emails, Facebook messages, direct Twitter messages, telephone calls and text messages speculating on all sorts of things negative toward Wheeler-Brown, and I’ve only reported on a tiny fraction of those tips. Many were too petty to even bother with. Others were cheap shots. Some were just not provable and entirely speculative.
Meanwhile, I’ve heard next to nothing from Wheeler-Brown supporters. I continue my due diligence in analyzing campaign finance reports and checking through various public records and simply haven’t found the same amount of skeletons in the Newton campaign as I have in the Wheeler-Brown campaign.
The only thing going on in Team Newton is his past tax lien totaling more than $30,000. The campaign won’t provide any sort of proof of what went on to create such a giant tax bill and instead only offered a spoken clarification that it was the result of independent contractor work done as a union leader for the St. Pete firefighter’s union.
I point out that little nugget in just about every piece I write in regard to this campaign.
Just one more thing. To those who think this is some sort of witch-hunt aimed at squashing Wheeler-Brown’s campaign, think about how you’d have reacted to the same news if it had come out of Newton’s campaign.
Based on my experience covering these sort of things, I’d put good money on the fact that the supporters who cry the loudest about “negative coverage” are the same ones who would have taken Newton to the cleaners had he made the same mistakes.
Then try this one on for size. The Tampa Bay Times endorsed Wheeler-Brown and then ignored allegations of campaign finance violations for several days before begrudgingly writing about it. So yes, I absolutely called them out for it. Not because of a vendetta, but because it’s what we in the biz call, you know, news.
Now voters, take the information I have offered over the past several months and make an educated decision about who you will vote for and know that under no circumstances do I give a rat’s patoot who you choose.
This is what Democracy looks like.
