The Tampa Bay Times did not cover revelations that St. Pete City Council candidate Lisa Wheeler-Brown failed to report a $500 dental procedure paid for by campaign funds for more than six months. In doing so, four months’ worth of free office space from a local nonprofit haven’t been reported either.
It’s a likely damning mark on Wheeler-Brown’s campaign, considering an elections law expert told SaintPetersblog the flurry of infractions is worthy of an election commission investigation and, in his opinion, likely to be found in violation of laws.
That’s a big deal. Yet The Times remains silent on the issue.
It’s not surprising it would veer away from facts so harmful to the candidate the paper endorsed. After all, its protecting a $500 million city investment.
According to a Times analysis of the economic impact of a continued City Council stalemate over letting the Tampa Bay Rays explore other stadium sites outside of St. Pete, gluing the team to Tropicana Field until their contract expires in 2028 would cost the city a half billion dollars in spending.
Wheeler-Brown supports St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Rays that would allow the team to start looking. Her opponent, Will Newton, does not. Because the incumbent that one of these two candidates would replace is a no-vote, a Wheeler-Brown win would move the MOU. It is the sole reason The Times endorsed her over him.
Now they are avoiding news critical to Wheeler-Brown’s campaign.
And then there’s this to consider: How does it make The Times’ editorial board look to back a candidate who may have broken at least one, if not several, election laws?
As of the last polling numbers, Wheeler-Brown was leading Newton. But that poll was taken before SaintPetersblog broke the news about the dental kerfluffle. It’s not clear whether the questionable campaign finance activity will knock her down in the polls or not.
What is clear from social media action around the story is, her hard core supporters aren’t backing down. They called the story non-news. Some argued it was a piece bought and paid for by the Newton campaign. Others criticized it as a regurgitated press release.
First, it is very much news (the stuff papers like The Times usually would jump all over) because there are three potential violations of election laws. Second, if anyone is going to argue the bought and paid for bit, perhaps they should consider The Times also survives on advertising dollars. As for the regurgitated press release argument, if driving to City Hall to review campaign finance reports, analyzing them, reviewing every past report, talking to a legal expert and contacting the nonprofit named in an incorrect report counts as regurgitating a press release than, sure.
What’s so troubling is, those who readily dismiss facts coming out of a campaign just because they don’t like the news are only going to be more fueled by The Times’ silence on the issue. That’s a dangerous thing to contribute to democracy when The Times is supposed to be a pillar for holding government leaders and those seeking office accountable for their actions.
Instead, their silence is condoning the errors.
It looks like the Tampa Bay Times has chosen not to report on this because it either makes the paper look bad for endorsing Wheeler-Brown or because the powers that be don’t want to shine a light on Wheeler-Brown’s campaign troubles. And don’t for a second buy into any argument that it was skipped over because it had already been reported. News outlets re-report news broken by other outlets every day.
