Kristin Jacobs Fund Raiser: The Usual Suspects


I like Kristin Jacobs.  I really do.

She styles herself a reformer and a “green” candidate.

But being a politician means begging lobbyists and big business owners to fund your campaign.  Whether you are green or not.

Being a politician means you’ll take money from rock pit owners (Ron Bergeron, Austin Forman and Bill Murphy) …even if you are green. Kristin, I’m sure, would point out that rock pits are a legitimate business.Without them, roads and homes would be a lot more expensive. And all three are primarily real estate investors, rock pits being only one investment.

Being a politician also means you’ve got to take money from guys touched by the Tamarac corruption scandal (Alex Heckler).  After all, Heckler has not been charged with anything. He just was so close to the dirty deeds he witnessed a lot.

Bernie Friedman, Neil Schiller, W. George Allen, George Platt and Aleida “Ali” Waldman.  They are all lobbyists at the county commission at various times.  Lobbying is a profession that dates back to Roman and Greek times. Done the right way, it is perfectly legal.

I am not writing this to disparage Kristin Jacobs.  I just believe in total transparency.

And the invitation below goes to prove that the only green that really counts in politics is money.

(click to enlarge).


14 Responses to “Kristin Jacobs Fund Raiser: The Usual Suspects”

  1. DeeDee says:

    All these people come to Jacobs for favors at the county commission. They will want payback.

  2. ann says:

    Kind of shows you just how useless our new ethics laws are!

    Because if it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

  3. Cindy Loo Who says:

    You know, at least Kristin had the guts to call it like it is. It takes money to win…at least she’s honest. And if she maintains her honesty as a member of Congress, we’ll all be the better for it.

  4. get real!! says:

    Kristin is no reformer. She is just like Lois Frankel…she intimidated Gunzburger and LaMarca to support her as Vice-Mayor. Only Chip fell for it, she screwed him on the first map vote, then she relized she “made a mistake” and changed her vote last week. Let’s see if she changes her vote next week on Dale. Judy Stern ran her first campaign, so she aint no saint. KJ is sneaky, slimy and just like ALL POLITICIANS!

  5. Pleeeese says:

    The video posted on the sunsentinel tells it all. Kristin is no breath of fresh air…she is part of the same old, same old group that thinks everything they do is ok. The host list on the fundraising flyer tells it all…she’s gonna shake down people who appear in front of her on the commission. Chan Lowe was right about her.

  6. Real Deal says:

    The same old tired song about campaign finance. Until we go to public financing of campaigns this story line will remain a pointless waste of time.

    Unless you’re a millionaire willing to finance your own campaign, without public campaign funds, you are forced to raise money publicly. Those willing to chip in are the usual suspects.

    Blaming the politicians for doing the necessary to run for office is a cheap shot when the public obviously couldn’t give a shit how they raise the money. It is a self-indulgent journey for political insiders that has no base of resonance in the general voting population otherwise they would demand reform which they are not doing.

    Change the rules or get off the pot.


    Campaign financing by individuals and corporations has been repeatedly upheld as free speech by the courts. It probably won’t change….at least in my lifetime.

    And just how would campaign financing for Congress work? Who would qualify?

    It is no surprise that these people on the invitation support Jacobs. They all want something from the county commission either now or in the future. Not one of them has shown a great interest in Congress.

    I always find it interesting to see who cares so much about a county commission vote that they are willing to grease it with campaign contributions.

    In my opinion, folks deserve to know that. Then they can make up their own mind.

  7. observer says:

    The constant allegation that someone is doing something wrong by accepting money from people invovled with government is getting silly at this point. If there is not going to be public funding of campaigns, who is supposed to contribute to candidates?

  8. ExCompassionate Conservative says:

    I went to her website again

    to find out what she stands for, what policies she wants to work towards and what she is about.

    All I can do is be solicited for money on her web site.

    A Federal Highway street walker offers more info than her web site and you don’t need to give her your name and email address either. What’s up with that Buddy?

  9. Le Peerman says:

    Hit the wrong key.
    It is not the people donating the money that you have to trust it is the one receiving it. You have believe that a person’s vote can not be bought by $$ to believe in that person. As for the green thing that is really up to Kristen’s conscience, and at this point we do not know if she will return money given by those that go against her belief. Just because Americans Against Hate may come to a fund raiser I might have does not mean I am going to accept a donation from them. That would go against my conscience. I have said it before $5 gets you the same thing $500 does, a commissioner who works for the residents.

    Call me cynical, but in my experience the guy who gives $500 (usually more because each of these guys on the invitation are good for thousands, both from themselves and bundled.) get better access to the office holder. The contributor who has access has an advantage when making a case for themselves or a client.

    There is a reason that some of these people have been fixtures at the Government Center for a generation. They are successful. They know how to cosy up to commissioners, plying them with campaign cash and (before the ethics laws) other goodies like free meals and vacations.

    Campaign contributions are a business expense. They don’t generally have a political philosophy, one way or the other. At least one of the people on this invitation is a large Republican contributor!

  10. Real Democrat for Frankel says:

    What Buddy is saying is that Jacobs is a hypocrite because she claims she is different from other politicians and she is just the same.

  11. Local D says:

    Frankel has been raising money for months and has over a $1 mil.
    Hasner has about 900k in his coffers.
    Kristin is just getting into this race.
    So ask yourselves, do we want a BROWARD politician representing a mostly Broward district, or a Republican from Boca or a former mayor from Palm Beach.
    I for one will be donating to Kristin’s campaign because I like her and her convictions.
    Anyone who wants representation for their issues here in Broward should consider doing the same, and I thank these individuals for throwing a fundraiser for her.

  12. Goofyzhit says:

    Buddy I understand your response the real deal post makes a valid point. If the argument is circular because it goes nowhere then what is the point of raising it? Besides, while the government may not be able to restrict companies from giving money, it can restrict candidates from taking it. It can also appropriate to fund campaigns. I looked it up and it seems possible to do public financing where the government has that will while not violating anyone’s rights.

  13. GOPapa says:

    What good is public financing when the Supreme Court says anybody can’t buy their seat? Just look at Gov. Rick Scott. I don’t want the government tellng us how much we can or can’t spend on elections. Yes, corporations can buy elections now. So can unions and abortion activists.
    The motives of these contributors Jacobs are clear and it is to buy votes.

  14. Real Deal says:

    For the very reason Buddy mentions there should be campaign finance reform.

    The perception should be eliminated that officials pay favorites based on who gives them campaign funds. Governments should restrict officials from accepting private contributions. Government funds should be used when running for office based on some significant showing of support (petition) by voters.

    Doing it this way removes all doubt, makes campaigns cleaner and will cost citizens much less in the long run.

    It may not legal for government tell a company that they cannot contribute to a campaign. But it is perfectly legal for government to tell a candidate that they can only use government funds to run for office. The difference there is huge but legal.

    People have to stop saying that public financing is not legally possible. That is not true.

    However, if we refuse to make this change then let’s stop the senseless bellyaching and just deal with it. It truly is one or the other. Change or get off the pot.

    Putting the onus on government sounds like a good idea. You still have the problem of a wealthy candidate. I don’t know how the court would rule if somebody wanted to spend their own money. Short of that, it sound plausible.

    However, there is little will of our electeds to do anything about this.