You are here
A Recall Effort in Miami-Dade: Pros and Cons
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Update: December 16, 2012 (see below)
The news has been full of information about billionaires sponsoring, secretly and publicly, independent ads supporting and attacking candidates as well as ballot initiatives. For instance, according to a new report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the top 20 richest Americans and their companies contributed $22.6 million to state-level candidates and political committees from 2005 through 2008.
But what are these billionaires doing at the local level? According to an article in the Miami Herald, in Miami-Dade County one billionaire is using his financial punch to fund a recall effort against the mayor. A year ago, he backed another candidate, the mayor of the city of Miami, and since that didn't work, he's trying again.
Recalls appear to be the perfect way to ensure an elected official's accountability. Even the threat of recall should keep an elected official from ignoring the public interest.
But there are problems with this seemingly perfect activity. One is that, because it is very expensive to do, it favors the opinions of the wealthy and corporate interests. For instance, in this case the biggest reason for the recall effort is the government's raising of property taxes; this harms everyone, but most of all those who own a lot of property.
But this recall, like most recalls, isn't just about policy. The county commission also voted for the property tax hike, but there is no recall effort against the commission majority. One reason, apparently, is that some of them are political colleagues of the city mayor, whom the billionaire supports. Policies may be what is talked about, but politics is usually what drives a recall effort. It is the perfect thing for poor losers to do while they're waiting for the next election.
Speaking of election, another problem with recalls is the recall election itself. It's a special election. Not only are special elections expensive (the billionaire won't be paying for the election; taxpayers will), but few people vote in them. And guess who is more likely to vote: those who really want the bum out, or those who want to let him see his term out? The Herald article notes that most recall efforts that get on the ballot end up being successful.
The Eye on Miami blog made a good point in a September 23 post. It noted that a Miami-Dade county commissioner was recalled, and then re-elected. In other words, even popular officials can be recalled. The effort ends up just being disruptive.
The blog calls on the billionaire to drop the recall effort and instead educate voters about the mayor and commissioners' poor decisions and set up a watchdog group to provide ongoing oversight. In the long run, this would be far more valuable than a recall. But that's a good government approach, and recall is a political approach. A political approach is different in that it takes sides.
It is depressing to see that extremely wealthy individuals are taking over citizen initiatives at the local level, just as at the state level. What was intended to be a way for citizens to act when an elected official gets out of control is now just another tactic for individuals to either push their own agenda or get political revenge. In other words, it's a way for an unelected individual to put his personal interest ahead of the public interest, seeking accountability from others, but not from himself.
Update: December 16, 2012
According to an article in the Economist, in Lima, Peru a recall law is being used against a new mayor who has been trying to curb corruption. It appears that much of the support for the recall effort is coming from the corrupt businesses and politicians who will benefit from having her out of office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The news has been full of information about billionaires sponsoring, secretly and publicly, independent ads supporting and attacking candidates as well as ballot initiatives. For instance, according to a new report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the top 20 richest Americans and their companies contributed $22.6 million to state-level candidates and political committees from 2005 through 2008.
But what are these billionaires doing at the local level? According to an article in the Miami Herald, in Miami-Dade County one billionaire is using his financial punch to fund a recall effort against the mayor. A year ago, he backed another candidate, the mayor of the city of Miami, and since that didn't work, he's trying again.
Recalls appear to be the perfect way to ensure an elected official's accountability. Even the threat of recall should keep an elected official from ignoring the public interest.
But there are problems with this seemingly perfect activity. One is that, because it is very expensive to do, it favors the opinions of the wealthy and corporate interests. For instance, in this case the biggest reason for the recall effort is the government's raising of property taxes; this harms everyone, but most of all those who own a lot of property.
But this recall, like most recalls, isn't just about policy. The county commission also voted for the property tax hike, but there is no recall effort against the commission majority. One reason, apparently, is that some of them are political colleagues of the city mayor, whom the billionaire supports. Policies may be what is talked about, but politics is usually what drives a recall effort. It is the perfect thing for poor losers to do while they're waiting for the next election.
Speaking of election, another problem with recalls is the recall election itself. It's a special election. Not only are special elections expensive (the billionaire won't be paying for the election; taxpayers will), but few people vote in them. And guess who is more likely to vote: those who really want the bum out, or those who want to let him see his term out? The Herald article notes that most recall efforts that get on the ballot end up being successful.
The Eye on Miami blog made a good point in a September 23 post. It noted that a Miami-Dade county commissioner was recalled, and then re-elected. In other words, even popular officials can be recalled. The effort ends up just being disruptive.
The blog calls on the billionaire to drop the recall effort and instead educate voters about the mayor and commissioners' poor decisions and set up a watchdog group to provide ongoing oversight. In the long run, this would be far more valuable than a recall. But that's a good government approach, and recall is a political approach. A political approach is different in that it takes sides.
It is depressing to see that extremely wealthy individuals are taking over citizen initiatives at the local level, just as at the state level. What was intended to be a way for citizens to act when an elected official gets out of control is now just another tactic for individuals to either push their own agenda or get political revenge. In other words, it's a way for an unelected individual to put his personal interest ahead of the public interest, seeking accountability from others, but not from himself.
Update: December 16, 2012
According to an article in the Economist, in Lima, Peru a recall law is being used against a new mayor who has been trying to curb corruption. It appears that much of the support for the recall effort is coming from the corrupt businesses and politicians who will benefit from having her out of office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
