From Commissioner Jennings Re-Election Campaign "Literature"

An example of some of the upside-down logic of the current District #2 Commissioner:


The above is one of the points featured in literature distributed by her followers. She doesn't tell you that this ordinance wasn't adopted. Perhaps if this Commissioner could work in a more cooperative spirit with others on the dais, she might have more to show for her accomplishments - through a record of adopted ordinances.

What she also doesn't tell you is that after this item appeared on the Commission agenda it was rightly sent for an advisory Attorney General opinion on the Constitutionality of such an ordinance.

Political contributions have long been interpreted by the Courts as a protected form of free speech - First Amendment protection. In practice, if found legal, this ordinance would preclude those who currently have contracts with the city - or with those that might have business with the city in the future (something impossible to gauge during the campaign process) - from contributing to campaigns. This assumes that a Commissioner's vote can be bought with a $500 campaign contribution, which is an exaggerated probability.

It's time for Commissioner Jennings to fess-up and tell us the real reason for her proposed ordinance. She was quoted as saying this will prevent "conflicts of interest".

News Flash: There is much more to whether or not a conflict of interest exists than who contributed to your campaign!

What's she hiding from? Do not be fooled. It is meant to enhance the chances of more candidates just like her getting into office under the guise of an ethics ordinance.

By the way, the city does need an ethics review - but much more comprehensive in scope than this self-serving measure. Why isn't she calling for the formation of an ethics panel to make recommendations to the Commission on reform measures?

And to think I supported her and voted for her the first time! Let's all learn from our mistakes - me included.