It graces the pages right here.
To the Editor:
I found it ironic David Gordon and Juan Guillen reported receiving campaign donations from developer Michael Cusumano. The irony was that that Gordon repeatedly predicted the other candidates (other than his slate-mates would likely take cash from Cusumano, and he’d be alone in staying pure. But here was Gordon reporting quite the opposite.
I don’t object to developer contributions in general. The decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. And it’s NOT unusual for candidates to receive cash they didn’t solicit and don’t want. But standard practice has them reporting the revenue, then on the same forms, reporting the cash was returned. Gordon reported the receipt, but 10 days later still had the donation.
In response to my teasing in a Facebook post, Gordon “issued a statement.” Others of us say stuff. Gordon “issues statements.” Anyway, he confirmed receiving the cash, then offered a convoluted explanation of the simple “Paypal” system. The implication was that somehow Paypal kept the cash inaccessible, which of course is exactly contrary to one of two reasons Paypal exists.
Indeed, Gordon went on to claim that what mattered was his “intent” with the money. Of course, actions speak louder than words, which is why forthright people don’t have to convince anyone of their intent 10 days after the fact. Instead – whether running for council, Assembly or Senate, or any other office – others just return unwanted donations as soon as it’s realized they came in. But ten days after Gordon’s own statement acknowledges he learned he had Cusumano’s money, he was still holding the cash.
What made this a true Gordon experience was the next section of his “statement.” He had the money, it came in through Paypal, and he somehow held it because it’s his intent to eventually send it back – certainly now that we all know about it, eh? But in closing, Gordon offered more explanation.
“… certain members of the community, including Vice Mayor Will Rogers and Council Candidate Sharon Springer, have pounced upon the reporting out of this entirely legal contribution…”
Gordon’s woes are partly my fault because I noted how his publicly-filed report contradicted his frequent claims and his implicit smears of others? It’s Springer’s fault that his public report prompted her to recall Gordon’s repeated claims that he and his slate-mates would probably be the only candidates NOT to receive developer donations,
Gordon then closed by declaring his confidence that Cusumano meant well, and he of course cleared himself. So, the only miscreants named were Will Rogers and Sharon Springer, though we had absolutely no control over the cash, Gordon’s reports, or his bank account. And to ,think, people keep wondering why I see so many points in common between David Gordon and Donald Trump.
The proof of hypocrisy is already clear. The usual handful of well-known Gordon promoters are congratulating Gordon and Guillen for returning the cash, as if 10 days after-the-fact they wouldn’t have seen them assembling the cross to hoist any other candidate who did precisely and exactly the same.
I hope Ms. Springer has learned her lesson. Speech isn’t so free in Burbank that one is permitted to question David Gordon. His supporters will teach her that lesson during public comments at an upcoming council meeting.
No one’s “congratulating Gordon and Guillen for returning the cash…” For one thing, no one has to. So on that point alone your future mayor is lying through his teeth in order to lodge his phony point. He also has a very odd idea about “free speech” — and it’s a quite Trumpian one. Springer’s free speech right doesn’t mean that no one’s free to respond.
What a duplicitous asshole, eh? It’s been that way for years with this guy. He also extends his “teasing” here to a full-fledged public statement that repeats the exact same points he made earlier. Which means that it wasn’t just teasing. It was a clear political attack. So he can’t even be straight about that one, either.
These Springer-over-Gordon fans are more than frustrated by the outcome of the primary vote. They know that it’s not going to be so easy a haul for them now. So expect much more of this crap during the next six weeks.
Keep in mind too that Rogers fails to mention that Cusumano apparently didn’t donate to any other candidates but the two classic reform guys. Which not only raises serious questions on its own, but also denied Gordon the so called “prediction” that he would criticize the other opponents for agreeing to “take cash from Cusumano.”
If in fact he would — contrary to Rogers’ constant wetdream fantasies about the people who don’t like him and how they’re going to act. As we pointed out yesterday, the Cusumanos are small potatoes now as compared to other more ambitious outside commercial interests, and no one we know has been making a serious issue of their campaign money, if any issue at all. Rogers is stuck somewhere back in 2003 with his same old crowd of red herrings and council-crazy “nutballs” — the last year btw that he had a real job.
This contribution stunt all sounds pretty hamfistedly deliberate on the part of Cusumano and his fellow Gordon haters, doesn’t it? A question which again Rogers ignores. Like Trump, it’s whatever works with this guy.