Letter: SLV should vote local
Oct 25, 2012 | 1107 views | 5 5 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print


Follow the money. That is the best prescription for getting at the truth of the matter, and I am looking at the campaign spending of the candidates for 5th District Santa Cruz County supervisor.  This is turning into a race to buy the election. There is a point where the amount of spending for a local county seat becomes obscene, and we are there. In the not-so-distant past, the local election cost around $20,000. This was good for all of us.  Now, if most of the money being spent was donated from within our San Lorenzo Valley, it may seem OK for Bruce McPherson to spend upward of $200,000 to buy the election, but it’s mostly not local donations; it is money from cronies and people who live all over the state and have ties to Bruce from when he held larger state office.  Is this money for the betterment of the SLV? I think not. Is it paybacks to help a retired politician for past favors? Or will he owe people who have no ties to our home whatsoever?  It is our responsibility to say, “No, our county seat is not for sale to the highest bidder.” We as a community have a responsibility to vote local, and I mean as in the valley itself. Not Santa Cruz or Pasatiempo.  The July 1-to-Sept. 30 round of fundraising disclosure of contributions shows that of $58,247 raised by Bruce, only 6 percent, $3,650, was donated by people of SLV and 3 percent, $1,850, by Scotts Valley residents. That leaves 91 percent, $52,747, from people who don’t even live here.  We can’t afford to sell out our only representative in government to someone who owes favors to who knows whom, from who knows where. 

John Fasolas, Felton

Comments-icon Post a Comment
Gail Levey
October 26, 2012
False and misleading letter. The truth is right here: http://www.votescount.com/jun12/junecd.htm

Every contribution and expenditure is available on line. The majority of donations to McPherson are small, from LOCALS. Hammer has received PAC donations from four different unions, $1,000.00 each.

That's called special interest money. Do you think he will NOT be beholden to these unions? Spare me your false rhetoric, both candidates are locals. This isn't a John Laird carpetbagger situation.

what small minded people seem to miss, is the FACT that the supervisor representing Watsonville has an impact on Boulder Creek. To spell it out simply, it is vital for the entire county to have a diverse group of intelligent supervisors able to WORK TOGETHER to lift the entire county up.

We are in this together - and if you think any differently, that make YOU part of the problem.

Bruce McPherson isn't running to develop a future in politics, he isn't running to provide income for his family, he's running because people have urged him to run and bring his expertise to the table. He's honest, hard working, intelligent, cooperative, accessible and more. He's the whole package we need right now to help us get out of the hole.
KP in FC
October 26, 2012
Key words - intelligent supervisors. That means voting for Bruce McPherson.
October 25, 2012

Look again. Most of McPherson's donations are from wealthy people, and developers outside of the 5th district, it's just a fact.

Another fact, Eric Hammer's mother is a long retired school teacher. Bruce McPherson inherited his money from his father. Your insinuation is kind of a sexist thing to say, don't you think?
October 25, 2012
Oh. My. God.

Sexist? Give me a break.
Donna Maye
October 25, 2012
Eric Hammer's money is SEIU and out-of-area union. And his mother's money. What does that tell you?

Most of McPherson's donations are small amounts and local.

Mc Pherson gets my vote.

We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.