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.