ANGUISH OVER CANDIDATES SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY

By Juan Montoya

Let's see if we get this right.

If you publish a popular blog or own an ad agency that has racked up a successful record electing  candidates and thy seek you out to consult or display your advertising it's a Bad thang?

That's the upshot of several social media "critics" who decry the fact that city commission candidates have enlisted the services of Brownsville-based Pink Ape Advertising owned by local ad agency consultant Rodrigo Moreno.

These include Nurith Galonsky, John Cowen and Trey Mendez. All have contracted with Moreno for their campaign branding, message and media placement. Moreno also subcontracts with local  printers, newspaper and broadcaster, designers, labor, etc., to print and place roadside and lawn signs across town for money.

Only a percentage of the amounts paid to him by the candidates go to Pink Ape, or to him personally, just as any other ad agency or consultant. One critic even went as far as blowing he "Matamoros native" whistle to slur his professional work.

If you have ever done any of these things for a political campaign - as have many other firms in town - you know it's not easy designing these appeals or dealing with political candidates, especially first-time aspirants as are Galonsky and Cowen.

Yet, they have chosen to spend their own money to seek a position on the city commission where they can change the direction of the majority of the current commission. This is Basic Civic Engagement at its best.

Yet, the Whiny and Cheesy crowd complaints seem to seem to be criticizing the fact that the candidates have chosen a proven local winning consulting firm, and the most popular blogs and social sites to put out their appeal for public support in the upcoming city commission election.

Where was the hue and cry when local candidates spent much more on media consultants and ad agencies from San Antonio, Austin, and even California?

Other candidates have spent a lot of money - and not their own - to try to remain in office. For example, incumbent Mayor Tony Martinez has spent $38,766 so far in his stab at reelection. That money has come from the local elite, and from energy industry and LNG interests (the Hunt brothers of Dallas) who control the electric transmission lines to Brownsville and want a pliant city commission in the city as they go about establishing their monopoly.

He also got a hefty ($5,000) contribution from the lawyers who have fought to keep the Memorandum of Understanding between the city and private energy giant Tenaska closed to the public. If there was ever a nefarious connection between campaign contributions and a candidate, that would be it.

Yet, none of the "critics" have addressed this issue and target Moreno instead. He is being targeted for being successful, unlike themselves. Tellingly, no candidates have chosen to spend their money in the critics' social media. Do you sense the presence of a green-eyed devil wringing his hands in consternation over where the candidates have chosen to spend their money?

Let's say you're a candidate for office. You look around, ask people what social media outlets are most popular, which ad agency or media consultant has a winning record, or which has the widest readership and credibility among the readership. So you choose and pin your hopes on your horse, choose where you spend your money, and run like hell.

Why does this constitute a moral or character defect? Elections cost money, and if these candidates choose to spend their money, not the critics' cash, why is this wrong?

The onus is now on Moreno to produce. His livelihood will depend on whether he does or not xelive the goods. It's called competing in the marketplace. Do they know how much time, talent, blood, sweat and tears (and money) Moreno and his social media counterparts - like other small businesses - have spent to make their endeavors successful? Success breeds success.

If they are really morally offended over the amounts candidates spend to get elected, perhaps they could do something constructive like lead the charge to establish campaign spending limits. Let's see how far that flies.

Nowadays it seems like success breeds envy, if not selective moral indignation. Could it be because the candidates have chosen not to spend their own money on their cyber media rags?