Report a Comment

Mike DeBonis writes a thoughtful column asserting that the reasons Fiona chose not to run cannot be generalized to the reasons others decide not to run. He's right. I overstated my case.

Mike goes too far, however, in attributing Evans' 20, soon to be 24, year incumbency to laudable campaign disciplines, thus legitimizing his campaign tactics. Evans doesn't "cold call strangers for money". Journalists should know how Jack Evans finances his campaigns.

Only 16% of his currently $233,000 war chest comes from constituents, and most of that is from Georgetowners. He has raised far less from constituents this time around than last time, reflecting his fraying connection to the 85% of constituents outside of Georgeown.

Jack finances his campaigns from corporate bundling, and from Georgetowners. He has received the same amount from a couple developers as from all non-Georgetown constituents ($11,925). That's why he ignores public schools in his ward - he doesn't need to address the concerns of public school parents because he doesn't need their money. He then hits the ward with a shock and awe PR blitz to get 3500 votes. He spent $120 per vote in 2008.

Jack Evans ran unopposed in 2004, virtually unopposed in 2000 and will run unopposed in 2012. That demands an explanation which I don't think Mike's otherwise insightful column provides. And I believe the explanation is that his overwhelming fundraising intimidates better potential opponents - and that overwhelming fundraising requires corporate bundling. If we got rid of bundling (as some Council ethics proposals would do) then 1 or both of 2 things would happen: (1) Jack would have to attend to the concerns of his rapidly changing constituency about schools, etc, and (2) good potential opponents would be more willing to take him on.

by Ken Archer on Nov 10, 2011 7:13 am • link • report