Interfering with local elections.

Opinion by Allan McNew

Whenever a city goes from at large to district elections, my first thought that is that an activist organization agitated for the change in order to set up "ringers," who have move into town and establish residency for the specific reason to run for elected office in less affluent neighborhoods which rarely vote in order to take over a city government and promote and agitate for their outside agenda. Sometimes it's the case, others not.

A recent development is for big money to come in for the election of District Attornies around the country to further an agenda that somehow benefits by not prosecuting criminals.

I have mixed feelings concerning the office of District Attorney. On one hand we need enforcement and and the type of justice that is something more than a prostituted buzzword. On the other I have had dealings with the office of a former District Attorney who's motto was "anyone can convict the guilty, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict the innocent." The man wouldn't let anything unwinnable go until he either forced a plea bargain or forced the defense to prepare for trial then withdraw the case on the first day of trial. He managed to subornidate civil cases and other legal proceedings to his agenda of wielding the prosecutorial hammer without reasonable regard. He clogged up the court system with his Les Miserables approach to prosecution.

"Tough on crime" rhetoric politically sells. The District Attorney's office is an elected office and an incumbent is unfortunately is in part re-elected by an inflated conviction count dangled in front of the voters rather than what a "reasonable" yard stick of "justice" may be. This can turn prosecution and conviction from a dispensation of justice to an institutional form of human trafficking.

When the sheriff's department does a sweep which nets several dozen individuals and the crime rate is zero until they bail out or are otherwise released we should have a pretty good idea where the majority of our criminal problems lie. But when equal allegations should provide for equal scrutiny and equal treatment, it sometime seems that those who have a job and a mortgage are reserved for prosecution or other legal process while bottom rung dirtbags are turned loose. This suggests two things: there is either money to be milked out of those who have it while it costs money to deal with those who don't work or there is some sort of "social justice" agenda at work here. Maybe both.

The first assumption goes hand in hand with the sure fact that if everyone fought their traffic tickets the court system would collapse, the latter is the case for outside funds to elect District Attorneys who won't apply the law - that everyone in the lower class or (name your choice of identity politics) is an oppressed victim to middle and upper class privilige (or insert any identity politics boogy man).

 When anyone running for political office of any sort accepts outside campaign donations it should be publicly and frequently disclosed and readily visible in the large print of the candidate's campaign literature, advertisements and campaign rallies as to where it came from and how much they collected.

No more pimping out justice to agendas, personal or otherwise.