Don't judge Manatee County candidates solely on campaign contributions

The 2026 primary is approaching quickly (Aug. 18) so I wanted to get one thing out of the way now.

Developers and builders mostly are not evil.

Sure, that can be hard to believe based on the county's recent history. During the 2024 primary, that message crescendoed until the noise blocked out everything else.

Was some of that message justified? Well ... yes.

The polarizing moment came on Oct. 5, 2023 when commissioners voted 5-1 in favor of reducing wetland protections. Kevin Van Ostenbridge, Jason Bearden, Mike Rahn, Amanda Ballard and James Satcher voted in favor while George Kruse was opposed. District 5 Commissioner Ray Turner was absent.

The perception was that developers and builders had been buying commissioners through campaign donations and perhaps even under-the-table perks. The public had rallied together at commission meetings to overwhelmingly voice their preference to keep strict wetland protections in place, and only Kruse seemed to care what his constituents wanted.

A frenzy built among voters to get rid of candidates who had that support from builders, with far less emphasis on the strengths or weaknesses of their opponents.

Of the five commissioners who voted in favor of reducing wetland protections, Van Ostenbridge and Satcher (who gave up his commission seat to run for Supervisor of Elections) are now out of office. Bearden would have come up for reelection this year but chose not to run. Turner lost in his election bid in 2024 because he was tied to the others.

Rahn and Ballard are on the ballot this year, so it remains to be seen if voters have maintained the grudge. Obviously, those running against the incumbents are banking that the voters have long memories. They are hoping that any candidate who accepts strong support from a developer or builder is labeled as an enemy of the people.

Hopefully, as we go to the polling places, we can weigh the candidates' overall worth and not cross off anyone because they have accepted a campaign contribution from the building community.

Some current candidates are hoping you don't look at their opponent's total package because of a contribution. Certainly, it is their prerogative to accept contributions from anyone they want, but the thought that someone can't make a good commissioner because her or she accepts money from a developer is absurd.

I offer Kruse as an example.

He did accept donations from the building community when he was elected to his first four-year term and he basically knocked it out of the park in representing the people. He didn't let his monetary supporters affect his decisions.

And, yet, he saw others who did, so in his reelection bid, he decided not to accept contributions from the building community. That was a choice he shouldn't have had to make.

There are a few factors in play here. One, you can accept contributions from builders and not let that influence your vote. It's called integrity. Two, builders, developers, contractors, mailmen, bus drivers, housewives, they all should be able to contribute to candidates based on election office rules. It is their right.

It also is your right to vote in whatever manner you see fit. I would encourage you, however, to use your common sense. If you listen to a candidate who represents all the qualities you want in a commissioner, don't throw him/her out because of a campaign contribution. If you are wary because of certain contributions, ask the candidate about them. Be frank.

I, for one, certainly want quality builders and developers involved in the evolution of our communities. Public-private partnerships are a necessity when it comes to establishing a safe and efficient transportation network.

I don't want to spit in the face of companies and individual leaders who have been key in building the wonderful place we call home. Sure, do all the entities try to protect their personal best interests? Of course. But that is called good business.

That's why we need to elect politicians who can balance all our needs for the future.

Please, please, read about the candidates who are trying to represent you. Go to their speaking engagements, call them, or send them an email. Don't vote because of an R or a D, or because that person you don't like has contributed to their campaign.

County charter

As we head into the primary, you are going to be reading about those candidates who want a Manatee County charter.

I am still on the fence about this one as I am not thrilled about adding more layers to our government. My biggest concern is that a charter wouldn't change things much and would basically be a wasted effort. Twenty counties in Florida have charters, including Sarasota County, which has had a home-rule charter since 1971.

District 3 Commissioner Tal Siddique brought up the idea of adopting a county charter during his State of the Chair address Jan. 6. I would imagine you are going to hear a lot more about it over the next four months.

The hope would be that a charter would make it tougher for commissioners to pursue pet projects that aren't in the best interests of the citizens as a whole, or would give the county more power to tweak state guidelines.

District 1 candidate John Dunn, whose profile is in this issue on Page 10A, talks about adding district consent if a charter is added. That's another hard one for me to wrap my hands around.

I understand how residents of a district can feel ignored when its interests might clash with the rest of the county, or when a singular decision has most of its impact on one district.

Consider, for example, if a company wants to build a plant in District 1 that will greatly benefit the rest of the county but might have an negative environmental impact on the host district. Should that district have the power to deny that plant when commissioners are ready to vote 6-1 to approve it?

It's one of the many issues that will come up heading into this election year.

Get involved, and ask questions.