Richardson PACs

The Nightly Build

---

Richardson Coalition and Firefighters: Not BFF

The Richardson City Council election has two visible political action committees (PACs) busily trying to influence the outcome. The Richardson Coalition PAC has mailed a flier with its candidate recommendations. The Richardson FireFighters Association (RFFA) has done the same and also has made direct contributions to candidates' campaigns. This is normal. This is democracy. This is good.

What's also normal, but not so good, is for one PAC to claim the other PAC's involvement in politics is dangerous. The Richardson Coalition PAC published an editorial to that effect:

"While we voice no position about unions themselves, the view of the Richardson Coalition is that unions should not have a voice in the governance of our city. Further, we believe that unions attempting to represent local municipal workers should not attempt to unduly influence city elections."

In short: "Shut up and get back to work. Leave politics to us."

Interestingly, the list of financial contributors to the Richardson Coalition PAC is dominated by people listing their own employment as "retired." Surely, the Richardson Coalition PAC doesn't think that the only people who should have a voice in Richardson politics are people who don't work.

Today, the Richardson Coalition PAC attempts to reinforce its point with an email citing two recent stories in the media. The first, by Theodore Kim in The Dallas Morning News, reports on the involvement of the Plano Firefighters Association in Plano elections. The Richardson Coalition PAC says the story is about "concerns" but it's hard to find anything negative about the PFFA's actions in the story itself, except a quote from one candidate who didn't win the PFFA's endorsement. According to the story, the PFFA does not have collective bargaining power; most of its members "earn relatively modest salaries" although "more than 50 make more than $90,000"; its involvement in elections is financed from donations, not dues; and the reward for residents of Plano is living in "one of only a handful of North Texas cities to claim a top fire-suppression rating from the Insurance Services Office. The rating keeps insurance premiums lower citywide."

Sounds benign, maybe something Plano residents should feel good about, right? So why would the Richardson Coalition PAC want the firefighters not to express their opinion in local elections? Perhaps this sentence in the story holds the key:

"The rise of Plano's association is a reflection of a city undergoing political change. Long dominated by real estate interests, new constituencies have risen as growth has slowed."

Richardson is a decade ahead of Plano along this road of change. Richardson is landlocked. It's built out. The easy days of grading cotton fields and erecting new housing developments are over. Now the need is for neighborhood revitalization and attracting new businesses to go into decaying shopping centers. The political power base in Richardson is shifting accordingly. The Richardson Coalition PAC can't like what it sees ahead.

The other news story the Richardson Coalition PAC points to is nothing but a rant by Scot Walker of "Collin County Republican" against unions, the Obama administration, California, Berkeley, Michigan, Michael Moore, the Huffington Post, and a host of other evils. About the only thing Walker doesn't do is accuse the Plano firefighters of being a bunch of commies. "I don't care much for unions" he says, in what is an understatement compared to the rest of his diatribe.

That the Richardson Coalition PAC aligns itself with such a partisan rant is disgraceful. This is the latest way the PAC has damaged its own reputation by its actions this election. If there is a PAC that threatens to harm Richardson itself, it's more likely to be the Richardson Coalition PAC than the Richardson FireFighters Association. The best thing the Richardson Coalition PAC can do, for itself and for Richardson, is to stop, reflect, and take a less partisan, divisive attitude going forward.