Grosso

Drugs, sex or rock ‘n’ roll: if you’re running for office in D.C., you better fess up to them, because they can be used against you. Over the past two days—and on the same TV talk show—two D.C. Council incumbents have dragged up the past criminal records of their opponents.

Yesterday, it was Councilmember Michael Brown (I-At Large), accusing challenger David Grosso of not being forthcoming with voters about a 20-year-old arrest for being busted with less than two grams of marijuana. Today, it was Councilmember Yvette Alexander’s (D-Ward 7) turn, taking GOP challenger Ron Moten to task for a prior felony for which he served jail time. “You’re a convicted felon,” she said on NewsTalk with Bruce DePuyt.

Brown came at Grosso because his challenger—flush with cash with three weeks left to go until Election Day—has attacked him relentlessly for his financial problems—unpaid taxes, lack of tax filings at a non-profit he led—and that his challenger should be subjected the same scrutiny he is. “Especially when you are attacking somebody for ethics on a regular basis, and you have a major ethical lapse in your own life, I think it’s definitely worth pointing that out,” said Brown’s spokesman Asher Corson to the Post.

For Alexander, it was much the same. Moten has needled her at various debates, calling into question her use of her Constituent Services Fund, not much of which ends up with constituents, he argues. On the show today, Moten tried to equate Alexander to disgraced former Ward 5 councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr., an accusation that set off Alexander and pushed her to call Moten out for his own criminal record, which dates back to 1991.

The attacks are part and parcel of political campaigning, but the question remains if they are relevant, necessary or even effective. In Grosso’s case, it’s unclear what Brown is trying to say. Is the fact that Grosso smoked weed when he went on a camping trip as a 22-year-old make him a bad choice for the At-Large seat, or is it the fact the he didn’t fess up to it when he started campaigning? For Moten, is being a convicted felon grounds to believe that he’s more likely to be a felon again, but this time while serving in a public capacity?

Neither of the charges really pass basic muster, in my opinion. I might be a socially liberal guy willing to overlook minor drug charges, but I’m also willing to bet that most voters will too—especially if the drug charge is the product of youthful indiscretion and the person has led an otherwise straight life since. Grosso notes that he applied to law school and took the bar exam, both of which require fessing up to any criminal offenses. He’s currently a lawyer, so it seems that neither institution seemed to think that the offense is significant enough to sink his academic pursuits or professional aspirations.

In terms of when and how Grosso should have brought it up, well, the Post Mike DeBonis makes a good point: when and how would any candidate bring up a 20-year-old drug charge for which they pleaded guilty and paid a fine? In a stump speech? On their website? If Grosso’s campaign were solely premised on decriminalizing marijuana (or, conversely, throwing all small-time drug users in jail), then maybe it would be relevant. But it’s not, so it’s tough to see how his weed arrest fits into the campaign narrative.

As for Moten, well, it’s tough to lob attacks at a guy who just published an autobiography in which he fully admits to his wrongdoings, which include selling substantial amounts of cocaine in the 1990s. In fact, he opens his book by recounting a story of being in a car that was shot at, and then running to dispose of a gun he had on him because he was on parole and didn’t want the police to find it. I’m pretty sure that he isn’t hiding anything.

The danger of the attacks is that they make the attackers look bad—and it opens them up to the same questions. At the next campaign forum, Brown should be asked if he ever used marijuana. Does it matter? Not really. But he opened the door. And by levying the attack against Grosso, is he saying that marijuana users are all bad people? For a guy who sells himself as an advocate for the poor and disenfranchised, he should tread carefully—lots of men in jail are there for relatively minor drug charges, after all. (Brown also attacked another challenger for a misdeed that resulted in no charge whatsoever.)

As for Alexander, she runs the same danger. How would any returning citizen—those who already face significant hurdles in getting back to work—take the insinuation that a past record makes them ineligible for future opportunities? It’s worth noting that Alexander isn’t the first person to go there: good government advocate Dorothy Brizill has publicized the past criminal records of both a council chief of staff and a lawyer in the office of the D.C. Attorney General, despite the fact that decades have passed since the crimes were committed. God forbid the day that we’re all permanently convicted by our past mistakes.

Let’s be fair to Brown and Alexander here: they are being attacked, and relentlessly so. But given the circumstances of being an elected official in D.C. these days, that shouldn’t be a surprise. Also, it’s not like anyone is digging through their trash to air personal dirt—both of the incumbents are facing accusations either related to their conduct as a councilmember or for financial slip-ups that could make a voter think twice about a person’s capacity to handle a $10 billion municipal budget.

I say all this as someone who was arrested for a misdemeanor in college, so take that for what it’s worth. But if anyone wants to dig that up in 10 years and use it against me, hey, I can say that I’ve already fessed up to it.