The spate of challenges by progressives to their competitors reminds me of the famous lines of Karl Marx: “Hegel says that history repeats itself. He forgets to add, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

If the first time was the establishment’s use of technical challenges to undermine progressives, the second time is the progressives’ use of the same kinds of challenges to undermine their competitors.

I certainly understand why candidates working incredibly hard to win an election are inclined to use every means in the book to do so. And I also understand why they are tempted to use the old guard’s tactics against the old guard, especially when so many of us have suffered because of those tactics. But revenge is never a good motive to do anything.

All these challenges on the basis of the statement of financial interests are not really in keeping with our progressive ideals, are they? We are supposed to favor democracy, which means, as Jesse Brown put it at our press conference a week ago, “Let the people decide.”

The law does say that a failure to fill out the statements of financial interest properly is a reason to boot someone from the ballot. But that law is simply asinine, especially when there is so much uncertainty about what should and should not be included on the form. There is undoubtedly some good purpose in the voters knowing how we candidates make our money. That purpose can be attained by a law that requires financial disclosure and gives the Ethics Board, and other candidates, the right to temporarily suspend someone from the ballot until their statement of financial interests is filled out completely and properly. There is no reason to hang someone for an error in understanding a set of requirements that are far from clear. It is much easier to interpret a page of Hegel or Heidegger than to understand the instructions for the statement of financial interests.

Or, even better, why don’t we just require candidates to release their tax returns for the last three years?

So, the law, as written, not only serves no good purpose but undermines the right of voters to determine who should hold office. Exploiting the law, as progressive and establishment candidates have done, is going to waste a lot of time and money that would have been better spent reaching out to voters instead of fighting in court. And these court battles are going to take the attention of our already depleted press corps away from the statements we candidates are making about issues.

So, I’m disappointed that progressives are taking this route. Some of these candidates are my friends. And, as I said, I understand why they are doing this. But I’m not happy about it. And I hope that every candidate challenged on the basis of their statement of financial interests stays on the ballot, beginning with Bob Brady.

The only good thing that might come out of the farce that has begun today might finally spur our State Representatives and Senators to change the awful laws under which we now conduct elections.