Photographs with prominent politicians can demonstrate access and connections. But what do they really tell us about someone’s ability to serve on Richmond Hill Council?
By City Desk
A familiar pattern is emerging on the websites and social-media pages of some of Richmond Hill candidates: photographs with MPs, MPPs, mayors, councillors and other recognizable political figures.
There is nothing inherently wrong with these pictures. Some represent genuine working relationships, political support or years of shared community involvement.
But after seeing enough of them, voters should begin asking a simple question: What exactly does the photograph prove?
In Richmond Hill, the background may be a community festival, cultural celebration, business opening, campaign event or gathering at RHBOT. The photograph may have been spontaneous. But once it appears on campaign material, it serves a political purpose: it tells voters that the candidate belongs in the company of important people.
If every photograph with a prominent politician disappeared tomorrow, what qualifications, ideas and accomplishments would remain?
That may be useful information. It should not, however, be mistaken for a qualification.
Borrowed credibility
A candidate standing beside a respected or powerful person may appear more experienced, connected or credible.
Advertisers have understood this effect for a long time. Political campaigns understand it too.
The image encourages voters to associate the candidate with the other person’s reputation—even when the prominent figure has not formally endorsed the candidate or said anything about their suitability for office.
It is a form of borrowed credibility.
The photograph itself may show only that two people attended the same Richmond Hill event and stood together for a few seconds. It does not necessarily tell us whether they have worked together, share the same views or even know each other particularly well.
That does not make the photograph dishonest. But voters should be careful about reading more into it than it actually shows.
Endorsement or implied support?
There is an important difference between a formal endorsement and appearing together in a photograph. But even two experienced Richmond Hill councillors do not interpret that distinction in exactly the same way.
Councillor Karen Cilevitz believes that context matters. A photograph or video specifically featuring a candidate with an elected official from a higher level of government, she said, implies support unless the campaign clearly states otherwise.
“Any singular photo/video with an elected official who represents the candidate’s same ward or municipality serves as an implied platform of influence/support,” Cilevitz said.
She distinguished those deliberate one-on-one images from group photographs taken at public events, where elected officials may simply be attending in their official capacities.
Councillor Carol Davidson takes a more restrictive view of what qualifies as an endorsement.
“A photograph with an elected official should not automatically be interpreted as an endorsement,” Davidson said. “I believe an endorsement should only be represented as such when the person pictured has explicitly stated their support.”
Access may help a capable councillor do the job. It does not prove that a candidate is capable of doing it.
Davidson said she has deliberately avoided one-on-one campaign photographs with MPs and MPPs because she does not want residents to assume that she is affiliated with or supported by a particular political party.
Their answers reveal an important ambiguity.
One candidate may believe a photograph merely shows attendance at an event or a useful working relationship. Another may understand that publishing the image during an election creates an impression of political support. Voters viewing the same photograph may also draw different conclusions.
A useful first question, therefore, is: Has the person in the photograph explicitly endorsed the candidate?
If the answer is no, voters should distinguish a documented endorsement from an impression created by proximity.
Municipal candidates do not run under party banners
Both councillors emphasized that Richmond Hill’s municipal candidates do not officially run as representatives of political parties.
“Municipal candidates are not elected through a political party system, and any political party affiliation has no relevance to their municipal position,” Cilevitz said.
Davidson similarly said municipal candidates in Richmond Hill do not run under party banners. She argued that councillors should make decisions independently, based on the issues before Council and the interests of the community.
That independence matters.
A photograph with an MP, MPP or party figure may suggest access. But it can also lead voters to wonder whether the candidate is signalling an unofficial political affiliation—or whether party relationships could influence decisions that are supposed to be made in Richmond Hill’s interests.
The image alone cannot answer those questions.
Connections can still matter
Municipal government does not operate in isolation.
Richmond Hill depends on York Region for services including public transit, policing, regional roads and water infrastructure. The City must also work with the provincial and federal governments on housing, transportation, infrastructure and funding.
Both Cilevitz and Davidson acknowledged that political relationships can be useful.
Cilevitz said those relationships may help councillors connect residents with the appropriate elected official when an issue falls outside the City’s jurisdiction. A resident seeking assistance with immigration, for example, may need an MP, while a provincial matter would require help from an MPP.
Davidson said political relationships can help a councillor advocate for residents, work across different levels of government and advance local issues.
But both also drew a clear limit around the value of those connections.
“Relationships alone are not a qualification for municipal office,” Davidson said. What matters, she added, is a candidate’s “judgment, experience, independence and ability to turn those relationships into results.”
Access may help a capable councillor do the job. It does not prove that a candidate is capable of doing it.
A useful connection cannot replace an understanding of municipal finances, land-use planning, housing, transportation, infrastructure or the responsibilities of a councillor. Nor does it demonstrate sound judgment or an ability to work constructively with the rest of Council.
What should voters examine instead?
Instead of asking only whom a candidate knows, voters can ask what the candidate has accomplished independently.
Have they made a sustained contribution to Richmond Hill?
Have they worked on local issues before deciding to run for office?
Can they explain what they want to accomplish and how the City could realistically do it?
Do they understand the difference between municipal, regional, provincial and federal responsibilities?
Have they demonstrated good judgment, reliability and an ability to work with people who disagree with them?
Cilevitz encouraged voters to learn about a candidate’s platform, qualifications, experience and knowledge of municipal government.
“It’s the candidate you are voting for, not their possible political affiliations,” she said.
Davidson pointed voters toward a candidate’s experience, record, accessibility, transparency, knowledge of municipal issues and demonstrated results.
Most importantly, can the candidate’s qualifications be described without mentioning the names of more prominent politicians?
These questions tell voters much more than a campaign photograph.
ELECTION SERIES · CANDIDATES RESPOND
What three more candidates told us
Strong Richmond Hill invited every registered municipal candidate to comment on campaign photographs, endorsements and political connections. These responses have been condensed for clarity and length.
Sharon Chisholm
Chisholm says a photograph may simply show that a candidate attended an event where influential people were present, but voters often interpret it as a political connection or implied endorsement—especially when the context is unclear. Political relationships can be useful, she says, but should never substitute for merit. She urges voters to examine candidates’ platforms and credentials, attend public forums, review incumbents’ voting and attendance records, and watch for bias or disrespect toward vulnerable groups.
Holo Devnani
Devnani says voters should not interpret a campaign photograph as an endorsement unless support has been clearly stated. Photos may even be published without a public figure’s authorization, demonstrating how little they can prove. Political relationships may provide familiarity with government, but candidates should stand on their own experience and judgment. She says municipal service should value merit, independence and fresh perspectives, while voters should focus on a candidate’s experience, transparency and commitment to the community.
Catherine Dell’Erba
Dell’Erba says photographs can legitimately show a candidate’s community involvement, events attended and relationships built—provided they are shared with the knowledge and permission of those pictured. They should count as endorsements only when support is explicit. Relationships can help councillors open doors and coordinate across governments and community organizations, but they are not qualifications by themselves. Voters should consider experience, integrity, judgment, priorities, accessibility and whether a candidate can turn relationships into results.
A community perspective
Community organizer Marj Andre also encourages residents to look beyond campaign materials and examine how candidates present themselves publicly.
“I encourage all voters, as part of their efforts to make an informed vote, to look at the candidates’ websites and their social media,” Andre said. “Their presence in the community matters.”
She added that voters can reasonably form opinions based on the people candidates choose to appear with and showcase during their campaigns.
That does not mean one photograph should determine anyone’s vote. But the collection of images a candidate deliberately publishes—along with the issues, events and relationships they choose to highlight—can help voters understand how the candidate wants to be seen.
Try the two-minute test
Open a candidate’s website or social-media page and look at the most recent posts.
How many explain a Richmond Hill issue, present a policy or describe something the candidate has accomplished? How many primarily show the candidate beside another politician or public figure?
The balance will not settle anyone’s voting decision. Photographs are a normal part of campaigning, and a single picture tells us very little.
But the exercise may reveal what kind of credibility the campaign is trying to establish.
Is the candidate asking voters to evaluate their understanding of Richmond Hill and their ideas for its future? Or are they mainly asking voters to be impressed by the people they know?
Look at the balance of the campaign
Candidates attend public events and naturally take photographs with other people. There is no reason to view every such image suspiciously.
A larger pattern may be more revealing.
Look at the candidate’s website, flyers and social-media accounts. How much of the campaign is devoted to local issues, specific ideas and the candidate’s own record? How much is built around appearances with influential people?
Does the candidate explain what they believe?
Do they answer substantive questions?
Do they demonstrate an understanding of Richmond Hill?
Or does the campaign rely mainly on photographs, endorsements, slogans and the suggestion that the candidate is politically well connected?
Campaign presentation is not the same as governing. But it can reveal what a candidate believes voters will find persuasive.
Photographs are evidence—but evidence of what?
A political photograph can provide useful information. It may show that a candidate is active, attends community events or has relationships extending beyond Richmond Hill.
The mistake is not looking at the photograph. The mistake is assuming it proves something it does not.
A photograph cannot tell voters whether a candidate will carefully read a staff report, ask good questions about a multimillion-dollar project, understand the long-term cost of new infrastructure or resist pressure when an influential supporter wants something from City Hall.
Those are less glamorous qualities. They are also much closer to the actual work of municipal government.
So enjoy the campaign photographs. Look at who appears in them and ask what the relationship means. But then look beyond the frame.
If every photograph with a prominent politician disappeared from the candidate’s campaign tomorrow, what qualifications, ideas and accomplishments would remain?
That is the part of the campaign Richmond Hill voters should examine most carefully.
Strong Richmond Hill invited all registered Richmond Hill municipal candidates to comment on the questions examined in this article. Responses received by the publication deadline were considered for inclusion.
💬 What do you think? Join the conversation on STRH Feed
STRH Feed is our community discussion space. Click through to see what others are saying and add your voice.