Brent:
For those of us who are unaware of the intricacies of campaign finance, how does it work with regards to the balance between local contributions, in-state contributions, and out of state contributions? How many contributions have you received in each catagory?
Sam:
No one wants to give lots to money to someone they don't believe can win. Today, winning=money
Classic catch 22: You need money to raise money! You must look viable before people want to invest in you and that takes money. So a candidate must look to friends and family first for as much support as possible before trying to effectively gain support from others. I have received about 45% of my contributions from in-state sources to this date.
Mario:
Fund raising...for those that are unaware, as a candidate for office, especially true for Federal Office, the majority (as much as 90%) of the candidate's time is consumed by fund raising.
Some of this time is spent doing what candidates learn to dred the most, dialing and asking people for money for hours on end day after day. Some candidates have talked about this misery publically, though many have tried their best to forget it. Here is a post by Al Franken on the subject.
Basically a candidate, especially in a "red" district, needs to pull as many dollars and donors from outside the district as is possible to fund the kind of uphill battle taking on an entrenched incumbent requires. This effort is also skewed in the early months, when the candidate has more time to travel and spend time outside the district, if they can get access to other networks of donors. Sam has had success fund raising in DC and New Orleans for instance. The closer to election day you get, the less time you have to travel and the more time you need to spend contacting and speaking with voters - which by the way is the part candidates wish they could do 100% of the time.
The Finance reform act known as McCain-Feingold increased the burden on challengers rather than reduced it and created more gaps corruption and influence than it removed, further increasing the power of incumbency. Was this the intent? I don't think so, but it is the reality we are part of today.
For the record, I joined Sam's campaign as the Campaign Manager just a few weeks ago, and am happy to be here in Virginia's 6th District working to promote Democratic Values and real change in the US Congress. I am a veteran of 4 Federal Campaigns and look forward to an exciting campaign over the next several months.
I don't have the specific numbers to answer your question at the moment, I've been busy working on how to effectively spend the money more so than figuring out where prior moneys came from geographically.
Brent followup:
Do you take money from PACs?
Sam:
No money from PACs, not that all PACs are bad.
One thing to remember is that I am running for the US House of Representatives, which means that I will be voting and writing legislation, as your next Congressman, that will impact all 300+ million Americans. Every American has a vested interest in all 535 members of Congress and should show their support accordingly. (Not like running for VA General Assembly)
It will be tough raising a million dollars, but I don't believe in raising every dollar you can get. I have already had to turn down PAC dollars. We have to draw the line somewhere and let us not forget that the Lobbyists who control those massive amounts of fundraising dollars, STEAL the democratic voice away from middle America.
Mario:
Any challenger...faces the uphill battle vs an incumbent.
Whether the money comes from out of state or out of the district, the one sure thing is that there is not enough moneys inside the district to take this fight.
There really is no basis for discriminating against money from outside the district when it is coming from individuals. Sam does not take money from PACs or Lobbyists, this is money coming from individuals. Each of the 435 Congressional districts represent something like 0.2% of the population of the nation, and less than that when looking only at the base of active democratic donors.
Public Financing of Elections would be great, but today we have this system and it requires more than $1 million dollars raised to mount a decent challenge of an incumbent (who already has more than a million cash on hand). Do you think the people of the 6th CD have a million dollars to spend on this today? What if you limit each donor to 2300$/cycle, 4600 total for the election IF they contribute before the nomination?
The last challenger raised less than $100k. Today the Rasoul campaign has already pulled in more than $100k and will continue to work to pull in the needed funds to put a person in Congress who will work hard to change this awful and corrupt system.
Thank you for the questions, I hope I've answered them to your satisfaction, if not, keep asking.
Brent:
As a US Congressman, will you feel that it is your duty to your constituents to provide federal funding for favored local projects, especially if the money seems easy to get and seems to be the standard operation procedure of members of Congress?
Sam:
I believe that many of these projects are worthy of funding, but I disagree with the process and we should rid the system of this pork. As your next Congressman, I would like to have one staff member who only focuses only on writing grants for projects in our district. Funding for necessary projects such as the Roanoke Flood Reduction Project should come from grants. Through grants we have a way to oversee the disbursement of these funds.
Brent Followup:
What's the difference between an earmark and a grant? How is a grant more "accountable" than an earmark?
Sam:
To generalize, earmarks can be tacked on to any legislation for any Congressman's "pet" projects. No strong criteria needs to be met. But with grants, my fellow colleagues and I in the Congress can say that funding must be set aside for flood reduction projects and then localities and states can then apply for that funding. This is a process that gives proper review to the dispersement of funds.
Cliff:
Sam, I know you've thought about this, but for me I'm just starting because I'm reading Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. What can we do about the horrific conditions of animal factories? And how can we ensure safe food supplies? Is there a way to incentivize "humane" animal production (like Polyface farms here in this area, that Pollan mentions)? And I know that Bob Goodlatte is basically owned by Agribusiness, so we can't expect answers to come from him.
Sam:
When we had the last outbreak of BSE (mad cow) in 2003, countries like Japan and Mexico stopped taking our beef imports. It is not only important for our food supply (which I believe is a National Security issue), but we can appeal to all Americans with this issue be focusing on how devastating contaminated foods can be to our industries. It's all about framing. BUT, the root of the problem is LOBBYISTS. They prevent us from making clear objective decisions that serve the interests of America as a whole.
Brent:
Why do you think your compromise health care plan involving subsidized private heath care delivery is better than a one payer national Medicare plan? Is this just a political compromise or is it actually a more efficient method of health care delivery?
Sam:
HR 676 which has 88 co-sponsors in Congress is a national Medicare plan, which allows for the healthcare to be privately delivered. It called "Improved Medicare For All"
I think we are on the same page.
At this point Mr. Rasoul signed off. I had wanted to ask the following questions and didn't get a chance. I did inquire by email and will post the answers here when they are received.
Brent:
Senator Obama has recently begun to tie the costs of the Iraq War to the downturn in the American economy. Do you agree that the expense of the War in Iraq is having a large effect on our national and local economies?
Sam:
ONLY TALKING MONEY (not lives or humanity): I believe that there is some economic truth that War can help the economy, but this type of deficit spending has gotten way out of hand. Downturns are inevitable in our economy, but this type of spending has undermined the long-term stability of our economy for many reasons, the largest of which would be the doubling of our debt during this administration.
Brent follow-up:
If you are elected to the US Congress, will you to either initiate legislation or sign on to legislation cutting off the funding for the Iraq War?
Sam:
I believe in a time table of 18-24 months that must be set to withdraw from Iraq. I would vote accordingly (not voting for any funding unless it was tied to a time table for a responsible withdrawal).
Thanks to Sam for his thoughtful answers on these important questions. Let the parsing and analysis ensue!
No comments:
Post a Comment