Sunday, November 22, 2009

Support Campaign Finance Reform-Oppose United PACS of America

First, in my televised debate in 2006, all congressional candidates were asked 10 questions in that forum.  I was well prepared on issues.  I was most proud of my response related to being the only congressional candidate (out of all 15 Kansas congressional candidates in all four districts) that was opposed to the war in Iraq and wanting our troops home.  And I have not changed from that position. 

And I certainly do not want to send a total of 180,000 troops to Afghanistan until I clearly know what the criteria is for our nation to win this zany "war on terrorism."  Rhetorically, how will us Americans and our troops at risk know when to celebrate our victory?

Will the federal government tell us when we have won this "war on terror"?  Or once again, is Afghanistan merely  Viet Nam, Part III, absent the military draft?  The way the federal government ensured students did not oppose the war in Iraq or Afghanistan was no military draft.

 Instead, they took our state militia (Kansas National Guard) instead of drafting college students.  So, the federal government did one learn one thing from Viet Nam-no draft.  Instead, take each state's militia and have 40% of them fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and use the other 60% from the active duty military.

And then to top this off, screw the state militia by extending their enlistment by force with no recouse. As well as ensure when they returned, they could not get their old jobs back. Another trick I found out about was a young man at the local hardware store.  He told me he was joining the US Navy and they were paying him $23, 000 to enlist.  WOW.  And unbelievable. 

In my last post yesterday, I stated I was adopting in part, my new nickname is Dwight.  Naturally, that was in part chosen because of Dwight Eisenhowser.  Dwight warned us Americans before leaving the Oval Office  Jan. 17, 1961 about the dangers of the miltitary-industrial complex. His quote is worth remembering:

". . . we must guard against the acquistion of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex". 

Rock on Dwight  for the warning that is just as relevant now, as it was in 1961.  And thanks for  the federal interstate system/economic growth we got because of it.  Can we build a transportation system that will bring huge economic growth that benefits all Americans again?

 If Dwight were alive today, he would also be issuing a warning about the drug, health insurance and medical provider complex making secret deals with the Obama administration in Feb. 2009.  I imagine any federal government that mandates its citizens to be forced to have health insurance may make Dwight jump out of his grave screaming, "oh hell no." 

However, if I told Ike I thought a good idea for economic growth for America in the 21st century, would be a high speed heavy rail transport system (bullet trains for people and goods), I am pretty certain he would say, "Oh hell yes.  Rock on Scherer.  You got my vote. Let me contact ACORN and I am sure I can vote for you several times in different states even if I am dead."

Second, as a disabled veteran, honorable discharged and service decorated, just like Mr. Gilyeat, I am tired of our troops dying on foreign soil being policeman in foreign nations.  Our troops, including our Kansas National Guard were never meant to be foreign police departments; nor did our founding fathers ever want us to infringe on another nation's sovereignty.  I support the wisdom of our founding fathers and the United States Constitution.

Third, being honest, I was stumped and not prepared by one issue raised by one of panel members questions related to campaign finance reform.  I really had to wing my response to the question posed by the Kansas City Star reporter.  As a congressional candidate, we need to be ready to address around 65 major issues at any given moment.  Believe me, this is not easy.  However, not being prepared for this question bothered me personally after that event.

So from that point on, I have done my homework and research related to campaign finance reform.  I hereby want to make public for the residents of the 3rd District, this public statement:

* * * * PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT NO. 1 * * * * * *

Political action committees, hereafter PACS are a dominant force in who gets elected to represent you in Washington, DC.  Instead of the United States of America, their power and influence in federal legislation almost warrants renaming our country the United PACS of America.  Their power in Washington continues to grow as these special interest groups continue to create a very high risk of subjecting politicians to the gateway to corruption. 

For example, the drug industry has more lobbyists in Washington DC than there are congressman.  Hence, why we all continue to pay so much for prescriptions and cannot get prescriptions from international sources such as Canada or Mexico.  The drug industry has offered in 2011, to reduce the costs of prescriptions by 8 billion.  Hence, the way they are going to do this, is this year, they increased the cost of prescriptions by the largest amount they could.  (around 9.2%).  Which far exceeds their proposed reductions of 8 billion in 2011. 

I propose one campaign  finance reform would be the elimination of PACS being able to make political contributions, period.  There are now over 1600 PACS registered with the Federal Election Commission.  These PACS have bought many politicans and are the source of major campaign contributions. 

Merely ask or review the record of contributions the incumbent congressman gets, and will get from PACS.  Further, in a taped statement, the incumbent  stated he regarded one of my fellow congressional candidates,  a disabled war veteran and former Marine, Daniel Gilyeat as "white trash."

Fourth, the recent recorded statement by the incumbent regarding one of the filed congressional candidates really bothers me.  As well as suggests certain things about the incumbent.  Mr. Gilyeat just happens to be a a native American, Dennis.  So I guess this makes you as the incumbent an uninformed racist. 

In regard to PACS, I continue to refuse to be bought or bribed by PACS unlike the incumbent.  That will remain my policy regarding PACS.  I flatly will refuse and will return any contributions from PACS, period.  The only contributions that I will accept in support of my candidacy are contributions from individuals.  I am not running for the United States of PACS.  I am running for Congress for the United States of America on behalf of the individual.  And this is what our founding fathers envisioned.  (For example, refer to the Federalist Papers). 

Our founding fathers supported the belief that the strength of our nation was dependent upon the individual.  Not the governments and not commerical enterprises like corporations.  Our nation was built upon the backs of individuals--not corporate entities.  Our founding fathers wanted a limited federal government.  So much so, they enumerated and limited the power of the legislative branch.  Too many of our politicans abuse the commerce clause and funnel far too much money to corporate entites citing to economic development. One of our Kansas congressman gave over 50% of his earmarks this year to corporations-your federal tax dollars.  And now he wants to be a United States Senator.  I will not be endorsing this candidate for the United States Senate. 

Join me in stopping the abuse of power and potential corruption brought to you via the United PACS of America. Demand it.  Campaign Finance Reform.  Let's get rid of PACS and their ability to buy congressman like the incumbent who will advocate for their special interests, contrary to you, the individual.

We are.

Finally, the incumbent stated he had 7 million for the 2010 election. Where did the incumbent get 7 million dollars? He only makes around 175,000 as a congressman. Even if he saved every penny of his paycheck, that would only amount to around 1.75 million over the last 10 years. His public financial statement filed this year with the Clerk of the House of Representatives only reports his net worth between 200 hundred and 700 hundred thousand. So where is this 7 million dollars coming from, if not from PACS? Or is the incumbent hoarding cash in his freezer at home?

We wonder.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Anyone that would like to post solutions to make America a better nation as a guest blog author; or has solutions to fix some of the problems in America, send me an essay to Also known as Thomas E. Scherer, your better candidate for United States Congress

Merely remember if I am elected to Congress, you the individual are my boss. PACS, Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups, sorry, but just go away. Americans are tired of the United PACS of America buying and corrupting our congressman and Senators. Our candidate is not for sale.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.