Communications Act of 1934

There is a law called the Communications Act of 1934.  This law requires broadcasters including the news media to not discriminate against congressional candidates in their broadcasts.  For example, see 47 U.S.C. Section 202.  There are many other laws, both federal and state that come into play during a federal congressional campaign.  See the labels below for some of them.

I do not understand why Steve Rose continues to discuss who he wants to be the next congressman.  For a whole nine days, he wanted to be one.  Then quit.  So, since he filed with the FEC, why is he even allowed to write about it?  Doesthis not give him a tremendous, but federally prohibited advantage this congressional cycle? 

I am in the process of inquiring why Mr. Rose, a filed candidate for United States Congress, and some of the other media, continue to broadcast their news stories omitting some of us during this congressional election cycle. I guess Rose does not like federal and state laws either since he feels no obligation as a filed, but later after a whole nine days, a withdrawn congressional candidate.  And I assure you, there are many others just like Mr. Rose. 

Like some of those people that work for McClatchy newspapers including their CEO Gary Pruitt who refuses to communicate with me on why that is. While noting I can communicate with Warren Buffet, but not Gary Pruitt.  Which explains why I respect Mr. Buffet , but do not have respect for Mr. Pruitt. Warren is cool. Pruitt wants to hide.  I also like Steve Rose's boss, David Bradley and his wife.  Very nice people.

Some of the media continue not to due their due diligence and do their fact checking and repeatedly are omitting some of the filed candidates for United States Congress.  The only rational reason I can determine why this might be happpening has one common thread-both Mr. Gilyeat and myself are continously omitted.  Maybe it is because we both are honorable discharged and decorated veterans who incurred a service connected disability defending and protecting our nation.

I doubt Mr. Rose served and protected his nation like we did.  One source informed me Rose could not finish boot camp and was kicked out of of the armed forces.  Apparently, he dislikes us for that fact and that must explain why he repeatedly omits Mr. Gilyeat and myself in who he wants to be his next congressman.

For facts on which candidates have had the courage, leadership and vision before the incumbent announced his retirement,  I strongly advise the media to check the Federal Election Commission to see who is, and who is not filed as a candidate for United States Congress.  Go to http://www.fec.gov/.

I saw reported today in media sources there was a "plan" or conspiracy among some of the GOP. (Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts and others, but none of the  filed 3rd District congressional candidates).  What plan, I have no idea.  But I assure you I am in no "plan" as reported.  Further, we must not presume Mr. Moore will not suddenly change his mind and suddenly reverse direction and file for 2010. 

Maybe that is the plan.  Because no democrat has filed for the 3rd Congressional seat.  So we GOP candidates must not be tricked into assuming Mr. Moore will not change his mind at the last minute. 

We all certainly noted how he changed his mind regarding being a fiscal conservative once the blue dogs became the majority in the House.  We know Congressman Moore distributed 151 million in earmarks to all kinds of entites.  Many of which I had a difficult time understanding what the federal nexus was.

We know Moore liked NAFTA, CAP and TRADE (aka, crap and trap), Health Care mandates and partial birth abortions.  We know Moore must also must like Nancy Pelosi since he usually votes just like her.  We also know the last I checked, Moore introduced four bills, none of which went anywhere. All of which makes most of us want to send Moore somewhere else-retirement.

For example, can anyone explain to me the federal nexus in Moore's seven million dollar earmark to replace the street lights of Prairie Village?  I for one do not see anything related to what is the  federal nexus here. I spent quite a bit of time this spring in reviewing all the congressional earmarks by all of our congressman here in Kansas.

 In regard to earmarks by our two Kansas Senators Brownback and Roberts, this spring, they (via staff) refused to tell me what their earmarks were.  Some United States Senators do not like transparency, including the two we have from Kansas. (Brownback and Roberts). I know because I asked both of their staffs.  Which they refused to tell me what their earmarks were.

I did this research so I could determine what my policy would be related to earmarks.  Which I will be happy to discuss when asked. During this research, I inquired to both Kansas senators as well.  Apparently, they do not want to tell us about their earmarks. Why is that?  I want both our Kansas Congressman and Senators to tell us what earmarks they want.  As well as explain what the federal nexus is. 

When I state I am fiscal conservative, I assure you there will be a federal nexus to all earmarks.  In fact, I recommend instead of giving away your federal dollars via the earmark process, Congressman and Senators start becoming fiscally conservative by replacing the earmark process with federal guarenteed loans instead of just giving away our federal tax dollars.

When I state I am a fiscal conservative, I mean it.  No more government bailouts and no more earmarks lacking a federal nexus. Further, there are only very rare exceptions such as national emergency when a congressman should be giving earmarks to federal agencies.

Federal agencies have their own process of funding their funds.  And remember, federal agencies come under the Executive Branch.  So I merely ask, if these federal  agencies have to request earmarks, does that not imply they failed to adequately plan ahead in their budget process? 

Here is a link to this alleged plan as reported: http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091203/pl_cq_politics/politics3257436_1.  To Senator(s) Brownback and Roberts, would both of you send me a copy of this alleged "plan" to all of us GOP candidates filed with the Federal Election Commission so I can inform the public that I want to represent what that plan is.

Since Senator Brownback is having some kind of "plan" as reported, I hereby withdraw my endorsement of him to be our next Kansas Governnor.  I do not want Sam Brownback or Senator Roberts to pick by themselves, who is going to be our next 3rd District Congressman.  That is the right of the voters of the 3rd District; not the right of our two United States Kansas Senators.