I want to test Steve Rose's theory on what it takes to get elected

Steve Rose, a filed candidate for United States Congress keeps telling us more than once, including his last article or column (being generous) what it takes to win the GOP Congressional Primary.  He insists without elaboration, it is going to take more than $700,000.  I would like Mr. Rose to write a column next week explaining his theory.  Because I explictly reject that theory as nonsense.

Mr. Rose thinks it takes money to win elections. And certainly he should know after his nine-day campaign. To which I counter the congressional candidate that gets the most contributions may in fact, be influenced by those PACS and other entities that contribute heavily to  any congressional campaign committee. 

For example, review Mr. Moore's contributors in the past.  Such as the IBEW. I remember this union PAC promised no more campaign contributions would be given if  Moore voted for NAFTA. He did.  IBEW's PAC despite their promise, still made a PAC contribution anyway. 

From my own past election cycle here in Merriam, the day of the election, one of the candidates for city council knocked on my door asking me to vote for him.  I asked him how much money had he spent running for Merriam City Council race.  He stated zero dollars. 

He still got a lot of votes, including mine.  My decision was based on what he wanted to do for me, a resident of Merriam. For he admitted he did not spend seven hundred thousand dollars.  He spent zero.

Why? I wonder taking Mr. Rose's theory into consideration,  how did this happen?  How can a person running for elected office get votes, yet not spend a nickel campaigning?

I am pretty certain when it comes to who we vote for, it is more important what a candidate suggests might make our city a better place to live; just might be a more important factor to some of the voters, some of the time.  Isn't what a candidate states his best opinion of what the consensus of the voters expect from their next congressman good enough? 

NO. Writes Steve Rose. YOU MUST HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

According to Mr. Rose, that is not  enough.  To win the GOP primary, a congressional candidate must have at least seven hundred thousand dollars.  I reject that theory Mr. Rose.  And I think there are three other filed candidates with the FEC and a lot of voters that might not agree with your stupid theory either. 

My goal is merely prove your theory is one big fallacy of nonsense hopefully by August 2010.

To the IBEW, et al: I want to thank the brothers and sisters of the IBEW. Some of your leaders helped some of us employees at Providence-St. Margaret Hospital get a big raise when your leaders tried to help us.  Not to mention how grateful I am to all the unions and skilled trademen and craftsmen that built this country of ours.  But clearly, I am sorry but I cannot nor will I accept any PAC contributions.

Sorry. I am not for sale.  While noting some may be. I am pretty certain one candidate will have seven hundred thousand dollars.  I would not vote for this person.