By David Losey
We, conservatives, have become a suspicious lot! And with just cause! We have been fooled time and time again by candidates who tell us one thing while campaigning and then do the exact opposite after being elected. I believe that much of the problem lies in the candidate vetting process.
Vetting means to evaluate thoroughly or expertly. Who is responsible for doing this? All too often we have relied upon the media to do it. However, the media has a woeful record of failing to reveal a candidate's true positions. It generally fails to challenge or follow-up on answers from candidates that are non-responsive to the question being asked or hopelessly vague. In addition, the media, on most occasions, fails to do its homework and, therefore, is incapable of asking for details that would lead to further clarification. It would rather accept generalizations and move on to another topic. For instance, if a candidate declares himself to be a fiscal conservative the interviewer should know his voting record and immediately point out that his voting record either substantiates his claim or it doesn't.
Another source of proper vetting could/should be the political parties. For example, the Republican Party should find out before allowing a candidate to file as a Republican if the candidate supports the party platform. This clearly is not happening! Party leadership openly declares that its primary goal to get as many Republicans elected as possible. The following statement was heard by this writer during the 2008 Kansas Republican Primary Caucus. A state leader of the Republican Party declared that “his job was to see that John McCain was elected because polls showed that he had the best chance of winning.” There was no discussion of his qualification, his stand on issues, his support of the platform or his character. If he could win the Republican Party wanted him!
So I guess that leaves you and me, John Q. and Mary Q. Public to perform the vetting of candidates if we want to have any chance of electing true conservatives. By conservative I mean those who support the Constitution in all cases, who believe that it constrains the federal government and not citizens, that rampant spending must end, that our rights come from God not government, and that the law must be applied equally to all citizens.
Two grassroots organizations that are designed to help in the citizen vetting process are the Independence Caucus and Project Vote Smart. ICaucus asks candidates to answer an 80 question questionnaire and then participate in an extensive interview with a vetting committee. The interview is recorded and made available to the public. Project Vote Smart asks candidates to take a Political Courage Test. The test is designed to allow citizens to determine where candidates stand on issues they will likely vote on if elected.
One candidate running for the 3rd Congressional District seat is Kevin Yoder. He refused requests to be vetted by both organizations! In light of this I offer the vetting of Kevin Yoder relying on third party sources. It is meant to be the beginning of the process of discovering what his real positions are and how he will vote if elected. It will suggest questions that he must be asked in order to allow him to clarify his past positions and affiliations and his past and current financial support that seem contrary to his current efforts to convince voters he is a right-of-center conservative. The information that I will present is intended to help us answer the following questions. Will real change occur if he is elected or will things remain the same? Will we continue to have big government forced down our throats whether we like it or not? Will he follow the example of Dennis Moore who assumed he knew what was best for us and ignored input from his constituents? Voters have the right to know: Is Kevin Yoder a real conservative or a stealth progressive?
(The vetting process by its very nature is detailed. The reader should note that one isolated fact does not make the case but it is the accumulation of evidence or as they say in court, the preponderance of the evidence, that makes the case. I will state my conclusions at the end and allow you to come to your own. Whether we agree or not is secondary. The point is that all candidates need to be honest and clarify who they are and what they truly stand for if they expect us to vote for them. No one should get a vote just because they have an “R” or a “D” behind their name!)
Let me begin with evidence that indicates there has been a recent transformation in Yoder's political views that are cause for concern. The basis for this concern begins with his days as a student at Kansas University where he was Student Body President for the 1998-1999 school year. (Note: It would be a stretch of the imagination to believe that a liberal university like KU would elect a known conservative as Student Body President.) All indications are that he was conscientious and dedicated to doing the very best that he could. He was quoted in the Lawrence Journal-World, “I really want to do a good job of making this my life for the next year.'' He clearly understood that the decisions of the Student Senate would effect the lives of all students. After all, the Senate controls thousands of dollars, being charged with deciding how funds will be allocated to various campus groups. In addition, it serves as a watch dog organization that addresses student concerns with the administration, the State Legislature, and the Board of Regents. One of the concerns he focused on was the increasing cost of education. “The financial burden,” he said, “has increasingly fallen to students. I think right now KU students spend too much money (percentage-wise) on their education. I'd like to reverse that trend.” (Note: By implication, he believed the state taxpayers should shoulder a larger portion of the cost. This is certainly not a conservative position.) In order to bring pressure on legislators to increase state funding he proposed publicizing the voting records of the five best and the five worst legislators in terms of supporting additional spending for KU students.
In addition to serving as Student Body President he served as the Chief Justice of the Inter-fraternity Council's Judicial Board, President of the Young Democrats, and President of the Student Bar Association. (Note: Hardly positions one would expect to be held by a conservative.)
Douglas County records show that a Kevin Yoder, living in Lawrence, was registered as a Democrat in 2001. This would almost certainly be true since he was President of the Young Democrats.
After graduating with his Law Degree from KU in 2002 he moved to Johnson County and was offered a position with Speer & Holliday of Olathe where he still practices law. He immediately ran for the District 20 House seat in Overland Park which was being vacated by Gerry Ray. Does this seem too well orchestrated to any one besides me? Student graduates, does not return home to Hutchinson, accepts an offer with a law firm in Olathe, but chooses to live in the precise district in OP where the current state rep is retiring, and decides to run for this seat not as a Democrat but as a Republican. From an outsider looking in it appears that some one in the Kansas Republican Party tapped him on the shoulder and indicated that he was the Chosen One. (Note: The author has a first hand report from a member of the House that RINOs from Johnson County when confronted with the fact that since they repeatedly vote with the Democrats , should simply join the Democrat Party, respond, “I would never do that! I couldn't get elected as a Democrat in Johnson County!”)
The Kansas City Star reported on July 13, 2002 that Yoder's political experience included serving as a Legislative aide to Senator David Adkins and Representative Dean Newton. Mr Marty Keenan, a former political appointee of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius,
characterizes both as moderate Republicans. (
http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2010/04/kevin-yoders-left-to-right-political-odyssey.html). Keenan suggests that this did not represent a big change in ideology for Yoder since moderate Republicans frequently joined with Democrats in passing liberal legislation.
In his first campaign in 2002 it was reported on his web site that he received the following endorsements.
Endorsed by:
Johnson County Sun
Johnson County Republicans for Education
Kansas Agri-Business Council
Former Senate President Dick Bond
Former Senator Audrey Langworthy
Senator Barbara Allen
Senator John Vratil
Representative Dean Newton
Current 20th District State Representative Gerry Ray
Mainstream Coalition
The Squire
Friends of Kansas Education
Educating All Children in Kansas (EPAC)
I will focus on the Mainstream Coalition endorsement and leave the reader the option of exploring the other endorsements. In its September 28, 2002 edition the Kansas City Star indicated that the Mainstream Coalition endorsed Kevin Yoder for the District 20 House seat. (For the record Mainstream Coalition is a 501c4 organization. Therefore its endorsements must legally come from its MAIN PAC arm. But in reality it is all the same people.) Information of the on-going association between him and the Coalition is sketchy but it is a matter of record (pictures are on the Internet) that in 2006 Yoder manned a table promoting his re-election campaign that year at a Mainstream Coalition picnic. His presence at this Candidate Rally indicates that in 2006 he definitely received the endorsement of the Mainstream Coalition.
The MAIN in mainstream stands for Moderate Alliance of Informed Neighbors. The spark that started the Coalition was the alleged harassment of Republican State Representative Nancy Brown in 1993 over her pro-choice stance. It was formed out the the belief that an organization was needed to support moderate politicians against the attacks from the religious right. Its founders were David Goldstein, Judy Hellman, Rev. Bob Meneilly, Carol Sader, Nancy Brown and Rabbi Mark Levin. Shortly after the initial meeting Dr. Bob Meneilly, senior pastor of the Village Presbyterian Church, preached a sermon regarding the threat of the religious right. (It was later printed as an OP-ED in the NY Times on August 29, 1993.) He characterized the religious right as intent upon electing candidates who would use the power of the federal government to impose its extremist views on the entire nation. He called them “stealth candidates” who were “dangerous for local communities and the nation.” He suggested that they would advocate the teaching of creationism in our schools, gutting the sex education programs, and eliminating school breakfast programs and day care for children of poor working parents. He went on to accuse the religious right of censorship of books and that “the Framers of our Constitution ... insisted on a system of separation of church and state that guarantees religious freedom for all.” (He made this claim in spite of the fact that “separation of church and state” is never mentioned in the Constitution. It, in fact, first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.) He goes on to say that “the religious right extremists have been conniving in every political way to get state-mandated prayer and Bible reading back into the public schools....” Summing up, he says that the religious right is a bigger threat than communism!
Out of this sermon grew the Coalition's mission statement, “To promote the separation of church and state with an emphasis on education and religious freedom.” The political arm focuses on “building its influence on people in regard to policies” and telling people who to vote for. It is not shy in declaring that it intends to maintain moderate/progressive, nonpartisan, reasonable leadership in the state legislature. On the national scene, “Longtime observers credit the repeated wins of ... Dennis Moore to the Mainstream Coalition. It (the Mainstream Coalition) has become the 'mainstream voice' of moderate and progressive citizenry. We are about to see some dramatic changes in areas as Democrats and progressive Republicans work together toward common ends. We are seeing evidence of a more civil politic... with the working together of Democrats and centrist republicans.” (Bob Meneilly in an interview with Mark Anderson, January 29, 2007.)
I have found it personally confusing the way the terms moderate, centrist, and progressive seem to be used interchangeably. Do they in fact refer to groups that share the same core values and beliefs regarding the role of government? I believe they do! In this next section I will try to give a face to moderates. This is important in order to see what specific policies and issues they support. To begin with I googled “moderate candidates” and found the following.
Scott Wiener – Chairman of the San Francisco Democrat Party, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, former co-chair and treasurer of the LGBT Community Center.
Dede Scozzafava -- moderate, social liberal, pro-choice, supports same sex marriage, gay rights, and abortion rights. She ran as a Republican for the NY 37th Congressional District race but when she dropped out she endorsed the liberal Democrat candidate rather than the conservative Republican. This is a clear example that moderate Republicans are more closely aligned ideologically with Democrats than conservative Republicans.
Moderate – pro-working families, pro-union and pro-green jobs.
Lincoln Chafee – former GOP Senator from Rhode Island who repeatedly opposed tax cuts and became an Independent in 2007.
Moderates are often referred to as RINOs (Republican in-name-only). When looking at list of RINOs, one finds the following: Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham. Congressman Michael Castle (referred to as one of the most important voices for centrists) and Mark Kirk. And former Congressmen Christopher Shays and Jim Leach.
Other notable RINOs are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell, George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge, Dede Scozzafava, Michael Bloomberg, and Ray Lahood.
An organization listed on Google as a moderate organization is the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC policy agendas include expanding and securing home ownership for all Americans, universal access to college, universal retirement and pensions, health care for all Americans, fiscal responsibility, opportunity through globalization, trade supports, supporting WTO's Doha Round talks dealing with global initiatives, investment in clean energy technology, supporting cap and trade legislation, requiring tailpipe emission reading on all individual vehicles, and mandating that 25% of America's energy come from bio-fuels. (Any reader having a little difficulty swallowing this as moderate? I am!)
Past Chairmen of the DLC include Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh. The current Chairman is former Representative Harold Ford from Tennessee. It is noteworthy what Evan Bayh in his Inaugural Address upon becoming Chairman in 2001 said in reference to the beginning of the DLC in 1985.
“And so the Democratic Leadership Council was formed. Not as a group of rogue Republicans. Not as a group of soulless pragmatists only interested in the quest for political gain, but as the true progressives -- the modernizers of our time....
“We must continue to stay ahead of the pace of change, to be a source of dynamic ideas, and to bear the true mantle of reform. We must stay true to our dedication to fiscal responsibility, not because it is a sterile accounting principle, but because we know it is the necessary predicate to progressive government.”
(Note: It is unclear to the author how progressive support of an ever expanding government can be compatible with fiscal responsibility.)
A partial list of elected officials who are members of the DLC include Max Baucus, Russ Carnahan, Hillary Clinton (appointed), Byron Dorgan, Rahm Emanuel (appointed), Dianne Feinstein, Bob Kerry, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Dennis Moore, Ben Nelson, Gavin Newsom, Debbie Stabenow, and Tom Udall. Members not currently holding office are Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards. Again the reader must decide. Is this a list of moderates or a list of far-left liberals/progressives who support the expansion of the federal government at every opportunity? It is the belief of this author that when voting records are examined it will be clear that they all fall into the latter category. (It will be left to the reader to do a detailed study of the individual voting records as this falls outside of the scope of this article).
From a a DLC Project Description of May 20, 2008
it is clear that the DLC sees themselves as a progressive organization. (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450006&subid=900182&contentid=254646) “In this election year, progressives are facing a rare opportunity: the chance to build a governing majority that can last.
“While much of the attention is understandably focused on the presidential race, there will also be vital elections at the congressional level nationwide. It is in Congress that progressives can deliver a legislative program that helps working families, promotes our national security, and builds a prosperous and healthy future for our children and grandchildren.”
This does much to solidify the connection between moderates and progressives.
Besides looking at those who share the moderate/progressive camp with the Mainstream Coalition it is enlightening to see who they have supported besides Kevin Yoder.
The Mainstream Coalition as an organization contributed $500 to both Moore and Boyda in 2006. And in 2008 it contributed $500 to both Kay Barnes and Jim Slattery.
Individuals who gave to the Mainstream Coalition also gave to Dennis Moore, Nancy Boyda, Kay Barnes, Jim Slattery, Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, Robin Carnahan, Barrack Obama, Emanuel Cleaver, Hillary Clinton, the Kansas Democrat Party, the Democrat National Committee, ACTBLUE, and Moveon.org.
Returning to the chronology of his entry into politics at the state level, there are other facts indicating that Yoder is a moderate with more in common with liberal/progressives than with conservatives. While in his initial campaign he indicated that effectively supporting schools would necessarily mean increasing taxes. He soundly criticized the previous legislature for merely giving lip service to supporting schools and in the end doing “a great disservice to our state.” (KC Star, July 13, 2002) In the same article he stated his opposition to school vouchers. He believed that vouchers would take money from public schools at a time when funding is already strained. In addition he stated he stood firmly behind current abortion laws. (Most would agree that theses are not indicative of conservative views.)
Additional indication of his liberal/progressive views is that within the first four months of the very first legislative session in which he served he, along with fifteen other freshmen legislators, challenged House and Senate leadership by proposing a $266 million tax increase. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal (April 29, 2003), “... the freshmen unveiled a plan that would increase sales taxes by 0.5 percent and impose an across-the-board income tax surcharge of 3.5 percent. They also would call a halt to the deceleration of the sales tax rate, from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, over the next two years.
“The freshmen propose dumping an additional $28.9 million into K-12 education, $16.3 million into higher education and $21 million into the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to eliminate waiting lists for social services. They also would increase state contributions to KPERS by $25 million annually to try to help save the faltering retirement system.”
The Johnson County Sun confirms this account adding, Yoder said, "... we believe there is strong public support for increasing funding for education and other basic services." (Johnson County Sun, May 1, 2003.) According to a quote in the Sun from Scott Schwab, freshman legislator from Olathe, freshman conservatives were shut out of the process. (Once again by all accounts Yoder is not a conservative.)
In trying to further determine his political persuasion it would be helpful to consider who has supported him in the last eight years with campaign contributions and who they supported besides him.
1. QC Holdings, the largest contributor to Dennis Moore's campaign in 2008, has given Kevin Yoder $19,400 from its PAC. Personal contributions from corporate executives and/or their spouses totals at least $4800. The $19,400 from the PAC is the largest contribution to Yoder's campaign so far in the 2010 election cycle. It has also given to nine members of the House Progressive Caucus. On the Senate side it has given to such well known liberals as Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Patty Murray. Corporate executives and/or their spouses have in previous elections supported Harry Reid, Dennis Moore, Lynn Jenkins, Kay Barnes, Claire McCaskill, Tim Johnson, and Luis Gutierrez.
2. Stephen Cloud, former RNC National Committeeman from Kansas, gave at least $6500 to Yoder and also supported Jim Barnett (candidate in the 1st District Congressional race), Lynn Jenkins, Dede Scozzafava, Mike Pompeo (candidate in the 4th District Congressional race), Jim Inhofe, Jerry Moran, Rick Boucher (Democrat Congressman from Virginia), John McCain, Pat Roberts, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, George Bush, Chuck Ahner, Jim Ryan, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Kit Bond, Adam Taff, Greg Musil, and George Voinovich.
It appears that Cloud generally supports moderate Republicans but is not adverse to supporting those leaning to the far left like Scozzafava, Chafee, Snowe, and Collins. But beyond that he has supported the Republican Leadership Council PAC contributing at least $4,000 since 2008 based upon FEC data reported by The Center for Responsive Politics. This raises a red flag due to the fact that the RLC has given $20,000 since 2006 in PAC-to-PAC contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership. Other contributions to RMSP have been made by well known left-leaning groups such as SEIU, AFL-CIO, National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, Marijuana Policy Project, Humane USA, and the Human Rights Campaign.
In addition, contributions to individual candidates by RMSP included Olympia Snowe (rated the most liberal Republican in the Senate by the National Journal based upon her voting record), Mike Castle (noted previously as an important voice for centrists and rated the most liberal Republican in the House by the NJ) followed by seven other Congressmen who fall in the top 10 most liberal Republicans in the House. While purporting to be a fiscal conservative and centrist-right group, RMSP is clearly a left of center liberal group based upon who it supports financially. It would be difficult to understand how Mr. Cloud would not be aware of this given his close associations within the RNC.
3. Crossland Construction has given Yoder $12,000 on top of. personal contributions from corporate executives of at least $3500. This places Crossland #4 on his list of top supporters. They also contributed to moderates Jerry Moran and Lynn Jenkins.
4. The HCA Kansas Good Government Fund has contributed at least $1600 to Yoder's Kansas House races since 2005. The HCA Good Government Fund has in the 2010 election cycle given over $100,000 to Democrat candidates and $50,000 to Republicans. It has supported such notable liberal candidates as Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Charlie Crist, John Dingell, Orin Hatch, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, George Miller, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, and Henry Waxman. Its largest contributions were $10,000 each to Pelosi and Waxman. In the 2008 election cycle it gave Charles Rangel, Pat Roberts, and John Sununu $10,000 each.
5. Watco Companies is the second largest contributor to Yoder's congressional campaign with $15,400. It has previously supported Jerry Moran, Blanche Lincoln, Corrine Brown, and Kendrick Meek (all Democrats except Moran). It has also given to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. Company executives have personally supported a wide variety of candidates. Those from Kansas include Brownback, Roberts, Moran, Ryan, Jordan, Boyda, Tiahrt, Slattery, and Huelskamp They have also supported many outside of Kansas including Blanche Lincoln, Kendrick Meek, Corrine Brown, Roy Blunt, Earl Blumenauer, Arthur Davis, Max Baucus, John Thune, Jim Talent, Charles Grassley, and Arlen Specter.
6. Although two PACS, Polsinelli, Shalton, et al and Polsinelli Shughart PC, are maintained as separate entities they, in fact, represent employees at the same company following a merger. The former PAC has given Yoder $11,298 in the 2010 election cycle while the latter has given $7,300. The firm has been very supportive of him over the years with contributions of both PAC money and personal contributions. Other candidates supported in the past are Roy Blunt, Robin Carnahan, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John Dingell, Dick Durbin, Barney Frank, Charles Grassley, Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, Blanche Lincoln, Kendrick Meek, Dennis Moore, Patty Murray, James Oberstar, David Obey, Chuck Schumer, Ike Shelton, and Edolphus Towns.
The Polsinelli Shughart PC PAC gave to a similar list of candidates in the 2010 election cycle to date with $45,500 going to Democrats and $7,500 to Republicans. The top recipients in the Senate are Charles Schumer-- $4,800, Patty Murray--$4,600, Byron Dorgan--$4,300, Charles Grassley--$3,000, Kendrick Meek--$2,000, Robin Carnahan--$2,000, and Roy Blunt--$2,000. In the House leading recipients are James Oberstar--$2,500, John Dingell--$2,300, Ike Skelton--$2,000 and Emanuel Cleaver--$2,000.
7. Ongoal, LLC is the 3rd largest contributor to his congressional campaign with $14,399. This company owns the Wizards, the professional Soccer team, and has received $275 million in public funding to build a soccer stadium. The five principles of the corporation and their spouses have contributed over $21,000 to his campaign. Other candidates they have supported are Blunt, John Kerry, Brownback, Graves, Talent, Bond, Bush, McCain, and Huelskamp The principles of Ongoal are also principles in Cerner Corp. which has contributed $11,592 placing them 5th in total contribution to date.
8. The $250 contribution to the Yoder campaign by the Stinson Morrison Hecker PAC is insignificant in and of itself but the PAC”s other contributions are revealing. It gave $26, 754 to Democrats and $10,250 to Republicans to date in the 2010 election cycle. Notable contributions are $2,000 to Henry Cuellar, $1,500 to Steny Hoyer, $1,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $1,000 to Shiela Jackson-Lee, $1,000 to Emanuel Cleaver, $1,000 to Harry Reid, $1,000 to Dick Durbin, and $1,000 to Robin Carnahan.
9. J. Roy Holliday, partner at Speer & Holliday where Yoder practices law, has supported Dennis Moore in every election since 2000, having contributed at least $3,750. This year he has chosen to support Yoder for Congress with contributions totaling $1,950 to date.
In more general terms Yoder's to-date contributions come primarily from Lawyers/Law Firms (nearly $35,000) with Finance/Credit Companies coming in second at $27,000. He has received nearly $134,000 from out-of-state sources.
There is much more that could and should be done to thoroughly vet Yoder but additional vetting will be left up to other interested parties. However, the vetting process would not be complete if all one did was to examine data. One must look for trends in the data and draw conclusions and formulate questions to be asked. The following is intended to be a starting point but by no means is intended to be an exhaustive list of questions to be asked and answered before one chooses to vote for him..
1. The preponderance of evidence certainly indicates that the Mainstream Coalition supports liberal/progressive candidates and it is a logical conclusion then that it considers Kevin Yoder to be of a like mind. It seem reasonable to assume that they are relying upon him to work with Democrats to bring about dramatic changes. Does he really believe that the religious right is more dangerous than communists?
2. After examining the moderate/progressive legislative agenda as revealed by the DLC one must ask him to answer the following questions.
Do you support card check?
Do you support the LGBT's efforts to legalize gay marriage, extend health insurance and retirement benefits to gay spouses, and child adoption by same sex couples?
Do you believe that global warming is man-caused and that economies must be forced to collapse to save the earth?
Do you support cap and trade?
Will you read the entire bill before voting on it?
Will you vote for legislation that both helps and harms U.S. Citizens?
If a bill is unconstitutional will you vote no?
Will you vote the party line in order to gain party support for your re-election?
Will you support global governance that will allow global organizations to violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens?
Will you allow our military to serve under international commanders outside the authority of their Commander-in-Chief?
Do you support sealing our borders/building a fence?
Will you support amnesty?
Will you vote to extend Social Security to illegal immigrants?
Will you support allowing non-citizens to vote?
Will you support the nationalization of private businesses?
Will you support universal access to a college education, home ownership for all Americans, and
universal retirement and pensions?
Voters have the right to know. As a moderate/centrist/progressive, what do you stand for?
3. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Stephen Cloud is representative of the Kansas Republican Party. His support of moderate/liberal/progressive candidates and organizations indicates that he supports the status quo, an ever expanding government and out-of-control spending. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he supports Kevin Yoder because he expects him to join with Democrats to pass additional progressive legislation. (It is extremely important to note that progressives blatantly refuse to be restrained by any provisions of the U.S. Constitution. They fully intend to advance their agenda without regard for States' rights or individual liberties! See John Podesta's book,
The Power of Progress )
4. Items 3-9 will be considered in toto. The contributions of PACs and individuals form a composite indicating continued support of moderate/liberal/progressive candidates by those who currently support him. I believe they support him for one of two reasons or in some cases, a combination of the two. One, is self-preservation. They wish to have a friend in high places that they can count on to protect their business interests. Or, two, because they are sympathetic to the moderate/liberal/progressive agenda of bigger government, more spending, and less individual liberty and wish to see it advanced through government intervention. There is little doubt that they expect Yoder to advance this agenda. (Regarding #7 Ongoal. For the life of me I cannot figure out why owners of a professional soccer team are contributing to a congressional candidate.)
There is one last question readers must answer before deciding whether or not to vote for him. Are you comfortable with the fact that a candidate who receives his largest contributions from Lawyers/Law Firms and nearly $134,000 from out-of-state interests will vote in a manner that will make your life better? I clearly am not! I believe voting for Yoder means Moore of the same!
Sources for campaign contribution data:
opensecrets.org
fec.gov
campaignmoney.com
