Additional Endorsements for Mike Dismukes
I am uncomfortable with the inherent special interest/trading-for-favors atmosphere accompanying endorsements and the likely money involved in traditional olitics. With serious soul searching, I have returned and denied offered contributions in the primary elections. Consequently, I did not have the funds for lawn signs or shiny brochures. I was, therefore, pleasantly surprised (no, shocked) at the public support and voter response in the primaries. I am the black sheep candidate, referred to as the "sacrificial lamb" by the News & Review, with little likelihood of stirring any media interest in my more moderate views.
I honestly believe that special interest funding and the endorsement tradition polarizes winning candidates through extensive funding of either the far left or the far right philosophies. As examples: On the right, the National Rifle Association contributed funds to the primary candidate proposing limits on, or deregulation of, current gun control measures. (In our primaries, it was a Democrat.) I can not and did not support that position. In contrast and on the left, Unions contributed funds to the candidate supporting "project labor agreements" (union labor) on certain public projects (ie: light rail), thus increasing taxpayer expenses and hurting small businesses that can not afford union labor and cannot, therefore, bid on the job. I can not and did not support that position, either. These were extreme right/left positions. Based on his declared campaign contributions, I believe my current opponent, Mr. Steinberg, represents the far left position. I do not represent the far right.
Here is my point: Special interest groups rarely fund moderate candidates under current campaign/endorsement practices. The real loss is to the public, who traditionally must choose between extreme candidates. Luck and circumstances alone permit my availability to you as a moderate candidate.
Even though I am a teacher, I declined the endorsement procedures of the California Teachers Association because they required a video-taped "closed door" interview with no corroboration nor independent taping of the proceedings. At every level of government, at every level of my campaign, I support open meetings, open interviews, and open public review. The California Teachers Association could not agree.
On a happier note, I also declined the endorsement procedures and funding of the Sacramento Women's Campaign Fund, choosing to ask for their more valuable individual votes in November. Their generous and overwhelming response of support was humbling. It is in those surprised moments that my commitment to the people is reinforced. I sincerely thank you, Sacramento Women's Campaign Fund.
While declining traditional endorsement procedures, I have made every effort to honestly respond to every question posed by every person or group, including special interests. I intend no dishonor on politicians choosing traditional endorsements and traditional campaign contributions. I simply believe that the public is asking for something else, someone else. Someone committed to We, The People. Nothing more, nothing less.
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Race
November 1998 Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter
Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 13, 1998 11:39
Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Race