17 Ethical Dilemmas for Legislators

I came across an interesting, short read by Ken G. Nelson who served as a DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Minnesota State Legislator for 20 years.¹ The reading, "Some Ethical Tensions I have Experienced As a Minnesota State Legislator," is one promoted by Harvard Professor/Lecturer Dr. David C. King who has used this paper repeatedly a course on U.S. Congress and Lawmaking (Harvard Course PAL-210).

In this read, Nelson names 17 "ethical tensions"² he experienced without further discussion or elaboration. Although Nelson uses the word "tensions" it seemed to me that the word "tensions" was understating the seriousness of these so-called "tensions" when considering the Congressional Oath of Office each Congressman is sworn to:

...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic...

To me, this Oath means that every bill, every vote must be viewed with the underlying premise of "am I through my vote (actions) supporting and defending the US Constitution?" The resurgence of such a notion was evident in the recently-announced GOP "A Pledge to America" where on page 33 the authors promise:

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution
on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled
laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the
specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

Such Constitutional underpinning will help provide a moral basis to ground the legislator through their ethical dilemmas and to help treat them with the seriousness imbued by the office itself.

What follows is a discussion of Nelson's 17 ethical tensions with my response (identified in maroon) immediately following each stated tension:

(1) The ethical tension of living and working in the political culture, which operates on the pervasive and dominant value of re‑election, while voting and working against those special interests who can best help you get re‑elected. ("You ought to be able to drink their wine, eat their food, take their contributions, look them in the face, and vote against them.")

This tension must be resisted by the politician who must treat every election as a privilege and focus on serving the constituency though noble policy irrespective of potential impacts on reelection. To ameliorate such tensions, the politician should examine if they should be "drinking the wine" offered in the first place. Serving but a sole term and returning to one's profession is far more noble than a career in politics; for America has sadly been witness to acid-like exposure-to-power corruption acting upon even the most noble of our Representatives.

(2) The ethical tension of voting against your own district, even the people who helped elect you, but for an issue that solves a statewide problem. (Policy by printout and parochialism.)

A basis of justification of voting against the district may be found in the Oath of Office above: sworn loyalty to the Constitution precedes loyalty to the district. Alternatively, politicians who feel government is best administered at the most local level possible--a theme derived from the Constitution--may find naturally that solving a local problem statewide is invasive.

(3) The ethical tension of voting for an issue you are against, either because you need that issue's supporters for your next vote (trading votes), or because you are a leader in your caucus, and the caucus members have decided they want this issue to pass. (lottery ‑ less latitude as you rise in leadership)

In theory, vote trading is not in and of itself evil, but rather the absconding of it is. If one were to engage in vote trading, they must be honest and open with their constituents; the potential embarrassment of such honesty provides an answer to whether one should vote trade. If votes were examined for their Constitutionality, votes most impactful to the nation would be found to be untradeable. Vote trading for leadership advancement or preservation is immoral as it promotes power over principle.

(4) The ethical tension of taking credit on the campaign trail for what you have done for your district, but not wanting your colleagues at the capitol to hear this because they already believe you have benefited your district at the expense of theirs and it can negatively impact your effectiveness to deliver again.

Loyalty to the people of the district must supersede loyalty to the party.

(5) The ethical tension of overusing the "I" pronoun, rather than the "we" pronoun when you work on an issue, pass a bill, chair a committee or give a legislative report.

If one is honest and wants to effectively gain influence with others they will give credit where it is due. Football coaching legend Bear Bryant is often quoted: "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, then we did it. If anything goes real good, then you did it."

(6) The ethical tension of working against good ideas because they are promoted by people of the minority party which is trying to take away your majority status.

One should never work against good ideas. People who push this corrupt philosophy are tyrants concerned about the preservation of power over principles which have made our nation great. Here's a great principle: great leaders sacrifice personal and party power for the good of the nation.

(7) The ethical tension of preserving human relationships while working against people because they are of the other party or on the other side of an issue.

True relationships remain even when the parties differ in opinion. One must always treat the opposing side with respect; yet if the opposition does not return the handshake of fellowship it speaks not to a personal ethical problem, but rather belies the relationship of a friend who is in truth a colleague.

(8) The ethical tension of telling your supporters all you know or have done on an issue, knowing that it will erode their support for you.

To lie, or not to lie that is the fundamental question posed here. A lie can be guised as a part-truth inasmuch as our courts have us sware: "to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god."

(9) The ethical tension of providing a quick budget fix, to get through the next election, knowing that you are compounding the long‑term fiscal problem of the state.

It is this very kind of common, unethical action that has placed our nation in financial jeopardy. Our latest 111th Congress went took this a step further and adjourned last month to go campaign leaving undone the Constitutional neglect of passing any budget.

(10) The ethical tension of characterizing an issue for the press in an objective manner, increasing the likelihood that you won't get quoted, or overstating it to get quoted.

Same response to this as (8) above: don't lie, don't misrepresent.

(11) The ethical tension of criticizing or not criticizing the press, even when you believe they deserve it, because you know they have more ink than you do.

Thank goodness for advent of the internet and modern media that makes it much easier to present the truth than to fret over yellow journalists. Always battle for truth and don't worry about the Goliaths in the media you have to face; it's OK if you lose an ink war, it's not OK if you lie.

(12) The ethical tension of operating by certain rules; for instance, seniority,when you know that other people could better chair the committees.

One is only given so much power in life (thank goodness!) A sole politician may not be able transform entrenched power, but one can make a difference and should speak up. Doing so in a professional way may draw others to your thinking that were to abashed to speak.

(13) The ethical tension of challenging your own leadership through a clandestine process of collaboration with the minority party.

Challenges should be open--for they are strongest when they are open. Under the rule of law as we have, when clandestine purposes are someday revealed as they always are, they ultimately weaken those who participated in them.

(14) The ethical tension of voting without adequate knowledge, having others vote for you, being intimidated to vote against what you believe is right, or using the vote to get even.

Elected Representatives must be servants who have bridled their human passions for revenge and corruption. Regarding "adequate knowledge," one shouldn't vote on a bill they haven't completely read and studied which--given the thousands of pages our bills often reach--puts adequate knowledge out of the hands of all but a few specialists. In Federalist #62 Madison aptly warned against this type of "voluminous" and "incoherent" law:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...

(15) The ethical tension of telling people what they want to hear, knowing that they won't find out that you acted and voted otherwise; or couching it in such a language that they will be led to believe you were on their side when, in fact, you were not.

This goes back again to (8) and (10) above: don't lie, don't misrepresent.

(16) The ethical tension of ripping the system and its process, when you are frustrated with it, knowing that your criticism plays into the hands of those who are anti‑government or those who are struggling to believe in democracy but are becoming despondent and disengaged.

The strength of our Republic lies in our freedom--and indeed responsibility--as both citizens and representatives to criticize our government when it has gone astray. As Franklin succinctly put it, we have a Republic "if [we] can keep it."

(17) The ethical tension of periodically asking yourself, "Why am I elected? Who am I serving?" and objectively measuring your answer against democratic ideals and goals and not just personal ambitions, and then asking your family the same question.

An elected Representative serves "We the People" through the Oath to uphold the Constitution. If the elected must periodically reflect on these questions, instead of having that ingrained into one's vision, it serves as a revealing symptom that the lust for power has already taken hold in the elected's heart. As one with a cancer, the elected should take immediate steps to eliminate the disease by rectifying their orientation and preventative actions to stop the disease. Like the awful mastectomy, the strong action including the possibility of immediate resignation should all be considered as options in preservation of the Oath and one's integrity.

¹Although admittedly Nelson's paper is written from a Democratic or Progressive viewpoint, the bias is mostly innocuous and I will waive my minor objections in order to foster discussion and attention on Nelson's points rather than bias

² Nelson names them only; I have numbered them for convenience sake.

Provo's Prop 1: The Recreation Tax

On November 2nd, Provo residents will have to decide whether or not to raise property taxes on themselves, their neighbors, and their future neighbors for the next 20 years. The tax hike cause isn't even to balance the budget as "bearded marxist" Delaware Senate Candidate Chris Coons did in his New Castle County Administration times, but to provide increased taxpayer-funded entertainment during the economic blight of a recession.

I am disgusted we are even talking about me having to fork out an estimated $77 per year to fund someone else's entertainment, but the pro-Prop 1 folks--who include city elected officials John Curtis and Laura Cabanilla though lacking their titles in supporting (note full list of sponsors)--think through their support of this recreation tax that they know that that is better for me than using that money to pay down my credit card and get out of debt (or whatever my family's needs may be). How is it we are a city of Repbulicans at the national level jointly decrying socialism, yet when a socialistic notion hits home we think somehow it's OK?

I am further disgusted by the misinformation by some in the pro rec-tax crowd such as Dave Olpin in the "Local Opinion" section of today's Daily Herald. Under Mr. Olpin's section "Financial" he purports:

The average homeowner of a $195,000 home would see a small increase of $2.61 per month in property taxes (less than the cost of a gallon of gas a month)

The problem with this statement isn't that it's untrue, but that it is a half truth--or better stated a 3/20th truth. As the graph available at the city's website shows below for the first three years taxes go up $2.61 a month ($31 annually) for an average $195K home; but for the remaining 17 years it skyrockets to the $77 annually I mentioned above.

Another massive piece of misinformation opined both by Mr. Olpin and Provo City is a user frequency statistic:

A recent survey indicated 78 percent of Provo residents would use a new recreation center at least monthly. (Olpin, 10/6/2010)

78% Will Visit A New Indoor Community Recreation Center Monthly ("A New Community Recreation Center in Provo", Provo City Website PowerPoint Presentation, page 5)

The problem isn't that the 78% is incorrect from the survey, but rather it is miscited. In the actual 29-page survey the wording reads: "Seventy-eight percent of respondent households would visit a new indoor recreation center with the features they most prefer at least once a month." (emphasis mine) Although the survey did try to define what those features were, it is a huge leap to omit this "most preferred feature" wording. Consider what might quickly happen to this 78% rosy statistic when you factor in the following:

• Your most preferred feature isn't offered in the rec center?
• Your feature were offered, but not at a time convenient to your household?
• Your feature were offered, but not all the features needed for other household members?
• Your feature were offered, but the user fees limited your visits?

In population terms, implying that 78% of our population will be at the rec center at least once a month breaks down to over 3,000 daily unique visits from Provo residents (not counting any repeat visits during the entire month) every day if the rec center were open 6 days a week. I'm going on record right now that you need to throw out that 78% number because it's not happening; it's simply not realistic, in my opinion.

Some argue that the Rec Center will be a community asset we will all share the benefit of. I counter that it is Provo's low tax rates we share the benefit of in inducing home ownership and to retaining and attracting business--and speaking of business, the tax burden is nearly double that of individual home owners ($141 vs $77 on properties of equal value). Rental rates on small businesses will inevitably increase as landowners pass those costs on to their tenants.

A property tax is quite possibly the worst form of tax. If you can't pay this recreation tax, you will lose your home; and how many neighbors have we been witness to in this housing-bubble devastation all across our city. Is it worth risking your home over some rec center? No!!

Here's how the rec center tax proponents won't frame their tax-increasing ambition: Suppose someone came to your door and said, for $77 a year (plus user fees) we will give you access to a beautiful new rec center in downtown Provo for the next 20 years. However, if you default on your payment, we will come and take your home from you. I think most any wise church leader or financial advisor would council heavily against you accepting such a deal. The risks of losing your home, albeit small, are far too great for you to take for such an unworthy cause.

Over a third of our citizenry surveyed wants not a single penny of taxpayer funding for the rec center (Survey, page 25). Neighbors: do we have the tyranny of a democracy where a majority votes tax increases on the minority to put their property at risk of confiscation of the government? I beseech you, even if your household has that kind of money to afford a Rec Tax to take a stand against such tyranny and to not raise my and your fellow neighbors who oppose such taxes.

Say no to the Recreation Tax: Vote NO!!! on Prop 1.

+++ Revision: 10/06 7pm

Curtis tonight graciously offered a correction that he is not using his title as Mayor to support the tax increase and I have correcting this entry to reflect this truth. This said, while he reiterates his private support of a tax increase, I feel could have and should have as Mayor spoken out against the tax increase; thus I don't hold "Mayor Curtis" blameless. It also smacks as a political caviat to say he didn't vote to raise taxes, he just promoted the project and left the citizenry to fight amongst each other over one neighbor's swimming lessons vs. my pocketbook. So much for "city unity."

Bloomin'-thal Lies Again

Is Richard Blumenthal, candidate for CT Senate, capable of telling the truth just once?

I was listening to Monday's CTSEN debates made available online thanks to the Harford Courant. I was amazed at Blumenthal's reiteration over and over and over that McMahon wants to lower the minimum wage. The topic started when Laurie Perez of FoxCT played a Blumenthal ad attacking McMahon in part for "talking about lowering the minimum wage."


The ad quotes a 9/30/2010 news piece by political and opinion writer Ted Mann of TheDay.com. In this piece Mann writes:

Most notably, McMahon said she believed Congress should consider lowering the
federal minimum wage in times of economic distress for small businesses, such as
the current recession.

Note that Mann gives no quotes for the assertion meaning he is giving his interpretation of McMahon's words. In the article's very next paragraph he gives the quote upon which he has based his interpretation:

"The minimum wage now in our country, I think we've set that and a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage," McMahon said.

Nowhere in this quote does McMahon talk about lowering the minimum wage, but rather on whether it should be increased or not. And it's not just lowly me who is the lone wolf crying foul on this misrepresentation. For contrast, look at the same story covered on the same day by CT's largest circulation newspaper, The Hartford Courant:

McMahon made a point of telling reporters that she does not favor a repeal of
the minimum wage — "Don't take away that I'm saying that we should scrap minimum wage," she said.

But by mid-afternoon, supporters of McMahon's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, seized on her remarks, using them to reinforce their portrait of a wealthy self-funding Republican who is out of touch with the concerns of Connecticut's working folks.

"We were shocked to learn that Linda McMahon supports lowering the minimum wage," said Jon Green, executive director of the Working Families Party, which announced its endorsement of Blumenthal on Thursday.

The Courant aptly pointed out that it was Jon Green of the ultra-left WFP who claimed McMahon "supported lowering the minimum wage" not McMahon.

Blumenthal tacked on to this false claim laid by Ted Mann and Jon Green, through his issuing of a false attack ad, and upped the ante again on last night's debate.

Although I personally disagree with the positions of both Blumenthal and McMahon and feel that the minimum wage is best left to the states, one thing has been reiterated to me over and over: Blumenthal will distort the truth.

With the likes of Dodd, Nutmeggers cannot afford another dishonest politician in their state.

Fire Pelosi Bus Tour Coming to Utah (Updated)

This Saturday at 4:30pm at the RNC's "Fire Pelosi" Bus makes its scheduled stop at our Utah State Capitol Sandy City Hall, 10000 Centennial Parkway; the bus is visiting well over 100 cities in all 48 contiguous states. This will be a wonderful event to help support Morgan Philpot in overthrowing "lap dog" Democrat Pelosi who votes with Pelosi 93% of the time. (See my posts yesterday and Wednesday on a couple of those important votes.)

RNC Chairman Steele who has helped imbue our party with both enthusiasm and a return to our core values spoke with Greta Van Susteren on Friday's "On The Record" regarding the tour:



The Fire Pelosi Bus site also has a store where to can purchase a Fire Pelosi hat, stickers, pins, or my favorite: the Wee publican bib!

While John Dennis has raised nearly $2M to directly defeat Pelosi in San Francisco, the best way to fire Pelosi is for the Democratic incumbents to lose their majority in a big way. Particularly if you are unable to attend this Fire Pelosi tour, you may want to consider a donation now to the Philpot campaign. We are at the point now where to have the most "bang for the buck" your donation to any candidate needs to be received soon, as in the next week or two, as the campaigns need to have time to appropriately budget and spend your donation. This race is being tracked nationally by the likes of Real Clear Politics and by Dick Morris who recently claimed this may be Matheson's last term.

Matheson Appeases Pelosi With Adjournment Vote, Now To Face Angry Constituents

In Wednesday's post, I revealed how stealthy and careful liberal Matheson is with his votes, using his Obamacare vote as evidence. This week, Matheson had an equally stealthy yet revealing vote against extending Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at year's end.

Two weeks ago on September 15th, Matheson brought together 30 other Democrats in opining a short but to-the-point Statement to Speaker Pelosi (found on the Congressman's website front page) on their position on extending the tax cuts. Being the brainchild of Matheson, the Utah Congressman was the first to sign the statement which concluded:

We urge quick passage of legislation to extend the tax cuts so that American families and businessess have the certainty required to plan and make informed decisions. The sooner we act, the sooner our nation's economy will benefit.

At face value, the statement appeared to have a positive effect, prompting Pelosi to suggest that a vote to extend the tax cuts could come before the November elections.

In an interview just a week ago with KSL's veteran Doug Wright (btw, congrats to Doug who Thursday just won Utah's first individual Marconi Award) Matheson made it clear that the tax cut vote should come before the November elections:

Wright: Congressman what are your thoughts about putting off this vote until after the election? I have to be honest with you, Jim, it feels a little chicken to me.

Matheson: I feel like I may just repeat what you just said [chuckling] over the last
three minutes. Listen, not only should it not be put off till the election, the fact is it should have been done a long time ago. [full audio at KSL; emphasis mine]

A vote seemed plausible until suddenly Wednesday, Congress voted 209-209 to adjourn. Matheson shockingly sided with the in the 209 voting to adjourn without addressing the tax cut extension, let alone the matter of shirking their fundamental responsibility of passing a budget. This set up Matheson's friend and leader Pelosi to cast a tie breaking vote to adjourn and send her followers home to try and salvage their widely-forecasted large loss of seats in the House.

So how can Matheson who days before said "NO!" to Doug Wright in adjourning early, suddenly vote the opposite? Because that is precisely the kind of sneaky-vote politician Matheson has become. Matheson's voting record has brought shame to our great state.

By Thursday morning it became apparent the beehive had broke off its limb and the hornets were in full swarm. In naming a few, Blogger Holly on the Hill was all over the "Phantom Jim" vote. Doug Wright was justifyably livid and for an hour rebuked the Congressman for his vote. [Full audio archive; program begins about 6 minute mark]. Thomas Burr at the Salt Lake Tribune had Matheson in complete denial of any involvement linking the adjournment vote to the tax cuts, blaming it insead on "politics":

Any suggesting that this adjournment vote had something to do with cutting
taxes is just playing politics, Matheson said. That’s really what’s going on.

Just before Wright's program Thursday on KSL, Matheson claimed the following in trying to justify his vote:

There was no reason to stay. The bill was never going to be brought up. The Senate wasn’t going to move its bill. I think it’s important for members go out and be with their constituents and hear from them. I hope that will get some people in a better frame of mind for addressing this issue.

To Mr. Matheson I have but this to say this about your newest turncoat vote: you will surely indeed hear from your constituents.

The Untold Story of Matheson's Vote for Obamacare

The most important race in Utah two months from now in November won't be Governor Herbert's triumph over Carroon. Instead, it will be the story of how a common man named Morgan Philpot took down a powerful political dynastic incumbent named Jim Matheson.

I'd like to introduce Jim Matheson to you. He is a politician who shrouds his votes carefully, masking his true liberal spend-and-tax philosophies. No better example of this comes to mind than Matheson's vote this spring for Obamacare.

Oh, you counter, Matheson did not vote for Obamacare (HR 3590)! Ahh, I rebut, but in the real vote for Obamacare he did vote to unconstitutionally ram it through! Please, allow me to elaborate and take us back to March of this year.

Back in the third week of March the Senate had already passed Obamacare and Speaker Nancy Pelosi was frantically twisting arms to get votes to get Obamacare passed in the House. Out of desperation, scheming, or both, Louise Slaughter (D-NY28 "gerrymandered earmuffs" and Chair of the House Rules Committee; Jill Rowland is in a good fight to unseat her) came up with an idea which would become to be ignominiously known as the "Slaughter Solution": deem Obamacare to have passed without actually voting on it. The Slaughter Solution provided Pelosi twofold objectives: first, a backup plan to pass Obamacare in case Democrats couldn't force enough of their members to vote for it on a direct vote and second, to provide Pelosi a true test vote on Obamacare to see what kind of margin they could get on Obamacare. Many Democrats were "fence sitters" knowing Obamacare was massively unpopular at home but desired to both partisanly please their leader as well as further the expansion of big government and power. Such was the case with supposed fence sitter Democrat Jim Matheson.

On Thursday, March 18th, the infamous "Slaughter Solution" (H RES 1190) passed the house 222-203 providing Pelosi a good indication about how fence sitters were sitting. Joining all the Republicans in opposing the "Slaughter Solution" were 28 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats who are considered more moderate than the Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughters of the political world. Publicly that week even beyond Thursday, Matheson kept saying how he was undecided about Obamacare while protesters were held daily outside his office. Yet Matheson revealed his desire for government healthcare takeover by voting "aye" on the Obamacare "Slaughter Solution" which is nothing worse than passing unconstitutional Obamacare unconstitutionally (ie Congress has to actually vote on law, they can't deem it to have passed.)

Pelosi kept working the Democrats and prepping them for a Sunday--yes a rare Christian Sabbath Day vote--on Obamacare to be held when Christians across the nation would in their homes and churches praying for deliverance from Sin and Obamacare. The morning of Saturday the 20th broke and I joined a few hundred protestors on the steps of our state capitol for a Code Red Rally. Even after the rally ended Saturday mid-dayish, protestors went over to "undecided" Matheson's empty office to protest. It was after this--less than 24 hours before the vote--that Matheson announced he would be voting no on HR3590 and Pelosi got Bart Stupak to cave in on the anti-abortion measures freeing up some of the Democratic fence sitters like Matheson to vote against the leadership knowing that the vote for HR3590 "Obamacare" would be scrutinized historically far more than H RES 1190 "Slaughter Solution."

Utah needs a better Congressman than Matheson. I have better things to do with my Saturdays than to protest a supposed "fence-sitter" who has already voted for Obamacare in the worse form of the Slaughter Solution.

But let's just say I'm a nutjo who has no idea what I'm talking about. You say Matheson's vote against Obamacare HR3590 proves he is against it. I say the vote was a run for cover and can prove it with one final blow: if Matheson is SO against Obamacare that he didn't vote for it, then why doesn't Matheson sign the pledge to repeal it? Republican Morgan Philpot signed the pledge a long time ago.

The answer to that question reveals the true nature of liberal Democrat Matheson and why we must make every effort to ensure Morgan Philpot defeats him this November.

CTSen: Integrity of McMahon vs. Blumenthal Lies

I'm not a big Pro-Wrestling fan. Not that I have anything against Pro-Wrestling in general (although all forms of entertainment can be packaged in forms appropriate for different audiences, some not appropriate for children or myself). Suffice to say Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon's 30-year WWE experience from a purely wrestling perspective for me is neither a pro nor a con.

What I love about McMahon is her sense of taking her WWE business acumen to town for CT. She knows that the Obama philosophy of spending one's way out of debt is a bunch of horse-dung. And that Obama-touted candidate Blumenthal is a Chris Dodd re-tread with respect to this crucial area of fiscal responsibility. Haven't Nutmeggers borne enough of this fiscal nonsense and irresponsibility?

McMahon is largely self-financing with both her and her opponent Blumenthal vowing not to take PAC money. Knowing the deceitful history of CT politicians, I was quite skeptical about the Blumenthal vow (below).

A review of the Federal Elections Commission site for available donations from the first two quarters of 2010 (Jan-Jun) shows that Blumenthal has received nearly $500,000 in PAC money from 158 PACs including:

• A myriad of union groups including the Teamsters
• Several big businesses and insurance companies such as Comcast, General Dynamics, AFLAC, and Blue Shield of California
• Planned Parenthood

Surprisingly from a candidate that purports to have "never taken PAC money", less than 15% of Blumenthal's PAC donors were even based in Connecticut!

Not knowing McMahon, I was also somewhat skeptical about her promise to not take PAC money and to not take individual contributions over $100. I was very pleasantly surprised to see she had with honor kept true to her word. If you look at her page on the FEC site under the "Other Committees Contributions" line (this is where PAC money is listed) the line is $0. Furthermore, if you examine her FEC individual contributions list, no one has contributed over $100.

I have examined several FEC documents this season and McMahon's documents are impeccable and prominently stand out in a positive way. McMahon has proven to me, an out-of-stater, she is a candidate of integrity and will keep her promises of restoring fiscal discipline to our nation.

To further contrast the integrity of McMahon vs the apparent pathological lying of Blumental let us turn back our memories to the spring of this year when Blumenthal purported to have served in Vietnam. The story broke in the liberal New York Times and even progressive MSNBC covered Blumenthal's lie:

Although I don't share some of McMahon's moderate social values, she is against partial-birth abortion and hasn't taken money from Planned Parenthood which is a step in the right direction over Blumenthal. Thus in light of her strong commitment to restoring sanity to our financial house, I am pleased to announce that for Connecticut Senate in 2010 Linda McMahon earns a strong Nacilbupera endorsement.