November 2010 Candidate Survey

The Process

All candidates were sent the following announcement by email and postal mail on September 15th. The deadline to complete surveys was September 29th but stragglers were allowed to respond as late as October 5th.

Candidates were given as many as four reminder emails and two telephone calls if they did not respond by the deadline and extended deadlines.

The contact information we used to reach candidates was provided by them to the Humboldt County Elections Department and/or the City Clerk in their town.
Congratulations on your run for office!
Your positions on democracy and corporate power issues are very important to local voters and constituents.
Your response to our short Candidate Survey will help educate the public. We will publicize your responses within our internal newsletters, on our website, and share your responses with the public through publication in the North Coast Journal in October, including candidates who do not respond.
Democracy Unlimited is a non-profit and non-partisan organization and does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office.

Candidate Responses

Please note, we did not edit these responses in any way. We will not editorialize, unlike some other local organizations that administer surveys (such as the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, for example).

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors – 4th District
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors – 5th District
District Attorney
Assessor
City of Eureka – Mayor
City of Eureka – Ward 1
City of Eureka – Ward 3
City of Eureka – Ward 5
City of Arcata
City of Fortuna
City of Rio Dell


HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - 4TH DISTRICT (1 Elected)

1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Virginia Bass: Although I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling, it is the law of the land. Corporations should be held accountable for their actions the same as individuals are.

Bonnie Neely: Corporations clearly deserve and need specific legal rights, such as the rights to own property and defend their interests in court, but they do not and should not be given the same rights afforded to people under our constitution.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Virginia Bass: No, unless it applied across the board with all special interest groups.

Bonnie Neely: I oppose the wholesale granting of human rights to corporations and would support legislation against corporate personhood.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Virginia Bass: I believe that publically funded elections could help even the playing field for candidates. However, I would need to see a fiscal impact analysis before making a decision to support or oppose.

Bonnie Neely: I support publicly funded elections. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the role that money and special interests play in our democracy today. We need to return to citizen politics and the power of ideas.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Virginia Bass: Instant runoff voting is a novel approach to elect one candidate from a field of many. I believe the concept should be further explored. I would need to see an analysis of positives and negatives before making a decision to support the concept.

Bonnie Neely: I support instant runoff or "ranked-choice" voting. Winning candidates should earn and reflect the widest possible base of citizen support. Instant runoff voting decreases partisan politics, increases election turnout, and saves money.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Virginia Bass: Corporations should be held accountable, including their CEOs, for any crimes including large fines and jail time.

Bonnie Neely: Revocation of a corporate charter is appropriate when the corporation was setup as a shame for chronic nonpayment of taxes, when the corporation is used solely for fraud and abuse, or when it does not act in the interest of the people.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Virginia Bass: Local laws should be applied equally to all special interest groups, including corporations, unions, PACs and Native-American tribes.

Bonnie Neely: Pre-emption can be a fact of life in our three-tiered governmental system. It does not make sense to fight our nations constitutional framework, but it does make sense to use local authority to ensure that corporations operate within the guidelines and expectations of the local community.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - 5TH DISTRICT (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Patrick Cleary: I do not believe corporations should have a constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns.

Ryan Sundberg: The courts have given corporations 14th amendment rights, which means equal protection under the law. I believe that groups of individuals such as labor unions, LLC’s, and both C and S Corporations enjoy those rights that were established years ago. If we are to error on who gets rights and who does not, it is best to error on the side of the greatest rights.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Patrick Cleary: I am not a fan of symbolic actions, but I would support a resolution that was legally binding.

Ryan Sundberg: Unless I am presented with a specific resolution to evaluate and consult with my constituents, I can not give an opinion on support or opposition.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Patrick Cleary: I would love to see publicly financed elections, but it would be critical to figure out how to fund them.

Ryan Sundberg: I generally support publicly funded elections and would look forward to evaluating legislation on this topic. Especially in local elections, I think there is way too much money involved and money limits the pool of good candidates.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Patrick Cleary: I think IRV is a great system and I would support such legislation.

Ryan Sundberg: This election is going to be almost a year of campaigning, so numbering the candidates and having a winner in the primary for local elections would be a good idea. Again, I think we would get more people who have full time jobs and families willing to run for office.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Patrick Cleary: I am not a lawyer, so I do not feel qualified to answer that question. I do know that local corporations are chartered by the state, not the county, so the county would have no authority to revoke a charter.

Ryan Sundberg: I do not know of any specific circumstance where corporate charter would be revoked and do not know if there is a basis in law for this to occur. I do believe that individuals who act on behalf of corporations who act in an illegal fashion should be held responsible for their actions.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Patrick Cleary: I am not sure how to answer that. I believe federal and state government have preempted local governments on this issue. Disliking that preemption does not change anything.

Ryan Sundberg: If it were not for federal preemption against local actions we may still have segregation and discrimination against individuals. As a Native American, I clearly understand this. Although it is not a perfect system, sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. If it is bad enough we should make changes at a higher level.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Paul Gallegos: Our government was created and formed on the realization that the rights of the individual pre-existed the formation of government and that, we as individuals, formed government to protect and secure those rights. Accordingly, the United States Constitution does not create individual rights. Rather, its function is to protect them. Therefore, since individual rights pre-existed the formation of government and the United States Constitution does not create rights, corporations cannot have individual rights. In short, under our Constitution, We the People are sovereign. As such, I am as much opposed to the idea of a corporation having individual rights that must be protected by government as I am of having a government that protects the rights of corporations over the rights of the individual.

Allison Jackson: I respect the law and our form of Constitutional government. Our highest court has ruled in this area and I respect their decision. My interests primarily lie in holding offenders accountable according to proof while honoring the Constitutional rights of victims and their families and those of defendants who are in the criminal justice system.


2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Paul Gallegos: I have voted and I have supported legislation against Corporate Personhood.

Allison Jackson: Constitutional rights cannot be abrogated by a simple vote. For instance, that was tried just last year regarding Proposition 8. Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. My focus is making sure the rights of victims of crimes and defendants are meticulously honored.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Paul Gallegos: I believe that publicly funded elections are the best way to remove the influence of money in politics.

Allison Jackson: I have no strong feelings on this one way or the other as long as everyone plays by the same rules.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Paul Gallegos: Instant Runoff Voting would require a host of additional legislation to enable it to meaningfully achieve the goal that it seeks to achieve. Without that additional legislation it would be used to deprive individuals of their candidate(s) of choice. Therefore, I cannot currently support Instant Runoff Voting.

Allison Jackson: I have no strong feelings on this one way or the other as long as everyone plays by the same rules.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Paul Gallegos: California law provides that “(a) The Attorney General may bring an action against any domestic corporation or purported domestic corporation in the name of the people of this state, upon the Attorney General's own information or upon complaint of a private party, to procure a judgment dissolving the corporation and annulling, vacating or forfeiting its corporate existence upon any of the following grounds: (1) The corporation has seriously offended against any provision of the statutes regulating corporations. (2) The corporation has fraudulently abused or usurped corporate privileges or powers. (3) The corporation has violated any provision of law by any act or default which under the law is a ground for forfeiture of corporate existence. (4) The corporation has failed to pay to the Franchise Tax Board for a period of five years any tax imposed upon it by the Bank and Corporation Tax Law.” One or more of the above grounds constitutes appropriate circumstances to revoke a corporate charter.

Allison Jackson: The Supreme Court has stated that a corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. There may be situations where it may be appropriate. Each particular circumstance would need to be individually considered. What I am concerned with is rebuilding our District Attorney's office to where we can hold people accountable according to proof, where we honor the rights of victims and their families as they move through the system and where we make sure that defendants are charged based upon the evidence and the law, and not because of politics and not to overcharge in order to extort a plea.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Paul Gallegos: Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states: “…The laws of the United States … shall be the Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding…” As such, the federal government has the power to preempt state or local laws that conflict with federal law. The State has similar preemption as it relates to local laws. I absolutely support this hierarchy of authority. This authority enables the Federal Government to make sure the protections of federal law, such as the Civil Rights Act, apply throughout the Country. It also enables the State to make sure the protections of State law apply throughout the State. To allow local communities to preempt State law and States to preempt federal law would essentially turn the United States into, at best, a loose confederation of independent states and municipalities. I cannot and do not support that even if federal and state preemption nullifies local laws passed to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions.

Allison Jackson: Preemption law is well settled and I respect it. For instance, just lately the Federal Government filed suit against Arizona, saying that their newly passed immigration laws were preempted by the Federal Government. The Federal Court agreed. Ultimately, however, these things have to pass Constitutional muster.

ASSESSOR (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: Corporate personhood is a complex issue. Some aspects of recognizing a corporation as an individual, such as the ability to write contracts or hold property, are integral to operating a business. The ability of corporations, unions, political action committees, or even wealthy individuals to use unlimited money to influence elections is something I strongly oppose. I believe in limits in both hard and soft political contributions and don’t think a candidate for local election should receive contributions from out-of-county corporations.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: That would be completely dependent on the content and verbage of the legislation or resolution.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: I don’t like the idea of saddling the public with election costs. I strongly support campaign spending limits and caps on contributions to political campaigns.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: I think it would save the taxpayer’s money and it seems to be inherently more fair than a first-to-post or winner-take-all system. I would support such legislation.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: I’m no attorney, but it would seem to be appropriate to revoke a corporate charter when a corporation has been found, through due legal process, to have violated the terms of that charter.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Johanna RodoniFailure to respond.

Mari Wilson: I can appreciate a local effort to address societal problems, but I basically believe that regulations on corporate activity should be the same in any municipality.

CITY OF EUREKA – MAYOR (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: I am opposed to the doctrine.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: Support.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: Support.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: Support.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: I don't know.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Frank Jager: Failure to Respond.

Peter LaVallee: I support greater control at the local level.

Marshall Spalding: Failure to Respond.

CITY OF EUREKA – WARD 1 (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Marian Brady: Corporations are made up of people, are controlled by people, with responsibilities to people and their employees. As such, under the constitution corporations share the rights of citizens. Good ones are responsible stewards, partners in our community; bad ones will fail if they don't meet our expectations and the community doesn't support them in bad practices.

Many corporations are Mom and Pop businesses, and part and parcel of our community.

I believe the issue has been before the courts and ruled on. Other legal matters I am not informed about and cannot comment on.

As an aside, I voluntarily limited campaign contribution amounts, anticipating the new law taking effect in January, and if others running for council seats abide by the $500 limit on contributions from donors, then I shall continue to do so also.

Larry Glass: My business is incorporated. It's a useful tool for conducting business. That said, it should not have constitutional rights like a citizen, and money shouldn't it's form of speech. When groups brought together for making money, exercise rights, it diminishes those of the individual citizen.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Marian Brady: See singular statement above.

Larry Glass: yes

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?

Marian Brady: See singular statement above.

Larry Glass: yes, it's badly needed. Since we can't cap spending, I see no other viable choice.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Marian Brady: See singular statement above.

Larry Glass: I think the idea has merit

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Marian Brady: See singular statement above.

Larry Glass: Proof of repeated violations of the law or repeated attempts a violating the law. Health and Safety, Criminal and Environmental laws

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Marian Brady: See singular statement above.

Larry Glass: I support local communities, I believe they should have regulatory authority over corporate activity in their jurisdiction.

CITY OF EUREKA – WARD 3 (1 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Xandra Manns: My position is that it is harmful to our democracy and weakens the people's rights. It makes capitalism difficult to cope with It should be abolished.

Ron Kuhnel: I believe Corporate Personhood is illegal, immoral, and a threat not to just democratic governance, but our entire planet.

Mike L. Newman: I believe that a Corporation is considered an Entity under law...can be sued & sue, be taxed, so in that sense, under contracts, it has rights & obligations.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Xandra Manns: I would support legislation or symbolic action against corporate personhood. I would be interested in finding how to start at the local level.

Ron Kuhnel: Yes I would vote for any acton to abolish corporate personhood.

Mike L. Newman: No, I would not support legislation or symbolic actions against Corporate Personhood.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Xandra Manns: I definitely would support publicly-funded election.s; they would equalize the finacial hurdles that divide the candidates, rich from middle-income and poor.

Ron Kuhnel: I am generally in favor of publicly funded elections, but my vote would depend on the exact wording of the legislation. The Devil is in the details.

Mike L. Newman: It would need to be crafted carefully, but I would be open to looking closely at such legislation.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Xandra Manns: IRV is being implemented in some Bay Area cities and we need to start the process to introduce it in Humboldt.

Ron Kuhnel: I strongly support IRV.

Mike L. Newman: I would need to explore it in more depth.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Xandra Manns: I suppose it would be appropriate if the corporation did not live up to the limitations enumerated and imposed on it in the charter.

Ron Kuhnel: At the top of my list would be criminal activity, but I would like to see "action against the interests of the public in an egregious manner" as well.

Mike L. Newman: No Response

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Xandra Manns: I believe the feds are over -stepping their authority trying to regulate some of these activities.

Ron Kuhnel: I think this has gone too far. Measure T comes to mind.

Mike L. Newman: I am against local laws running against the State & Federal laws already in place.

CITY OF EUREKA – WARD 5 (1 Elected)


Lance Madsen: “Thank you for the opertunity [sic] to respond to your questioniar [sic] at this late date. after reviewing the question I find that they are not a subject matter i care to spend time addressing.”

CITY OF ARCATA (2 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Robert Benson: I maintain that the People, without their knowledge or consent, have been fooled into US Citizen commercial contracts with UNITED STATES, Inc (established during the Reconstruction (of the Constitution) after the Civil War) and thus have been diminished from their capacity as sovereign Citizens. The People are now under statutory jurisdiction, as commercial entities. It's not that corporations have been given the rights of the People, it's that the capacity of People has been diminished to that of corporation, or commercial entities. The difference is subtle, the ramifications are dire. It is treason to overthrow the sovereign, in Our system the People are sovereign; according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. "Capitas diminutio maximus" is the legal term.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: I support a constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood , limited liability and income tax exemptions.

Dave Meserve: The idea that corporations have the rights of human beings is a sham. Corporations are not even mentioned in the Constitution, and it is clear that they are not entitled to the rights granted to persons by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Slavery is the fallacy that human beings are property. Corporate Personhood is the fallacy that property is a human being.

Josh Mohland: As unpopular as it may sound, I consider what is commonly called "Corporate Personhood" -- as upheld by the Supreme Court over the last 100 years -- is an absolute necessity in a constitutional democracy. Any citizen who freely chooses to collectively bond together with any number of other citizens should not be forced to surrender their constitutional rights when they form a corporation.

Mark Sailors: Corporations are made up of people, they are not people, and therefore the indivuduals that make up corporations are free to say or do what ever they want. Corporations should be held to a higher standard.

Alex Stillman: Corporations are not people and should not be afforded the same rights as those granted to human beings.

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Robert Benson: I hereby pledge to, vehemently, oppose Corporate Personhood in all forms.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: I would vote to support legislation, resolutions and symbolic action against Corporate Personhoood.

Dave Meserve: I would support, and have already supported in Arcata, resolutions against Corporate Personhood.

Josh Mohland: Absolutely not. As an elected official, I'm sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mark Sailors: yes

Alex Stillman: Support

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Robert Benson: Only the People, for who and by whom the government emanates, should fund elections. Otherwise, conflicts of interest (corruption) abounds.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: I support the concept of publicly funded elections and would vote for it's legislation in my region. I do not accept any donations in my campaign.

Dave Meserve: Public funding of elections is probably the best solution to the problem of wealthy fat cats and corporations co-opting our democracy with huge contributions to candidates they support. The system currently used in Maine is a good model.

Josh Mohland: From what I've seen of attempts at publicly funded elections, they do nothing to reign in candidates with richer supporters, but instead places a larger burden on taxpayers. It makes no sense to me as a voter to pay for the campaign of a politician whose platforms and positions I disagree with. If I really support a candidate, I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'm opposed to the notion of publicly funding electoral campaigns at this point.

Mark Sailors: yes

Alex Stillman: I support publicly funded elections but have questions about the funding mechanism.

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Robert Benson: Without researching the concept, I say one vote per seat. Run off elections provide an opportunity to clarify close elections, giving the People more information to decide a tight race, and, thus, vote more competently. What's the rush, anyway? Getting it right should be the priority.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: I would vote to adopt instant runoff voting in my jurisdiction. I campaigned for Matt Gonzalez for Mayor of San Francisco because among other issues he implemented instant runoff voting there.

Dave Meserve: I support instant runoff voting/ranked choice voting. One reason I will work to make Arcata a Charter City is so that we can adopt IRV.

Josh Mohland: While I'm no expert on voting methodologies, I'd consider IRV an idea worth considering. However, I'd prefer to see studies and budget impact reports done before considering supporting or opposing such a measure.

Mark Sailors: no

Alex Stillman: I support Instate Run Off Voting but have questions about how it functions in elections with multiple seats.

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Robert Benson: When it violate it's charter, or fails to serve the interests of the people. Corporations used to have to prove public benefit in order to receive limited liability and such charters were given for limited durations. Today, government passes it (limited liability) out like candy on Halloween; creating, seemingly, untouchable and unstoppable monopolies.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: There are many circumstances where it would be appropriate for government to revoke corporate charters. One reason locally is the near extinction of salmon runs and the endangering of many species due to corporate control of the timber industry. Another is the lack of adequate pathways for bicycles because of the corporate control of the railroad right of way. Is the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico reason to revoke the corporate charter of the BP oil corporation?

Dave Meserve: Government should be able to revoke a corporate charter if the corporation engages in fraud, or preventable harm to the environment, or abuse of its workers.

Josh Mohland: The only time the government has the right to interfere in dissolving or revoking a corporate registration or charter is when a corporation fails to comply with reporting requirements, fails to pay taxes, or the owners of a corporate choose to dissolve itself as applicable by state law. A corporation, at it's basic core, is a contract recognized by the government. I don't think the government has the right to dissolve a corporation by force any more than I believe the government has the right to dissolve a marriage by force.

Mark Sailors: Gross violatins of the law, criminal, ecological or civil.

Alex Stillman: The threshold would be high and it would be an interesting debate and would have to be when a corporation is not in the public's best interest and involves serious wrong doings.

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Robert Benson: The sphere of federal influence is limited to interstate commerce, they have no standing in the matter. The State is another story; however, there is no right in the California Constitution given to corporations and the Tenth Amendment says "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people". I opine, this matter is, clearly, reserved to the People. The people have rights, corporations have privileges; privileges can be revoked, even, arbitrarily; conversely, rights can, only, be deprived by due process of law in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Geronimo Jerry Garcia: State and Federal preemption laws should be rescinded by legislative, ballot measure and court rulings. The city attorney obstructed the banning of plastic bags in Arcata because of the fear of preemption laws. Similarly the posting of cell phone radiation levels and the recruitment of school children into the military was advised by the city attorney to avoid conflict with State and Federal preemption laws. This is why I call for an elected city attorney and an elected city manager.

Dave Meserve: Certainly the federal government does have powers of preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However, if the local laws are in compliance with the Constitution, or fall under the police powers of the municipality, then they should be upheld, even if they run counter to some federal law. Federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land only if is made in pursuance of the Constitution. (Article VI)

Josh Mohland: Any attempt at limiting corporate activity on a local level can be very costly in litigation costs for the taxpayers if done for pure activism's sake. Plus, because of the federal and state preemption when it comes to both interstate and intrastate commerce, this type of activity on a local level can often be an absurd waste of time. I'm glad to be running for City Council in Arcata, which has already enacted a particularly clever land use ordinance to encourage diversity in businesses, and not set us up for a lawsuit. I feel any attempts at "regulating corporate activity" need to be firmly rooted in legal authority and precedents, but pressing local issues should always be a priority.

Mark Sailors: In most cases, state and or federal law limits what can be done localy. The only way to change that is at the state and federal level.

Alex Stillman: It has been important to me to keep Arcata's character intact and to allow a local government to have jurisdiction over future planning.

Mark Wheetley:: Failure to Respond.

CITY OF FORTUNA (3 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: In the forth grade we were tasked with learning the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the people...establish this Constitution..." I am philosophically opposed to notion of Corporate Personhood as it relates to individual rights.

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: I would vote to support symbolic action and would consider supporting legislation against Corporate Personhood.

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: I don't see that it has helped on the national level.

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: I think that this has merit, I would support it if shown that it could be done in a clear manner. Many feel that ballots are confusing as is.

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: Interesting question, I have no idea.

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Mike Losey: Failure to Respond.

Tom Mulholland: Failure to Respond.

Paul Glennie: Failure to Respond.

Janelle Egger: No Response

Sue Long: Failure to Respond.

Mary C. Ash: Failure to Respond.

Ron Alexander - Failure to respond.

Dean Glaser: Failure to Respond.

CITY OF RIO DELL (3 Elected)


1. What is your position on Corporate Personhood?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: Neutral

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.

2. Would you vote to support or oppose legislation or symbolic action (resolutions) against Corporate Personhood?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: Vote to support.

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.

3. What is your position on publicly funded elections? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: Vote to support.

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.

4. What is your position on Instant Runoff Voting? Would you vote to support or oppose such legislation in your jurisdiction?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: Oppose.

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.

5. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for government to revoke a corporate charter?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: Violation of the law.

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.

6. What is your position on state and federal pre-emption against local communities that have passed laws to regulate corporate activity within their jurisdictions?


Mike Dunker: Failure to Respond.

Melissa A. Marks: Failure to Respond.

Richard Leo “Bud” Leonard: No position.

Julie Woodall: Failure to Respond.


Democracy Unlimited is a non-profit and non-partisan organization and does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office.

Comment

You need to be a member of Democracy Unlimited to add comments!

© 2020   Created by Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap.   Powered by

   |  Contact Us  |  Terms of Service

Donate Online NowVisit Us On FacebookFollow Us On TwitterSign Up for our Email NewsletterSubscribe in a RSS Reader