torchbearer
03-04-2008, 09:33 PM
http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/03/04/brent-sanders-louisiana-congressional-candidate-interview-part-2/945/
Here we continue our interview with Louisiana District 5 Congressional Candidate Brent Sanders. If you missed the first portion of the interview you should probably read that first.
As always check out all of the Liberty Maven interviews available on the interview page.
LM: Could you elaborate more on the previous question on Congressional term limits? Wouldn’t a Constitutional amendment be necessary to institute them?
Sanders: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary to institute term limits for congress. I am in favor of such an amendment.
LM: Talk a little bit about your campaign so far and what your future plans are with respect to your campaign. Will you actively seek endorsements, such as one from Ron Paul?
Sanders: The main focus of our campaign has been fundraising. I have learned from previous elections that in order to compete you need to have enough funds to get your message out. I think people will respond well to the message of limited government and a return to the Constitution. We just need the money to buy the air time. My campaign staff has been very small.
I’ve had one part time staffer since last August and I have recently hired my campaign manager, Andrew Axsom. Andrew is the Louisiana Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. We met during the convention process. I haven’t sought any endorsements and that hasn’t been a top priority. Once my campaign is running on all cylinders, I may take the time to seek endorsements. In my last election I was endorsed by the Forum for Equality, a civil rights PAC. I will most likely seek their endorsement again. Overall things are looking good for the campaign and everyone should be looking forward to the next online fundraiser!
LM: What is your position on global warming? Do you believe it is still a debate and not a foregone conclusion as some suggest? What, if anything, should the federal government do about it?
Sanders: I have been keeping track of the data NASA has been collecting regarding this phenomenon and they are showing a definite decrease in polar ice caps. Which to me is a strong argument for a global warming. So yes, there is a rise in overall temperature on earth. I’m still not certain as to all the causes and whether or not the warming of the globe will be destructive or beneficial.
I’m still open to new data regarding the causes of the glacier meltdowns. There may be a combination of variables involved. With all of that being said, I don’t see more government regulation as the answer. At least, not at the federal level. I’d rather see 50 competing enviromental policies than one blanket law that is not easily enforceable and is not very effective. The current government regulations invite more corruption to Washington D.C. as companies lobby for special concessions regarding regulation.
LM: President Bush recently signed a bipartisan economic stimulus package. If you were in Congress at the time of the vote, would you have voted for the package?
Sanders: No, I couldn’t support any spending that would put us furthur into debt, even an “economic stimulus package”. I think it is irresponsible for the government to continue spending money it doesn’t have furthur indebting Americans and our future generations to come. It is this overspending and the inflation that has created the need for the stimulus package. How can you fix the problems of overspending and inflation with more spending and more inflation? You can’t.
LM: In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law as a response to the various corporate shenanigans at the time (Enron being one of them). What are your thoughts on Sarbanes-Oxley? Would you repeal it, expand it, or modify it?
Sanders: Though I do agree with the much of what the act intends to do, I don’t think I would have voted for more Federal Government regulation of corporations. I’d rather see these two entities separate and apart to prevent the need for such powerful lobbies in Washington. The policeman of the market place should be the consumers and their consumer report groups.
I believe each state has sufficient tort laws to handle any damages a person recieves due to fraud in the market and consumer confidence in a brand should be the incentive for the company to get it right the first time. I do believe there should be accounting standards, but those standards should be developed by the profession’s national association not the federal government.
This concludes part 2 of the interview with Sanders. Stay tuned for the 3rd and final part of the interview coming soon.
Here we continue our interview with Louisiana District 5 Congressional Candidate Brent Sanders. If you missed the first portion of the interview you should probably read that first.
As always check out all of the Liberty Maven interviews available on the interview page.
LM: Could you elaborate more on the previous question on Congressional term limits? Wouldn’t a Constitutional amendment be necessary to institute them?
Sanders: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary to institute term limits for congress. I am in favor of such an amendment.
LM: Talk a little bit about your campaign so far and what your future plans are with respect to your campaign. Will you actively seek endorsements, such as one from Ron Paul?
Sanders: The main focus of our campaign has been fundraising. I have learned from previous elections that in order to compete you need to have enough funds to get your message out. I think people will respond well to the message of limited government and a return to the Constitution. We just need the money to buy the air time. My campaign staff has been very small.
I’ve had one part time staffer since last August and I have recently hired my campaign manager, Andrew Axsom. Andrew is the Louisiana Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. We met during the convention process. I haven’t sought any endorsements and that hasn’t been a top priority. Once my campaign is running on all cylinders, I may take the time to seek endorsements. In my last election I was endorsed by the Forum for Equality, a civil rights PAC. I will most likely seek their endorsement again. Overall things are looking good for the campaign and everyone should be looking forward to the next online fundraiser!
LM: What is your position on global warming? Do you believe it is still a debate and not a foregone conclusion as some suggest? What, if anything, should the federal government do about it?
Sanders: I have been keeping track of the data NASA has been collecting regarding this phenomenon and they are showing a definite decrease in polar ice caps. Which to me is a strong argument for a global warming. So yes, there is a rise in overall temperature on earth. I’m still not certain as to all the causes and whether or not the warming of the globe will be destructive or beneficial.
I’m still open to new data regarding the causes of the glacier meltdowns. There may be a combination of variables involved. With all of that being said, I don’t see more government regulation as the answer. At least, not at the federal level. I’d rather see 50 competing enviromental policies than one blanket law that is not easily enforceable and is not very effective. The current government regulations invite more corruption to Washington D.C. as companies lobby for special concessions regarding regulation.
LM: President Bush recently signed a bipartisan economic stimulus package. If you were in Congress at the time of the vote, would you have voted for the package?
Sanders: No, I couldn’t support any spending that would put us furthur into debt, even an “economic stimulus package”. I think it is irresponsible for the government to continue spending money it doesn’t have furthur indebting Americans and our future generations to come. It is this overspending and the inflation that has created the need for the stimulus package. How can you fix the problems of overspending and inflation with more spending and more inflation? You can’t.
LM: In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law as a response to the various corporate shenanigans at the time (Enron being one of them). What are your thoughts on Sarbanes-Oxley? Would you repeal it, expand it, or modify it?
Sanders: Though I do agree with the much of what the act intends to do, I don’t think I would have voted for more Federal Government regulation of corporations. I’d rather see these two entities separate and apart to prevent the need for such powerful lobbies in Washington. The policeman of the market place should be the consumers and their consumer report groups.
I believe each state has sufficient tort laws to handle any damages a person recieves due to fraud in the market and consumer confidence in a brand should be the incentive for the company to get it right the first time. I do believe there should be accounting standards, but those standards should be developed by the profession’s national association not the federal government.
This concludes part 2 of the interview with Sanders. Stay tuned for the 3rd and final part of the interview coming soon.