Endorsement Process Research Analysis

Compiled by:

Tomas Alberto Avila

September 2004

Critical Quotes ................................................................................................................................ 3 What’ New with RILPAC’s Endorsement?.................................................................................... 4 RILPAC ENDORSEMENTS UNDER FIRE................................................................................. 8 Latino PAC Takes Heat For Backing Only One Candidate In 5 .................................................. 11 Presidente de RILPAC aclara endosos del grupo político ............................................................ 14 Inmadurez política ........................................................................................................................ 17 RILPAC Endorsement Recommendations Sub-Committee Members: Betty Bernal, Carmen Mirabal, Domingo Morel, Kathy Hellwig, Sabina Matos, Sylvia Bernal, Hector Solis, Doris De Los Santos..................................................................................................................................... 19 Invitation Letter ............................................................................................................................ 20 Reference Material ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.................. 22 ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE ................................................. 23 Minnesota NOW Political Action Committee Endorsement Guidelines...................................... 25 A - Endorsed ................................................................................................................................. 25

B - Supported ............................................................................................................................ 25 or ............................................................................................................................................... 25 B - Supported ............................................................................................................................ 25 C - Fair ...................................................................................................................................... 25 D - Rejected .............................................................................................................................. 25 F - Failed ................................................................................................................................... 25 NR - Not Rated ......................................................................................................................... 26

AFSCME COUNCIL 24 WSEU .................................................................................................. 27 CRITERIA FOR ENDORSED CANDIDATES ...................................................................... 27

AFSCME COUNCIL 24 ENDORSEMENT PROCESS.............................................................. 28 SEIU LOCAL 415 ENDORSEMENT POLICY .......................................................................... 29 Coalition of University Employees (CUE) ................................................................................... 32

Candidate Endorsements........................................................................................................... 32 Legislative Committee Report and Recommendation for Candidate Endorsement Process.... 32

29-August-2004 11:54:32 ............................................................................................................. 35 Candidate Endorsement Procedure ............................................................................................... 36 Green Party Endorsement Procedure ............................................................................................ 42 GOP Endorsement Packet............................................................................................................. 44 5th Legislative District Republicans.............................................................................................. 47

Endorsement Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 48 Primary Election Endorsement Process ........................................................................................ 51 BPW/PAC Endorsement Process.................................................................................................. 52 Rochester Area Right to Life Candidate Endorsement Process.................................................... 54 Basic Rights Elect PAC CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS....................................... 56 The MoveOn.org PAC Primary and Endorsement Process .......................................................... 57 Green Party of Mendocino County (GPOMC) Endorsement Process.......................................... 58 WCLA Endorsements: Careful Process........................................................................................ 60

Electing Judges: Pro-Choice vs. No-Choice......................................................................... 60 Dems Endorsed; Reps Take RTL ......................................................................................... 61 Ron Stokes for County Court................................................................................................ 61

Political Candidate Endorsements for 2004.................................................................................. 63 Kansas City Chamber of Commerce............................................................................................. 66

Critical Quotes But RILPAC also plays the curious role of providing a "safe" space for white politicians of both major parties to get exposed to Latinos. The organization has raised eyebrows by endorsing black candidates, most recently by supporting Marsha Carpenter over León Tejada for state representative. In a reflection of internal struggle, RILPAC endorsed both Joe Almeida and his opponent Gonzalo Cuervo. RILPAC spokespeople have been explicitly describing the links between Latino interests and those of other "urban" communities in public forums.

Shannah Kurland Brown Power vs. Black Power

Sinceramente pensé que RILPAC había aprendido de la experiencia de 2002, cuando se impuso un anticriterio personalista en la oferta de apoyo para una candidatura a la Gobernación, apoyando a Myrth York por encima de Sheldon Whitehouse, quien había cultivado una relación de apoyo contínuo a la entidad y había demostrado sin lugar a equivocaciones, su apoyo a los latinos, nombrando en numerosas posiciones a miembros de nuestra comunidad. O sea, que lo que podíamos esperar de él, ya lo estaba haciendo, aunque lo que merecemos no se limite a puestos laborales.

Si se usó un criterio antirepublicano, éste demuestra ser selectivo, desafortunadamente en perjuicio de uno de los nuestros, porque sinceramente no creo que RILPAC sea capaz de negarle apoyo a un político como el Senador Lincoln Chafee, si éste lo requiriera.

Inmadurez política Luis Peralta

Providence En Español Viernes 27 de agosto, 2004

El Presidente de la Asociación Social, Cultural y Deportiva Mexicana de Rhode Island, Julio Aragón, expresó mediante un comunicado de prensa, que se había ignorado deliberadamente a las contiendas latinas en los Distritos 11 y 73.

“Nuestros hispanos hoy más que nunca necesitan del apoyo hispano. La cual se les ha ignorado por completo o será que la ética profesional de estos candidatos no está a la altura de esta agrupación política (RILPAC). Que pena no poder apoyar lo nuestro”, concretó Aragón.

Presidente de RILPAC aclara endosos del grupo político Roberto Taboada

Providence En Español Viernes 27 de agosto, 2004

What’ New with RILPAC’s Endorsement? There is a very popular saying that states: “the more things change, the more they remained the same” and how fitting such saying to RILPAC’s bi-annual endorsement process. During RILPAC’s first endorsement during the 1998 primaries, the committee endorsed Victor Capellán, District 20 candidate for State Representative, Miguel Luna, City Council candidate in Ward 9's primary, Sheldon Whitehouse for Attorney General, and Senator Paul Tavares candidate for General Treasurer. During the General Election we endorsed Myrth York for Governor, Sheldon Whitehouse for Attorney General, Paul Tavares for General Treasurer, James Langevin for Secretary of State, David Igliozzi for State Senate and Pat Nolan for City Council in District 9. I remember vividly the discussion about the tight finish in the City Council District 9 between incumbent Pat Nolan and challenger Miguel Luna. This race became the most controversial of all the endorsement decisions since it was a race pitting a first time Latino candidate against an incumbent who had strong support among her constituency and among the members of RILPAC’s first official endorsement committee and the start of what has become a very controversial process that pits friends against each other in a democratic process of endorsing candidates for state and local office who are committed to improving the quality of life for members of the Latino community. I also remembered the controversy created when State Representative James Langevin was endorsed over Ed Lopez, a Republican Latino running for Secretary of State, Santa Espinosa not being given an opportunity to participate in the endorsement process, because she was an unknown Republican. Just as it has been questioned during this year’s endorsement, the community questioned RILPAC’s commitment to support and elect Latinos, regardless of their party affiliation and gave way to accusations of being a Democratic PAC rather than a nonpartisan institution which needless to say such doubt continues despite the endorsement the first Republican during 2002 and the first Green Candidate in the same year. As can be seen from this first endorsement, Sheldon Whitehouse was elected Attorney General, Paul Tavares became Rhode Island’s General Treasurer, James Langevin was elected Secretary of State, David Igliozzi became State Senator in the Silver Lake and Pat Nolan was reelected City Council in District 9, setting up a trajectory of supporting winning candidates despite all controversies faced by the organization. No sooner had the 98 endorsement season ended, we were back at it again during the PAC’s 2nd endorsement in which we endorsed Juan M. Pichardo Senate District 10, Gonzalo Cuervo, State Representative District 20, Joseph Almeida State Representative District 20 and Marsha Carpenter State Representative District 18's primary elections. Once again RILPAC endorsement was being questioned and criticized. In particular the endorsement of both State Representative District 20 candidates Gonzalo Cuervo and Joseph Almeida, rather than reaching a conclusive and determining decision for either candidate. RILPAC also faced heavy criticism for it’s

endorsement of Marsha Carpenter in Representative District 20 an African American female being challenged by first time Latino candidate Leon Tejada. This endorsement season also became very controversial in regards to Angel Taveras candidacy as the first Latino seeking a Congregational seat running against Secretary of State James Langevin, Activist Kaye Coyne-McCoye and Attorney Kevin McAllister. The sentiment in the community and some members of the PAC was very strongly that RILPAC should endorsed Attorney Taveras even though the organization initial board had decided to be a state PAC for the first 5 years. Just like any other races, the membership was divided as to whether the PAC should endorsed Angel or not, and as usual the issue was put for a vote with the outcome not modify the organization’s operations and the decision was made not to endorsed the first Latino congregational candidate. In 2002 the committee endorsed Myrth York, for Governor, Paul Tavares for General Treasurer, Matt Brown for Secretary of State, Patrick Lynch for Attorney General, Juan Pichardo for State Senator, District 2, Jeff Toste for Senate District 5, David Cicilline for Mayor City of Providence, Miguel Luna City Council and Stephen Laffey for Mayor City of Cranston. During this election season, the heated endorsement was the Democratic gubernatorial race between Myrth York and Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, which was narrowly decided in favor of Myrth York, creating voting controversy once again among the voting members and even caused the loosing side to form their own RILPAC supporters for Sheldon Whitehouse and going as far as organizing a press conference to announce their support for Sheldon, and their disappointment that the general membership did not endorsed Mr. Whitehouse. Needless to say despite individual members claims that Myrth’s endorsement was obtained by their individual efforts, RILPAC’s endorsement of Myrth during the 1998 gubernatorial elections and Sheldon Whitehouse for Attorney General shows that both candidates had a track record of supporters in the organization prior to the 2002 endorsement process. This also shows the evolution of the endorsement process, since Sheldon Whitehouse was considered a favorite by the majority of the PAC. As can be seen so far, the experience faced during our 2004-endorsement process is nothing new or nothing different than in the past, but what has been consistent in this process is the evolution of the participants in the election process quite interestingly producing the same results and the same controversies. Looking at the participating embers in this year endorsement committee, the only members that remain participating in the process from the inception of the PAC are yours truly and Betty Bernal other tan that the participant have changed throughout the years which is a positive, but at the same time it has not allowed the process to evolve and mature with the agenda needs of the community rather than personal agendas. It’s my opinion that if many of the senior members of the organization will remain active in the process while new membership keeps the organization growing and evolving the results may be different. First of all I like to thank Tony for taking the initiative and starting the conversation regarding this matter. Secondly I like to say that I agree totally with your assessment of the matter.

As I stated prior to the voting, “every single one of us” have a personal agenda as to why we are members of this organization and why we invest the time that we do as active members and participants of the endorsement process. As I also stated that night my agenda “is the political empowerment of the Latino community, and as I shared with members of the labor movement, “to protect what we have and elect as many Latino as we can”, but needless to say living in a democratic system and dealing with a democratic process within RILPAC, I like every other member should respect the decision of the voting majority and the decision of the voting results. This is the right thing to do and the democratic principle to respect. I have spoken to many of the members of the endorsement committee and I’m aware of their disappointment with individuals who as soon as the voting was over called their particular candidates and reported to them their PERCEPTION as to who voted against them and then proceeded to create suspicion of the democratic process that took place in the endorsement voting, obviously this behavior leaves a lot to be desire of the professional ethics of these individuals and their commitment to the organization, the community the integrity of the process. Let me assure you that there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that the endorsement voting was open, fair and democratic as it has been since the inception of the PAC. Let me also assure you that just like it has taken place since the beginning, there were individuals who promised and guaranteed endorsements to particular candidates and just like before, these same individuals are the ones trying to discredit the process and the organization. I call this individuals to stop thinking about themselves and their dissatisfaction of not delivering their unmet promises and join the rest of the members that accept the fact that none of us is BIGGER than the organization and as such respect the choices made by the majority which is the appropriate and ethical decision to make. As you may be aware I have been fielding many different interviews with the local media and many residents from the community, and I am very happy to report that beside the doubts that the disenchanted members have brought forward, the question that I am getting asked the most are: why RILPAC did not endorsed any of the candidates in district 11? Why RILPAC did not endorsed Senator Juan Pichardo? and why RILPAC did not endorsed David Quiroa? Needless to say once I explain the process we arrived to such decisions, most people have been understanding and receptive of the process utilized to arrive to our decision. They have also been very grateful of my openness, accessibility and willingness to discuss and clarify the perception with the reality. I have also spoken with David Quiroa whom although disappointed that the committee chose not to endorse him, he expressed his surprise about the support the endorsement controversy has developed for his campaign and the interesting synergies developed among individuals who have personal disagreements, coming together around his campaign and their commitment to support him. Obviously there is a silver lining of not being endorsed by the PAC. To end let me say that in my opinion the best “democracy” offers is the freedom to agree to disagree while respecting the decision of the majority and if we truly believe in democracy lets accept the decision produced by a democratic process and let us now FOCUS our energies to

helping elect the candidates our organization endorsed. Let’s concentrate our minds in considering what we need to improve in order to change the outcome; shall we consider automatic endorsements of individuals with proven track records? Shall we interview every previously endorsed candidate every 2 years? Shall we keep track of Legislative voting record? Shall we develop a Latino agenda to compare Legislative agendas to? Let’s move on, very soon 2006 will be here and we SHALL do it again. Tomás Alberto Ávila President RI Latino Political Action Committee (RILPAC)

RILPAC ENDORSEMENTS UNDER FIRE By Ana Cabrera

Providence American

The Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee, (RILPAC) a group that established itself about more than a decade ago in hopes of influencing political outcomes, last week held its yearly reunion at the Hi Hat lounge in Providence. But while a fair contingent of politicians showed up, some present noted that there were fewer members of the community itself attending than in prior years.

So is the group losing steam, or has it crystallized itself into a smaller, albeit more influential body? It’s anybody’s guess, because this year there was some infighting within the ranks, most notably over the issue of the PAC’s endorsements and the process used by the group to grant them. Some in the community believe that any Latino candidate should get the nod because they think the group should support their own. However, some within the PAC say that there should be more to these endorsements, that they should go to any candidate who espouses the causes of interest to Latinos.

This year, RILPAC endorsed the Green Party’s Jeff Toste, Senatorial candidate in district 5; Democrat Andy Galli, Senatorial candidate in district 7, incumbent Rep. Thomas Slater (D-District 7) and Republican Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey. They also endorsed Pedro Espinal in his Senate District 6 bid against fellow Democrats Harold Metts and Chris Lopes.

The PAC, however, did not endorse the candidacy of incumbent Rep. Luis Tejada (D-Providence) or his Democratic challengers, Grace Diaz and Richardson Ogidan. They also did not give the nod to Republican David Quiroa, who was challenging incumbent Rep. Maxine Bradford-Shavers in District 73. Tejada, Diaz and Ogidan all went through the questioning process, as did Quiroa: Bradford-Shavers did not.

The official answer to why they did not endorse in either case is that the votes just were not there. But Quiroa says there were more reasons why he did not get the green light. He claims that he suffers from geographic discrimination, because the bulk of RILPAC members live closer to Providence and simply have no interest in other parts of the state. Further, Quiroa has been quoted as saying that the PAC told him they were unlikely to support his candidacy against the Democrat Shavers.

Quiroa says he does not believe one bit that the group is non-partisan. “I think they are heavily philosophically controlled by the labor party wing of the Democratic party and the unions, and the status quo of the Democratic leadership. That’s my personal opinion and I stand by that.”

“What’s going on with the endorsement is that the process works,” said Pablo Rodriguez, one of the founders of RILPAC, who said he did not participate in the process this time around

and denied anything less than a bipartisan effort, pointing out the Laffey and Toste endorsements as proof that the PAC will support candidates from other parties.

But some have criticized that same process this year because only about a dozen or so RILPAC members actually participated in the endorsement interview and voting proceedings, representing a miniscule fraction of the more than 100,000 Latinos who live in the state.

Historically, many of this state’s Latinos vote Democrat, and some have charged that RILPAC, which is supposed to be non-partisan, has always shown a bent towards the Democrats.

Party chair Bill Lynch said he knew nothing about partisanship within RILPAC, but added that “the philosophy of the Democratic party and the philosophy of RILPAC are one and the same: working families, education, diversity, assisting people who need help” so he thought it natural that many members would support his party.

But several Republicans who were present at the RILPAC funder noted that their party is looking to change the situation not just in RILPAC, but within the entire state.

Governor Donald L. Carcieri said, “We are trying to reach out, frankly, because we have such an imbalance, partisan wise. We need debate…that’s not fair to the voters, that they have no choice.”

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian agrees. “The goal is to find quality people.” Avedisian, who is seeking re-election this November, said he hoped to enlist the support of Latinos in his community towards that end.

Ditto for Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey, a man who that evening seemed to be almost continually surrounded by a small flock of certain RILPAC members. There has been some criticism levied against RILPAC in the past for allegedly cutting back room endorsement deals with some political figures in exchange for employment of a member of their ranks. Both Laffey and Pablo Rodriguez denied that any such promises had been made this year in exchange for the PAC’s endorsement or in the past, for that matter.

Rodriguez said that Laffey was endorsed because he gave the right answers to the questions posed to him by the PAC and his history of hiring Latinos.

Some of Laffey’s critics within the community, however, point out that even though Laffey indeed took on Latinos for city jobs, none have been very high paying positions.

Republican Congressional candidate David Rogers said that it has been very tough for the party to figure out what is the central mission of the organization. This year, he says, they have decided to break the Democratic stranglehold by simply recruiting more candidates to run in all races. He pointed to the support that Republicans have found within Miami’s Cuban community, adding he believes this phenomenon could happen here in Rhode Island. Rogers commented on RILPAC’s traditionally Democratic leanings, saying that “as long as one organization allows itself to be one sided, the party that it caters to knows it does not have to work for those votes.”

The night also gave an opportunity to speak with some politicians about their future plans. One such person was Secretary of State Matt Brown, about whom there has been speculation he might run against Senator Lincoln Chafee in two years. But when asked this question outright, Secretary Brown guffawed aloud, and hemmed a little before stating that he was “entirely focused” on this upcoming election and doing continuing work to make government more accountable. He did not, however, deny the rumor.

It was a night to ask Greg Gerritt of the Green Party whether or not Ralph Nader’s continued candidacy upsets the apple cart for Democratic candidates. “I’m not supporting Nader this year,” said Gerritt, who blamed what he called the outdated electoral college system, not third party candidates, for what happened during the last election.

But Providence City Councillor Luis Aponte disagrees with Gerritt, saying that he wholeheartedly believes in the two-party system.

At the end of the evening, The Providence American was finally able to corral RILPAC president Tomas Avila for a quiet one on one chat. Avila pointed out that RILPAC is not geographically situated, noting that the group endorsed Woonsocket candidates in the past.

“As far as I know, nobody from the PAC is going to work for Mayor Laffey,” Avila said laughingly when questioned about whether or not a deal had been cut to that effect. When pressed further about the perceived public notion that two of RILPAC’s past presidents (Nellie Gorbea and Melba DePena) have gone on to politically bigger and better things as a result of deals cut by the group, Avila denied that this had been the case and emphatically stated that he did not have any such plans in his future.

“What I am looking for is what I have done for the last six years,” said Avila, “to empower the Latino community, to influence the political process as the mission of RILPAC calls for. That is what I will do for the two years of my presidency.”

Latino PAC Takes Heat For Backing Only One Candidate In 5

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, September 7, 2004

BY TATIANA PINA Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- The question on listeners' minds is the recent candidate endorsements made by the Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee, so Dr. Pablo Rodriguez goes right to the point in his talk show.

The endorsements, or lack thereof, have tongues wagging on the airwaves and over the Internet, he says on Hablemos (Let's Talk) on Exitos 88.1 FM (WELH).

The Spanish-language talk-show host has invited mostly Providence candidates for the General Assembly to a "political barbecue" out in the backyard of the radio station in Cranston.

The first four candidates to show -- Grace Diaz, running for House District 11; Wilbur Jennings, running in House District 10; Leo Medina, running in House District 12, and David Quiroa, running in House District 73, in Newport, all have one thing in common.

"None of them was endorsed by RILPAC. That's the show right there," jokes Rodriguez, who once served as president of the Latino PAC.

"Why weren't these people endorsed?" Rodriguez asks.

RILPAC endorsed five candidates: Jeff Toste from the Green Party, in House District 5; Democrat Andy Galli, in House District 7; Democrat Rep. Thomas Slater, House District 10; Republican Stephen Laffey, incumbent mayor of Cranston, and Democrat Pedro Espinal, House District 6. Espinal was the only Latino who was endorsed.

No one was endorsed in the House District 11 primary race in Providence, one of the hottest races. There, Diaz, a political newcomer and a Democrat, is challenging Democrat incumbent Rep. Luis Tejada. Both are Dominican. The race has heated up as Tejada has been challenged by Diaz supporters and fined by the state Board of Elections for not reporting campaign finances. Both are regular guests on Spanish-language radio programs.

Diaz said RILPAC did the right thing by not endorsing a candidate in District 11. "Their regulations require a consensus and they could not come to one," she says. "What's important for District 11 is that people have more options when they go to vote."

When Tomas Avila, the president of RILPAC, arrives, Rodriguez tells him he is in the hot seat. The backyard is getting filled with candidates and people who have come to watch.

Avila said that neither Tejada nor Diaz garnered a majority of votes from RILPAC members to receive the endorsement. But he has taken heat because it's an important race, he says.

He said that RILPAC members plan to meet after the elections to talk about the endorsement process and what to do when members reach a verdict similar to the one for District 11. Does it matter if you get endorsed by RILPAC? After all, Tejada won without RILPAC's endorsement. "The fact that people are upset by the endorsements means it's important to them," Avila says.

When David Quiroa, of Newport, a Republican who will challenge the winner of the Democratic primary for District 73, did not get endorsed, there was a groundswell of e-mails decrying the fact. How could they not endorse a man who has worked with the Latino community and is making history by running? asked Julio Aragon, of the Mexican-American Association.

"David, there was a lot of controversy about you," Rodriguez says. "All those e-mails."

"I'M IN THE EYE of the hurricane," Quiroa says. "It's good that there is this type of energy. I did absolutely everything I had to do for the endorsement. I spent three hours on the essay."

Quiroa says that his candidacy is historic in Newport, a middle-class, Anglo community where a Guatemalan from the Republican Party has dared to run for office. Quiroa said Governor Carcieri asked him to run.

So it was a surprise to him when he went before the 12 or so members of RILPAC's endorsement committee and they spent more time talking about his participation in the Republican Party than what he stood for.

Avila says he stopped the talk "when I saw the direction it was going in." In the end, the members did not want to endorse Quiroa.

Asked whether the majority of RILPAC members are Democrat, Avila said that they reflect the state. Back in February, Avila said that he approached the Republican Party seeking members to join RILPAC to make the process more balanced, but as yet no one has approached the group.

In other primary races, such as Senate District 2 between incumbent Juan Pichardo and Rochelle Lee, and House District 12 between incumbent Joseph Almeida and Medina, none of the candidates turned in papers seeking endorsement. Avila said that in all, 21 candidates turned in endorsement papers.

After the talk show, Avila said that among the questions he has heard most is whether RILPAC is going to endorse Latino candidates. As it stands now, the organization endorses candidates whom it judges would best represent the interests of Latinos -- and that's not necessarily Latino candidates.

"This controversy goes way back to when we started, and Republican Ed Lopez ran for secretary of state and we did not endorse him. It has always been a question, and we are going to have to talk about it and decide what we need to do to respond to the community's desire," he said.

Among the other candidates who attended were Ed Morabito, a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District; Harold Metts, candidate in Senate District 6; Rep. Joseph Almeida, D-District 12, in Providence; Rep. Anastasia Williams, D-District 9, in Providence; Slater; Tejada, and Pichardo.

Presidente de RILPAC aclara endosos del grupo político

Roberto Taboada Providence En Español

Viernes 27 de agosto, 2004

Con respecto a elegir latinos, slogan de campañas recientes, Tomás Avila dice que el hecho de haberse endosado a más a anglosajones que latinos muestra la madurez del grupo

PROVIDENCE – Los endosos del Comité Latino de Acción Política de Rhode Island se dieron a conocer el pasado jueves 19 de agosto, luego que se decidiera apoyar a cinco candidatos. Que el endoso de 4 anglosajones y un solo latino hayan tomado lugar no despertó tanta inquietud como el acuerdo de la membresía de no involucrarse en disputadas contiendas, como los son la que se llevan a cabo en los Distritos 11 y 73 por la Cámara de Representantes.

En estas contiendas participan candidatos hispanos, quienes respondieron al cuestionario del Comité Latino y fueron entrevistados por aproximadamente doce de sus miembros.

El Comité Latino endosaría a Jeff Toste, candidato al Senado Estatal por el Distrito 5; Andrew Galli, candidato al Senado Estatal por el Distrito 7; al Representante del Distrito 10 de Providence, Thomas Slater, quien busca la reelección; y al Alcalde de Cranston, el Republicano Stephen Laffey.

Casi de manera inmediata, uno de los fundadores del Comité Latino o RILPAC envío el anuncio de un evento pro-fondos para uno de los endosados, Pedro Espinal, quien se ha postulado al nuevo Distrito Senatorial 6 de Providence.

El evento, auspiciado por el Dr. Pablo Rodríguez y el Comité para elegir a Pedro Espinal en el Distrito 6, se llevó a cabo esta semana.

Los endosos causaron gran controversia, ya que el Comité Latino optó por no endosar a uno de los tres pre-candidatos por el Distrito 11 de la Cámara de Representantes, donde el actual Representante León Tejada busca la reelección, enfrentando a dos oponentes, la proveedora de cuidado infantil, Grace Díaz, y el político afro-americano, Richardson Ogidan.

Los tres candidatos se sometieron al riguroso proceso del Comité Latino, más ni obtuvieron la respuesta que esperaban ni una explicación satisfactoria sobre lo sucedido.

El Presidente de la Asociación Social, Cultural y Deportiva Mexicana de Rhode Island, Julio Aragón, expresó mediante un comunicado de prensa, que se había ignorado deliberadamente a las contiendas latinas en los Distritos 11 y 73.

“Nuestros hispanos hoy más que nunca necesitan del apoyo hispano. La cual se les ha ignorado por completo o será que la ética profesional de estos candidatos no está a la altura de esta agrupación política (RILPAC). Que pena no poder apoyar lo nuestro”, concretó Aragón.

Desde el anuncio de los endosos, el Presidente de RILPAC, Tomás Avila, se mantuvo disponible, en un esfuerzo por aclarar las decisiones del grupo político.

Según Avila, el proceso al que se someten los candidatos se llevó a cabo con suma democracia. Sin embargo, y aunque lo aseguró a nuestro semanario en más de una ocasión, dijo por igual que existen fallas que serán cambiadas en los próximos meses.

No quedó claro cuantos de los 41 miembros de RILPAC votaron, pero sí que fue un número impar que claramente no impedía que se proporcione el endoso o se niegue, de acuerdo al número de votos.

Avila, no obstante –a pesar de confirmar estos datos, y más específicamente en las contiendas por los Distritos 11 y 73– se limitó a decir que el grupo simplemente decidió no endosar en dichas campañas.

“Muchos de los temas que se discuten son por un desconocimiento de nuestro proceso. No es relevante el porcentaje de votos que se dieron, sino que el comité decidió no endosar”, dijo Avila, añadiendo que en las mencionadas contiendas hubo, además del cuestionario y las entrevistas, una reñida discusión. Sobre esto, el candidato del Partido Republicano en el distrito 73 de Newport, David Quiroa, dijo que las razones del Comité Político se debían a la existencia de dos bandos dentro de esta organización, uno que apoya a los sindicatos y otro que es tradicionalmente demócrata. Quiroa informó a Providence en Español que otras de las razones presentadas por miembros del grupo político tuvieron que ver con el hecho de que el candidato es republicano, y que a pesar de ser latino, no se contribuiría con una campaña destinada a quitarle el puesto a un demócrata (la representante demócrata Maxine Shavers). Quiroa, oriundo de Guatemala, se mostró confundido ante el largo interrogatorio de los miembros de RILPAC sobre las razones por las cuales es miembro del Partido Republicano de Rhode Island. El candidato dijo que más de la mitad de la entrevista se enfocó en ello, en lugar de su historial de apoyo a causas comunitarias. “Ellos tienen el derecho, pero pasé por el proceso, fui a la entrevista, y pensé que tenía buenas oportunidades. Creo que no fue así, ya que soy republicano. Más de la mitad de la entrevista fue un repaso de lo mismo que ya había respondido, de por qué era republicano. No fue sino hasta que Tomás Avila intercedió y pidió un cambio de tema, empezando a hablar sobre asuntos inmigrantes”, dijo Quiroa. El Alcalde Stephen Laffey, prominente miembro del Partido Republicano, no recibiría el mismo trato.

Pero Tomás Avila asegura que el proceso es democrático y no solo un camino más para elegir a miembros del Partido Demócrata. Avila confirmó que existen tendencias pro-sindicales dentro de RILPAC, pero que es sólo uno de los elementos dentro del grupo político. “Se que hay una influencia laboral en el grupo, y fui firme ante eso, para asegurar que no interfiera con el proceso”, dijo Avila. Con respecto al caso de David Quiroa, comentó: “Hay una falla en el proceso y espero arreglarla. Si un candidato se toma el tiempo para llenar el cuestionario, va a la entrevista, y los demás no se presentan ni llenan el cuestionario, para mí, Tomas Avila, el candidato que si lo hizo debe ser endosado”. “La mayoría no quiso endosarlo, a pesar de su envolvimiento con la comunidad. Parte del problema con el proceso, desafortunadamente, y quiero ser claro, es que muchos se alejan y no se comprometen con el 'PAC', es así que llegan nuevos miembros, sin la estabilidad necesaria, y sin un conocimiento consistente sobre los candidatos. En el caso de David Quiroa algunos lo conocen, pero otros no”, dijo, asegurando que ha hablado con David Quiroa, y que “cree fuertemente en el fortalecimiento de la comunidad latina que va más allá del compromiso verbal, sino actual, y lo ayudaré en su campaña como pueda”. Por último, no todo fueron malas reacciones, el Alcalde de la ciudad de Cranston, Stephen Laffey, celebró que se le haya endosado una vez más, sumando el apoyo de RILPAC, al que le diera la Asociación de Negocios de Guatemala en Cranston, y la Asociación Mexicana de Rhode Island. Laffey dijo sobre esto: “Gracias por si continuo apoyo, me mantengo decidido en mi compromiso de ofrecerles oportunidades a todos. Su lucha es mi lucha”. Andrew Galli aseguró desconocer de la controversias que generaran los endosos, más afirmó sentirse sumamente contento con el apoyo del grupo político latino. Miembros de RILPAC: Melba Depeña, Nellie Gorbea, Matthew Jerzyk, Laura Pérez, Juan M. Pichardo, Pablo Rodríguez, MD, Jhomphy Ventura, Anthony Affigne, Luis Aponte, Ingrid Ardaya, José Brito, Ana Cabrera, Alberto Cardona, Claudia Cardona, Daphne Clarcke, Gladys Corvera, Adriana Dawson, María Fernanda Escudero, Ernesto Figueroa, Rosendo Fonsecha, José M. Gonzalez, Catherine Horsey, Patricia Martínez, Roxana C. Parra, Ricardo Patiño, Christopher Petrarca, Johanna Petrarca, Ana-Cecilia Rosado, Héctor R. Solís, Ángel Taveras, Vanesa Toledo, y Laviña Velásquez. Miembros que participaron del Comité de Endosos: Domingo Morel, Betty Bernal, Sylvia Bernal, Tomas Alberto Ávila, Doris M. De Los Santos, Sabina Matos, y Kathy Hellwig. (Lista proporcionada por el Presidente del Comité Latino, Tomás Avila).

Inmadurez política Luis Peralta

Providence En Español Viernes 27 de agosto, 2004

La creación del Comité Latino de Acción Política de Rhode Island (RILPAC, siglas en inglés), dio a la comunidad una percepción de poder, ya que la dotó de una imagen distinta a la que habíamos demostrado en lo atinente a activismo político, independientemente de lo que haya logrado. RILPAC trajo elementos de opinión pública y de propaganda que son útiles en todo proceso de desarrollo político; además nos dio el semblante de una comunidad organizada. Aunque ha sido realmente la comunidad por sí misma la que ha dado el mayor y más claro ejemplo de avance político y de participación en el proceso democrático. No hay mejor demostración de lo dicho, que la campaña política de 2002.

RILPAC sí ha sido, justamente, una fuente continuadora del activismo político. “Fuente continuadora”, porque no es RILPAC la fuente original primaria del desarrollo político organizado de la comunidad latina, ya que ésta tiene una historia cuyas raíces datan de los años 70s y 80s. RILPAC, refleja en parte lo que es hoy la comunidad latina; pero ha retrazado su madurez institucional, y tal vez de ello, todos somos culpables.

No pienso que RILPAC se niegue a crecer, pero necesita d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-i-z-a-r su proceso de apoyo, o hundirse en el descrédito y en la insignificancia de sus decisiones. Entre otras cosas, debe simplificar el cuestionario usado por los aspirantes políticos para requerir el apoyo de la organización, el cual, por la naturaleza de las preguntas, obliga a producir ensayos con los cuales podría escribirse un volumen bastante extenso. La parte del proceso que corresponde a las entrevistas, debe tener primacía, pero los entrevistadores no deben tener fauces carnívoras, sino la serenidad de la tole-rancia, de manera que las ideas ajenas, el modo de pensar o simpatizar políticamente, tanto de quienes buscan “apoyo” como de quienes lo ofrecen, sean racionalmente respetadas, independientemente de las diferencias.

Sugiero un proceso que se acerque por lo menos a una toma de decisión democrática, donde no sea un grupito de interesados, con posiciones y pensamientos únicos, quienes tomen decisiones a nombre de la comunidad latina. Sería oportuno comenzar por limitar la permanencia de los miembros del Subcomité de Apoyo a solamente dos años, de modo que no sean perpetuos y se evite el grupismo y la imposición de intereses particulares. Que las entrevistas sean conducidas por los miembros del mencionado subcomité, pero que sean hechas garantizando el acceso a los miembros de RILPAC, de manera que los entrevistadores sean facilitadores del proceso, pero que sean todos los miembros presentes quienes seleccionen por votación, a los pre-candidatos que requieran ser apoyados.

Sinceramente pensé que RILPAC había aprendido de la experiencia de 2002, cuando se impuso un anticriterio personalista en la oferta de apoyo para una candidatura a la Gobernación, apoyando a Myrth York por encima de Sheldon Whitehouse, quien había cultivado una relación

de apoyo contínuo a la entidad y había demostrado sin lugar a equivocaciones, su apoyo a los latinos, nombrando en numerosas posiciones a miembros de nuestra comunidad. O sea, que lo que podíamos esperar de él, ya lo estaba haciendo, aunque lo que merecemos no se limite a puestos laborales.

Con relación a este reciente proceso de apoyo, no discuto la certeza, y en algún caso, la justicia de las decisiones tomadas, pero es discutible y difícil de explicar la ausencia de decisión concerniente a los distritos congresionales 11 y 73. En el Distrito 11, desde mi punto de vista, entiendo, a partir de mi explicación anterior, por qué no se apoyó a uno de los tres aspirantes, aunque desafortunadamente ello demuestra oquedad o vacío institucional.

En el Distrito 73, donde David Quiroa es aspirante republicano, creo que debe ser motivo de debate público, ya que todo indica que a éste se le negó el apoyo por su cercanía al Gobernador (Donald) Carcieri, y su preferencia política republicana. Seguro dirán que el anti republicanismo a que aludo es insustentable, puesto de que el Alcalde (Stephen) Laffey [R-Cranston] recibió el apoyo. Bueno, Laffey es acreedor de apoyo, pero existe una correspondencia inevitable entre acreedores y deudores. Los unos no existen sin los otros. Si se usó un criterio antirepublicano, éste demuestra ser selectivo, desafortunadamente en perjuicio de uno de los nuestros, porque sinceramente no creo que RILPAC sea capaz de negarle apoyo a un político como el Senador Lincoln Chafee, si éste lo requiriera. Aunque tal vez existe otra visión que no tiene nada que ver con política ni con beneficios a favor de la comunidad.

RILPAC Endorsement Recommendations Sub-Committee Members: Betty Bernal, Carmen Mirabal, Domingo Morel, Kathy Hellwig, Sabina Matos, Sylvia Bernal, Hector Solis, Doris De Los Santos

Working Notes: Process Announcement: A general outline of the endorsement process and schedule will be publicly announced. Endorse the following Offices: No less than 5 and no more than 10 districts chosen by RILPAC members. Dual endorsements: A dual endorsement may be considered, however to emphasize RILPAC’s intention to avoid dual endorsements (except in the rarest situations) such action will require the majority vote of the endorsements and the executive committees. Endorsement Levels: endorsed, neutral, not endorsed Endorsement Process:

1. Questionnaires are sent out to all candidates July 20th; 2004 2. Candidates are invited to half-hour "meet the PAC" sessions. August 2nd – 6th

(15 minutes candidates give their prepared comments, 15 minutes wide-open questions from RILPAC members)

3. Copies of the questionnaire responses are available to all PAC members at the

"meet the PAC" sessions.

4. ALL eligible (active) RILPAC members may vote on all candidates, except for those RILPAC members who are themselves a candidate, employed by a candidate or who are directly working as a volunteer for a candidate’s campaign. RILPAC members who fall under these exemptions must abstain from voting for said office.

5. Voting process: each RILPAC member (present) is given a voting slip with the

names of candidates for each office in alphabetical order.

6. Members individually rank each list of office seekers by office (e.g. you rank order the three or four candidates for a specific office from "1" most worthy of RILPAC support, "2" second most worthy, etc.)

7. Rankings are tabulated at the meeting and the highest scorer is endorsed for

that office.

Invitation Letter July 20, 2004 «First_Name» «mi» «Last_Name» «no» «Address» «city», RI «Zip_Code» Dear Mr./Ms. «Last_Name»: The Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee (RILPAC) is dedicated to increasing the participation of the Latino community in the political process and to supporting the candidacy of individuals working to create an inclusive society. An important part of our work is the public endorsement of individuals who we believe share our goals. As such, we invite you to submit an application to RILPAC for possible endorsement of your candidacy. The process will be open. We have selected offices and races that we believe to be of greatest significance to our community. We invite all interested candidates within those races to submit an application and meet with our membership. Finally, all active RILPAC members will vote for endorsement. Please find attached an outline of our endorsement process and an application form. Please return the completed form by no later than: July 30th, 2004 to Carmen Mirabal 35 Rand Street, Central Falls, RI 02863 If you have any questions, please email us at: rilpac@yahoo.com Sincerely, Carmen Mirabal Chair, Endorsement Committee Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee

Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee

RILPAC Endorsement Questionnaire Candidate Information:

Name: ___________________________________ Party Affiliation: ________________ Address: _________________________________ Office Sought: __________________ _________________________________________ Total Funds Raised to Date: _______ Phone: __________________________________ (candidate $) ____________________ Fax: ____________________________________ (PACs $) _______________________ Email: __________________________________ (other $) ________________________ Education: Work History: Public Offices Held: Prior (Successful/Unsuccessful) Campaigns Topics: For each of the seven topics listed below submit a response (not to exceed one page per topic) with:

• Your analysis of the recent history / current status of this issue. • Your personal track record (submit addenda as appropriate) with this issue. • Your plans (should you be elected) for this issue

1. School Funding 2. Bi-Lingual Education 3. Health Care Access 4. Government Funded Services and the Undocumented 5. Government Funded Services and Limited English Speakers 6. Public Safety and the Latino Community 7. Economic Development and the Latino Community

Final Question: Submit a response (not to exceed one page) to the question: Why should RILPAC support your candidacy? ______________________ Candidate Signature / Date

Reference Material

ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

Candidate Endorsement Each year, prior to the final filing date for a Primary Election, the President may convene the Membership for the purpose of endorsing candidates for State and Federal public office.

Establishment and Purpose of Endorsement Committee At a regular meeting of the Membership, prior to any meeting at which a vote may be taken to endorse a candidate or candidates for Public Office, the President shall appoint a special committee of no more than eleven (11) nor less than seven (7) members to prepare resumes of various candidates and lay down rules of procedure for endorsement votes; which rules shall not restrict free and open debate or prohibit caucuses. These appointments shall be approved by a majority of the Membership.

Duties of Candidate Endorsement Committee

The Candidate Endorsement Committee shall propose such voting procedures as they deem most likely to achieve the greatest possible consensus vote of the Membership: The Candidate Endorsement Committee's proposed rules of procedure shall be subject to amendment by majority vote of members present prior to the commencement of any Endorsement proceedings, but shall not be amended further without an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present once the Endorsement proceedings commence. The Candidate Endorsement Committee shall require a final Roll Call vote before an endorsement may be considered official, regardless of the preliminary or subsequent voting mechanisms used to establish the greatest possible consensus of the Membership.

Nomination Papers

Whenever it is necessary for a candidate to file Nomination Papers with the Board of Canvasser in order to appear as a candidate of the Party at the November election, that candidate must first receive the endorsement of the Membership, by majority vote as evidenced by the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary, prior to the circulation of such Nomination Papers.

Cooperative Responsibilities

a) Support of Endorsed Candidates Endorsed Candidates shall be obliged to support all Endorsed Candidates of RILPAC.

b) Circulation of Nomination Papers Endorsed Candidates shall cause to be circulated only Nomination Papers containing the names of all Endorsed Candidates of RILPAC, where legally permitted.

c) Prohibition on Obstruction Endorsed Candidates shall refrain from obstructing Endorsed Candidates, Resolutions of the Membership or The Party Principles.

Revocation of Endorsement of Candidate for Public Office

a) A Motion to revoke the nomination of a candidate for Public Office may be considered in order if

1) an Ethics Committee investigation results in the recommendation to revoke a candidate's endorsement , or 2) a petition to revoke endorsement, signed by one-third (1/3) of the members, excluding vacancies, is presented to the State President or 3) a petition containing the signatures, printed names, addresses and voting districts of 25% of the Party Membership is presented to the State President.

b) Should such a motion be in order, the President shall call a Special Meeting to consider the revocation of endorsement of the particular candidate, or shall include notice of the impending motion in the Agenda sent two weeks prior to an already scheduled meeting. c) If such motion is presented without required notice at a Regular Meeting, it shall not pass unless three-fourths (3/4) of the Members present vote to rescind the previous endorsement vote. d) If such motion is presented at a Special Meeting called for that purpose and two weeks notice was provided or the notice provisions were suspended by Emergency Vote, a two-thirds (2/3) of Members present shall be sufficient to rescind the candidate's previous endorsement vote. e) A vote to rescind an endorsement shall not be official until a Roll Call Vote is taken, regardless of any preliminary balloting mechanisms used to ensure consensus on the matter.

Minnesota NOW Political Action Committee Endorsement Guidelines

Adopted by the Minnesota NOW State Board 4/25/98

Whereas the Minnesota NOW Political Action Committee (hereafter referred to as the "PAC") recognizes the following 6 core issues:

1. ratification of an unamended Equal Rights Amendment 2. repeal of all laws restricting safe, legal abortion 3. protection of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender civil rights 4. eliminating racism 5. freedom from violence 6. opposition to punitive welfare reform

Therefore be it resolved that the PAC adopt the following criteria (commonly known as the PAC Scale) in evaluating a candidate’s positions for the purpose of determining their grade based on the 6 core issues and the platform issues (hereafter collectively referred to as "our issues"):

A - Endorsed • Solid on all 6 core issues, • Good on all of platform issues, and • Takes leadership on our issues.

B - Supported • Supports 5 of the 6 core issues, and • Takes leadership on our issues.

or B - Supported

• Solid on all 6 core issues, and • Has not demonstrated leadership on our issues.

C - Fair • Supports 4 of the 6 core issues, and • Mixed on platform issues.

D - Rejected • Opposed to 2 or more of the 6 core issues.

F - Failed

• Opposed to 2 or more of the 6 core issues, and/or • Takes prominent leadership in opposition to any of our issues.

NR - Not Rated • Not a serious candidate, or • Candidate is seeking a poor rating to promote opposition to any of our issues, or • The PAC feels the candidate is unsuitable in any way.

Be it further resolved that the Minnesota NOW PAC may: 1. Endorese A's,

2. Support A's and B's when: A. money is needed (there is a contest and the campaign is not overfunded), and 1.) the opponent has a lower rating on the PAC Scale, or 2.) the candidacy is viable, or 3.) the candidate has a leadership of importance to us, or 4.) the candidate’s opponent has a leadership position of importance to us or has been effective in opposing any of our issues.

3. Support C’s when: A. there is a request from a local NOW Chapter to be allowed to raise local money on behalf of the candidate, and B. money is needed (there is a contest and the campaign is not overfunded), and 1.) the opponent has a lower rating on the PAC Scale, or 2.) the candidacy is viable, or 3,) the candidate has a leadership position of importance to us, or 4.) the candidate’s opponent has a leadership position of importance to us or has been effective in opposing any of our issues, or 5.) the candidate has a leadership position which can help us and will not be detrimental to any of our issues.

Endorsement - includes the use of the Minnesota NOW PAC name and may include any or all of the benefits listed under "support" below.

Support - may include the use of the Minnesota NOW membership list and labels, permission to purchase an ad in the Minnesota NOW Times, a PAC contribution, listing as a graded candidate in the Minnesota NOW Times and volunteer help from Minnesota NOW members on an organized basis.

AFSCME COUNCIL 24 WSEU STATE EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

MICHAEL A. SANSONE, CHAIRMAN

CRITERIA FOR ENDORSED CANDIDATES In the interest of providing a meaningful and reasonable recommendation for endorsement from all of the WSEU affiliated local unions the below criteria is suggested by SEPAC. These same criteria will be utilized by SEPAC in order to achieve a uniform and fair review of the recommendation(s). Not all criteria has to be utilized by local unions and/or SEPAC but it is suggested to adhere to as many of the criteria as possible when making a recommendation for endorsement. Accountability

1. Candidate questionnaire and campaign profile 2. Candidate interviews 3. Candidates past relationship with labor (including union membership)

Organizational Interests

1. Ability for labor to make a difference in the campaign outcome 2. Union density and capacity in district – both current and potential growth 3. Net expenditure or ability to leverage resources from union involvement 4. Visibility of labor and our issues in the race 5. Importance of candidate to our legislative agenda

Candidate Quality

1. Agrees with WSEU on most of our key issues – and their willingness to be out front on our issues

2. Personal willingness to work hard/overall effectiveness 3. Interest in having labor’s support

Candidate’s Ability to Win

1. District make-up/voting history and patterns 2. Assessment of candidates campaign organization 3. Candidate status, i.e.; incumbent, challenger or open seat 4. Other political factors, e.g.; vulnerability of opponent

“Helping You Make an Informed Choice” Union Labor

20021007

AFSCME COUNCIL 24 WSEU STATE EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

MICHAEL A. SANSONE, CHAIRMAN

AFSCME COUNCIL 24 ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

The process is quite simple and is designed for Local Unions to submit to SEPAC a recommendation for an endorsement of a candidate or no endorsement of a candidate. Here are some simple steps: 1. Local Union determines whether or not they wish to submit a recommendation of

endorsement or no endorsement of specific political candidate(s) to SEPAC. 2. The recommendation is emailed (subject to verification), mailed, faxed or hand

delivered to SEPAC. (Local Unions are encouraged to provide a supporting statement along with the recommendation)

3. SEPAC will review the recommendation and then either concur or not concur with the Local Union recommendation and will then advance the committees concurrence or non-concurrence along with the Local Unions written recommendation to the WSEU Executive Board. (The WSEU Executive Board is the final authority in making endorsements.)

Here are some other points of information: 1. SEPAC will consider only recommendations for endorsement or no endorsement of a

specific state constitutional office, state judicial office, state assembly and state senate candidate.

2. SEPAC does not determine amounts of financial contributions if a financial contribution is to be made.

3. If SEPAC should not concur with the recommendation of the Local Union, the Local Union will be notified of this action and provided with the opportunity to appeal to the WSEU Executive Board in writing or in person.

Contacting SEPAC: Write to: AFSCME Council 24 WSEU State Employees Political Action Committee 8033 Excelsior Dr., Suite C Madison, WI 53717-2900 Fax to: (608) 836-0222 Email to: info@wseu-sepac.org Internet: www.wseu-sepac.org

“Helping You Make an Informed Choice” Union Labor

20021007

SEIU LOCAL 415 ENDORSEMENT POLICY

I. PURPOSE. A. Endorsements of SEIU Local 415 are governed by SEIU State Council Endorsement Policy and Procedures. This policy sets forth the procedure for the Local to recommend to the appropriate bodies (i.e. SEIU CLC Caucus, SEIU Regional Council, etc.) endorsements for local races and local ballot measures. B. Unless otherwise specified, “member” means a member in good standing of SEIU Local 415 as defined in the SEIU Local 415 Constitution and Bylaws. C. Unless otherwise specified, “meeting” means a regular meeting of COPE or another meeting called by COPE for the purpose of considering the matter specified. D. Members shall be notified of any meeting or interview/forum where an endorsement recommendation is to be considered at least two (2) weeks in advance of the date of such meeting, whenever possible. II. LOCAL RACES. A. Incumbents. 1. The decision to recommend or not recommend an endorsement of an incumbent previously endorsed for the same office shall be based on a written analysis of the incumbent’s voting record and performance in office on issues directly impacting SEIU members and working families. 2. The criteria for making an incumbent endorsement recommendation shall be as follows: a. The candidate has a 100% voting record on Local priorities. b. The candidate has been accessible to the Local. c. The candidate has been an active supporter of the Local. d. The candidate has signed the Organizing Pledge. 3. Incumbents who meet the above criteria may receive an endorsement recommendation with a sixty (60) percent vote of members present and voting at a meeting. 4. Incumbents who fail to meet the above criteria shall be subject to the endorsement process outlined in (B.) below. B. Endorsement Recommendations.

1. Criteria. Candidates shall be judged by the following criteria: a. Commitment to SEIU’s agenda and working family issues, based on questionnaire responses, statements in the public record, and actions the candidate has taken to demonstrate such commitment. b. Responses to questions posed in endorsement interviews/fora. c. Candidate’s commitment and ability to raise funds adequate to win. d. Base of support, as demonstrated by endorsements and contributions from individuals and groups that make a difference in winning elections. e. Candidate’s viability, based on name recognition, personal history, polling data (if available), and match-up with other candidates. f. Adequacy of candidate’s campaign plan and campaign team. 2. Questionnaire. a. All candidates running for office in open seats or in seats where the incumbent fails to meet the criteria in II. (A.) (2.) above shall normally be required to complete a written questionnaire in order to be considered for endorsement recommendation. However, candidates who fail to complete a written questionnaire may be considered by a simple majority vote of COPE members present and voting at a meeting. b. All questionnaires shall ask the candidate to sign the Organizing Pledge and shall include information regarding the candidate’s funding and base of support, as well as the name, address, phone number, FPPC identification number, and treasurer of the campaign. c. All known candidates, regardless of party, shall be invited to participate in the evaluation process through completion of a questionnaire. d. Questionnaires shall be sent far enough in advance to afford members adequate time to complete their endorsement process and implement a political organizing program. 3. Interview/Forum. Candidates shall be interviewed in an endorsement interview/forum open to all members as part of the evaluation process whenever possible. All members shall be encouraged to attend. 4. Endorsement Recommendation Vote. Endorsement recommendations shall be determined by a sixty (60) percent vote of members present and voting at an endorsement interview/forum. 5. Early Endorsement Recommendations. Early endorsement recommendations are those made before all major candidates that may enter a race are known. Early endorsement recommendations may be made only when the following criteria are met: a. Three-fourths of members present and voting at a meeting vote to engage in an early endorsement recommendation process.

b. The candidate being considered for early endorsement recommendation fulfills all of SEIU’s Candidate Evaluation Criteria in II. (B.) (1.) above. 6. Dual Endorsements. Members shall avoid endorsing more than one candidate for an office. In the event of a dual endorsement for a primary election, there shall be a separate endorsement process for the race for the general election. III. LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES. A. Endorsement recommendations shall be determined by a sixty (60) percent vote of members present and voting at an endorsement interview/forum or meeting. B. If either the proponent or opponent of a local ballot measure is invited to address members at a meeting or an endorsement interview/forum, the opposing party shall normally be invited as well. An exception may occur when members, by a three fourths vote of members present and voting at a meeting, determine that a local ballot measure is obviously in the interest, or contrary to the interest, of SEIU members and working families and vote to make an endorsement.

Coalition of University Employees (CUE) Candidate Endorsements

Legislative Committee Report and Recommendation for Candidate Endorsement Process What follows is the endorsement policy recommended unanimously by the Legislative Committee members present at our meeting of 9/6/03 with some additions agreed to (also unanimously) on our phone meeting of 9/15/03.

There are still a couple details to be resolved (see various footnotes) which the committee will take up as needed after the CUE Statewide Executive Board considers this recommended procedure at their phone meeting on Thursday, September 25.

If you have reactions, opinions or suggestions, please share them with either of the co-chairs of the committee: Diane Matthews or Michael-David Sasson.

Once a candidate endorsement policy is decided upon by the Executive Board, an e-mail should be sent to the entire jurisdiction which will both have links to the policy off the Legislative Committee web-page as well as the full text of the new policy. Hard copies shall be mailed to members of the jurisdiction for whom CUE does not have e-mail. This communication will include information about both how caucus PACs may be set-up (see below) as well as how members can suggest candidates to be considered for endorsement.

The Legislative Committee will organize the logistics of the endorsement process, including drafting questionnaires (to be amended and approved by the Executive Board) and scheduling and conducting interviews. New members of the committee will be solicited regularly.

CUE will only consider endorsements in races where at least one member has come forward to ask us to support a particular candidate. Once CUE decides to consider endorsing in particular races, however, CUE will send a notice to the full membership and solicit any other candidates that they would like CUE to consider in those races. CUE guarantees access to all candidates so named to the endorsement process.

The Statewide Executive Board has final authority on CUE election endorsements. The Legislative Committee will have the responsibility for making recommendations for endorsements to the board. This shall not preclude other sources of recommendations to the e-board within CUE. Also, the Legislative Committee shall provide all available information leading to its recommendations upon request. Statewide endorsements in particular races shall not preclude either locals or caucuses from taking other positions.

Candidates will only be invited for an in-person interview if their campaign returns a questionnaire to CUE. Other than the individual candidate being interviewed, only members of CUE will be able to be present1.

Locals where people communicate interest and capacity will organize interview meetings.

Candidates will continue to be considered for endorsement only if they (or a representative of their campaign2) participate in any scheduled in-person interview after having returned their written questionnaire.

All candidates will be asked to respond to the same series of questions.

Find out where candidate's current funding and support is coming from to the degree possible.

All meetings to discuss political endorsements will be open to all members and advertised. We will figure out ways for the broadest possible group to be able to participate in the discussion.

Candidates will be considered for endorsements regardless of party affiliation.

Their track record to be researched by us or our allies:

• legislation authored, voting record and legislation authored as it relates to our guidelines (re: govt revenue and spending policies)

• public stands and stated position on the guidelines if they have no voting record • positions on education, public employees, and unionism • ties to AFL-CIO as compared to independent unions

For each election cycle, CUE could determine 1-4 key litmus test issues that candidates would need to support to be seriously considered. Having our position on these priority issues would be necessary but not sufficient to receive an endorsement.

What does CUE mean when we endorse a candidate (ie money, publicity, phone-banking, etc.)?

Our definition: An endorsement is an organizational commitment to mobilize information and resources to help get a candidate elected.

A candidate or campaign would get to use CUE's name on their literature and in public and we would tell our members about the union's recommendation.

If we were really excited about a particular candidate, we would organize phone-banks and walk door-to-door (possibly carrying our own literature highlighting our priorities), etc.

CUE will limit money provided to an endorsed candidate to purchasing a nominal number of tickets to one fundraising event (idea is these are important networking opportunities).3 If the candidate is running for statewide or national office (i.e., that represents people in both Northern

and Southern California) CUE could purchase tickets to one fundraiser each in Northern and Southern California. The cost of fundraisers for candidates at a similar level shall be comparable.

Initial discussion/interview will be conducted in legislative committee and a recommendation made to the full board with pro and con arguments.

When candidate recommendations are presented to the statewide Executive Board, the board will be asked to have two separate rounds of voting:

1. Whether or not to endorse specific candidates. A majority vote (50% plus 1) of the Executive Board will indicate an endorsement.4

2. What level of support to provide to candidates we have chosen for endorsement.5

During round 1 of the Executive Board's voting on endorsements, any Executive Board member could move to endorse candidates other than the one recommended by the Legislative Committee but in no event can a candidate be considered for endorsement at this point who has not met the requirements and been considered by the legislative committee during the preceding portions of the endorsement process. Caucuses (see below) shall be able to provide information to the full board regarding their recommendations before a vote is taken.

Various caucuses can be set up in CUE (a minimum of 25 members to be necessary before being granted official CUE political caucus status).

• A caucus can endorse separately from CUE. • A caucus can have separate PAC (political action committee) to which members can

make voluntary contributions.6 The financial affairs and legal reporting of the various caucuses' expenditures will be administered by CUE (or CUE's agent).

• Interested members may register as members of one or more caucuses. • Each caucus shall determine their own internal rules which shall be consistent with the

law. Caucus by-laws shall be made available to CUE. The caucus shall report to CUE the authorization for its expenditures. PAC record-keeping shall be consistent with CUE statewide standards.

• Caucus leadership will be provided with copies of enrollment forms to their caucus. • CUE's ability to set up this voluntary caucus-system -- with one option being to have a

CIPELC caucus/PAC -- will be a condition of our participation in CIPELC. • There shall be place on CUE membership form to volunteer to donate monthly to a CUE

political fund as well as instructions/URL address where members can get a more substantial form that will allow them to join internal CUE PACs where they would like a portion of their donation to be directed.

• The default, if no particular caucus is joined, will be to have the full contribution go to statewide CUE's political work. A minimum of 20% of the donation will go to the general CUE PAC and/or to cover administrative costs. Up to 80% may be designated by the member to be provided to one or a number of caucus PACs that have been registered with CUE.

(1) This and other parts of the proposal imply deadlines and a calendar which, should this proposal be adopted, the Legislative Committee will develop.

(2) Most candidates will need to appear in person (including any office that would place a politician on the Board of Regents such as Lt. Governor). Candidates running for President or Vice President of the United States would be invited to come, but would be allowed to send a campaign representative in their place. Candidates for offices elected by voters across the state (such as US Senate or California Attorney General) would also be permitted to send a representative in their place.

(3) Regarding financial contributions, the committee had a lively discussion but could not reach consensus on additional exceptions (including whether there should be any or if so of what kind). If the board would like the committee to come up with proposals for exceptions at a future date, the legislative committee offers to take responsibility for the accomplishment of this task. If any member of the board has any specific suggestions, we would be happy to consider these.

(4) The legislative committee is still in discussion as to the best manner of conducting this vote if more than two candidates in a particular race are proposed to the e-board for consideration. Some thoughts have included conducting separate votes for each recommendation or having one vote per office using a ranked choice ballot (aka instant runoff voting see Center for Voting and Democracy's Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) website for more info). There is also a question as to whether if we used IRV we would include a “None of the Above” option on each e-board ballot.

(5) Similarly, we are still discussing whether or not we would recommend that CUE be able to purchase tickets for fundraisers for candidates who have not received our endorsement (like we did for Burton’s birthday party). For example, CUE attended a Burton fundraiser to network even though we had not endorsed him because it provided us with opportunities to network and maybe we would want to be able to continue to do that for candidates we did not feel should be officially endorsed.

(6) The legislative committee wanted to know the cost of having UC electronically transfer these voluntary political contributions to the general CUE PAC fund. We understand that CUE would have to do the work to divide these funds between the different caucus accounts and depending on the actual cost would decide whether we wanted to recommend recharging the caucus’ for their portion of that fee.

29-August-2004 11:54:32

Candidate Endorsement Procedure

The Republican Party of San Diego County will continue its highly successful program of aggressively using its power to endorse and support Republican candidates for local offices throughout San Diego County.

To facilitate the consideration of endorsements in the November 2002 election, the

Republican Party of San Diego County has adopted a three-tiered endorsement procedure.

1. Republican incumbents seeking re-election to the same post who are current

members of the San Diego Association of Republican Elected Officials qualify for expedited consideration of a request for endorsement. Such requests will be considered at our July 8 meeting. The names of all Association members seeking re-election to the same post requesting an endorsement using the Request Form (obtained from Party headquarters) will appear on a “Consent List.” Any Central Committee member may request a name be removed from the Consent List. The Committee will then approve the remaining candidates on the Consent List, after which endorsements of individuals who were removed from the Consent List will be considered. Endorsements are granted upon a 2/3rds affirmative secret ballot vote by the Committee. Republican incumbents seeking re-election to the same post are strongly encouraged to join the Association and use this procedure. For a copy of the request form, contact Chip Englander.

2. The Chairman will, at his discretion, issue endorsements on behalf of the

Republican Party of San Diego County for Republican candidates who face no Republican opponent in the November 2002 election. These endorsements will be issued shortly following the end of the filing period.

3. Republican candidates with at least one Republican opponent may request the

Party’s endorsement, provided that 10 Central Committee members sign a letter requesting consideration of the endorsement and it is received by close of business on Friday, August 9. (See sample letter below.) Such requests will be considered at the August 12 meeting will be granted upon a 2/3rds affirmative secret ballot vote by the Committee.

Candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego County will be featured on

Republican Party campaign literature (subject to space limitations), in its newsletter, and on its website. For more information, contact Chip Englander at 858-573-0222 or by e-mail at Englander@sandiegorepublicans.org

Sample letter requesting consideration of an endorsement. Letters must be received before Friday, August 9, 2002. This letter for use by Republican candidates facing at least one Republican opponent in the November 2002 election.

Mr. Ronald Nehring Chairman Republican Party of San Diego County 5173 Waring Road, Suite 447 San Diego, CA 92120 Dear Chairman Nehring: I am a candidate for the office of (name of office) in the November 2002 election. I am a Republican and I have at least one Republican opponent in this election. [or, I am a supporter of (name of candidate), a Republican and a candidate for the office of (name of office) in the November 2002 election. This candidate has at least one Republican opponent in this election.] Pursuant to the rules of the Republican Party of San Diego County adopted May 2002, I hereby request the Committee consider an endorsement at the Monday, August 12, 2002 meeting. The signatures of at least ten voting members of the San Diego County Republican Central Committee appear below. Sincerely, NAME OF CANDIDATE This letter must also be signed by at least 10 voting members of the Central Committee. 1. _______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 3. _______________________________________ 4. _______________________________________ 5. _______________________________________ 6. _______________________________________ 7. _______________________________________ 8. _______________________________________

9. _______________________________________ 10. ______________________________________

02Election Candidate Endorsement Procedure

Note: This rule was adopted and utilized for the consideration of endorsements in the March 2002 primary election only. On Monday, November 12, 2001 the Republican Party of San Diego County unanimously adopted a procedure for the consideration of the endorsement of Republican candidates for non-partisan office in the March 2002 primary election. Endorsements for this election will be considered at the Monday, January 14, 2002 meeting only. The following is the procedure adopted by the Committee: 1. The Committee will not make endorsements in contested partisan Republican primaries in the March 2002 election. 2. The Committee will consider making an endorsement for a candidate for a non-partisan office in the March 2002 primary in a race in which more than one Republican is running only if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) A written request is made by a candidate (or supporter thereof) asking the Committee to endorse in a specific non-partisan race; (b) This written request is signed by at least ten voting members of the Committee; (c) This written request is received by the Chairman no later than December 15, 2001.

3. If a timely written request to endorse is received, meeting the above requirements, the Committee will schedule a vote on this candidate's proposed endorsement at the Committee’s January regular meeting. 4. If a timely and sufficient written request is received, and there is a quorum at the committee’s January regular meeting, the Committee can make such an endorsement only if the endorsement is approved by 2/3 of the voting members of the Committee present. (For example, if there are 45 voting members at the January meeting, the candidate would need the approval of 30 members to receive the endorsement.) 5. Any such endorsement vote will be conducted by written secret ballot. 6. These Temporary Rules will not apply to any other election other than the March 2002 Primary.

Sample letter requesting consideration of an endorsement. Letters must be received before December 15, 2001.

Mr. Ronald Nehring Chairman Republican Party of San Diego County 5173 Waring Road, Suite 447 San Diego, CA 92120 Dear Chairman Nehring: I am a candidate for the office of (name of office) in the March 2002 primary election. I am a Republican and I have at least one Republican opponent in this election. [or, I am a supporter of (name of candidate), a Republican and a candidate for the office of (name of office) in the March 2002 primary election. This candidate has at least one Republican opponent in this election.] Pursuant to the rules of the Republican Party of San Diego County adopted November 12, 2001, I hereby request the Committee consider an endorsement at the Monday, January 14, 2002 meeting. The signatures of at least ten voting members of the San Diego County Republican Central Committee appear below. Sincerely, NAME OF CANDIDATE

This letter must also be signed by at least 10 voting members of the Central Committee. 1. _______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 3. _______________________________________ 4. _______________________________________ 5. _______________________________________ 6. _______________________________________ 7. _______________________________________ 8. _______________________________________ 9. _______________________________________ 10. ______________________________________

Spec Special Notice Pursuant to the rule adopted in November, the Committee will consider the requests received from several candidates for the Committee’s endorsement in compliance with the rule. In accordance with both the rule and established parliamentary procedure, those individual candidates who requested the Committee’s endorsement in compliance with the established rule will be included on the final agenda to speak in open session. In effect, the Committee will hear each candidate’s request for an endorsement, after which the Committee will debate the merits of those requests to the extent the Committee wishes to do so, during the closed session. Concerning those candidates who did not request the party’s endorsement and may have expressed an interest in speaking to the Committee, such requests were not part of the rule we adopted. However, in the interest of fairness, if a Member of the Central Committee wishes for the Committee to hear from an opposing Republican candidate (who did not request the party’s endorsement,) any member of the Committee may put such a request in writing and mail/fax/deliver it to the party headquarters, to be received by Noon on Monday. The Committee would allow the opposing candidate to come into the meeting room during the closed session and speak to the Committee for up to three minutes. The candidate who did request the party’s endorsement also would be allowed to enter the room, and would be given three minutes rebuttal. In the opinion of our Parliamentarian Bill Baber and my self, this procedure is consistent will parliamentary rule, our internal bylaws, and the rule adopted in November.

Only Members of the Committee will be recognized for the purpose of making motions or may otherwise have the floor during any portion of the meeting. Members of the Committee are respectfully requested to arrive on time for this 7:00 PM meeting. Members of the Committee are also requested to be seated in one of the first four rows in the meeting room, as we will be voting during the meeting. Sincerely, Ronald Nehring Chairman

Green Party Endorsement Procedure

The process by which the GPCA endorses Green Candidates running for partisan office shall be as follows: 1. Organizational Structure 1-1. The Campaigns and Candidates Working Group (CCWG) is responsible for facilitating the endorsement of partisan candidates. 1-2. Endorsements for candidates running for the statewide constitutional offices shall be ratified by the General Assembly. 1-3. Endorsements for candidates running for the State Assembly, State Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives shall be ratified by the statewide consensus polling process. 2. Candidate Endorsement Process 2-1. Candidates must demonstrate support from Green Party County Organizations in their electoral district by submitting endorsements in writing from locals to the CCWG and CC. If for any reason there are counties that don't endorse a candidate, the CC and CCWG will in good faith continue the endorsement process without local endorsement. 2-2. Each candidate must complete a brief questionnaire describing their candidacy and submit it to the CCWG for approval. 2-3. The CCWG shall recommend campaign endorsements and submit them to the appropriate body for ratification. 3. Procedures for Ratification 3-1. The General Assembly Upon recommendation of the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group, the General Assembly of the GPCA may endorse candidates for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Attorney General, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Equalization and the U.S. Senate. Uncontested pre-primary endorsements shall be by consensus or 80 percent of the voting

delegates at the first plenary past the filing deadline. Voting may not take place before the filing deadline. Post-primary endorsements shall be determined by consensus or 80 percent of the voting delegates at the first plenary. 3-2. Statewide Consensus Polling Until March 2, 2004, Green Party candidates for the State Assembly, State Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives shall be endorsed by the following process: a. The CC and CCWG will conduct the polling of GPCO's in a uniform and impartial manner. b. The question presented will be "are there any concerns? If there are none, the endorsement will be made official. c. If there are unresolved concerns, the endorsement decision will be made by the General Assembly. 4. Sunset a. This proposal sunsets March 1, 2004 5. Reconsideration a. This proposal shall be brought back to the General Assembly at the March Plenary for reconsideration.

GOP Endorsement Packet Greetings,

Thank you for your interest in obtaining an endorsement from the 5th Legislative District Republicans and requesting this Endorsement Packet. My name is Steven Webb and I serve as the 5th Legislative District Republicans Endorsement Committee Chair.

Let me take a few moments to explain our endorsement process and what you need to know as a requestor.

If you are a first time candidate, have not previously received our endorsement, are seeking a different office than the one for which you previously received our endorsement or you represent an issue campaign (i.e., initiative, referendum, etc.), you will be required to complete an Endorsement Questionnaire and be available for a personal interview with our Endorsement Committee (EC). If you are running as an incumbent and we have previously endorsed you for that office, you need only send us a letter outlining your record as it relates to issues of mutual concern and your request for our endorsement. Our EC will then review the request and either make a recommendation based upon it or ask for additional documentation and/or an interview.

Once you have returned the completed Endorsement Questionnaire to us, you will need to send an email to: endorsement.chair@5ldgop.org to schedule an appointment for a Personal Interview. Interviews will be scheduled at least 10 days following the receipt of the Endorsement Questionnaire in order to convene an evaluation meeting with the EC.

Included in this endorsement packet is a Potential Interview Topics and Questions form. You will want to familiarize with the topics on this form prior to the actual interview.

During the interview, EC members will query you about your responses to the items on the questionnaire, address some of the topics mentioned in the candidate packet and, possibly, explore other issues including some not directly related to the endorsement packet.

Once the interviews are completed, the members of the EC will review and evaluate each candidate/issue. No decision to endorse will be made until the filing deadline for the office sought has closed, thus giving all candidates an opportunity to participate in the endorsement process.

Once all of the candidates who have expressed an interest in our endorsement have completed our endorsement process, the EC will, according to its policies and procedures, decide on a recommendation for endorsement. The endorsement recommendation will then be presented to the 5th Legislative District Republicans Executive Board (EB) at the next regularly scheduled Executive Board meeting or special session. A vote of the members in attendance at that meeting will determine whether the EB accepts or rejects the recommendation of the EC. The ECC will then present the endorsement recommendation of the EC, along with the EB decision, to the

Precinct Committee Officers (PCO) at the next regularly scheduled PCO meeting or special session. A vote of the PCOs in attendance at that meeting will determine whether the recommendation of the EC will be accepted or rejected. The decision of the PCOs will constitute a 5th Legislative District Republicans endorsement or denial. The ECC will then notify all of the candidates, by e-mail, of the District’s decision. An official endorsement letter will then be mailed to the successful candidate allowing them to announce the endorsement and use it in their campaign literature.

Finally, it is preferred to conduct most communications with the candidates / representatives regarding their campaigns via e-mail. This allows better process tracking of each individual candidate or issue.

Thank you again for your interest in our endorsement process. If you have any questions, please e-mail me at: endorsement.chair@5ldgop.org.

Sincerely,

Steven Webb

Endorsement Committee Chair

5th Legislative District Republicans

5th Legislative District Republicans Potential Interview Topics

As mentioned in the cover letter, the EC will review your preliminary questionnaire and schedule an in person interview. Members of the EC may then ask additional questions in an effort to explore your interest and depth of knowledge in topics important to the 5th Legislative District Republican Party.

The following are typical of those topics / questions covered during the interview:

1. Why should the 5th Legislative District Republicans endorse you for this office? If you are now an elected official, does your voting record reflect support for the principles of the Republican Party? What are your justifications for voting the way in which you did?

2. What specifically have you done to further Republican Principles on key issues (legislation, drafting/proposing of bills, ordinances, budget issues, legal decisions, etc.)?

3. What are your political/personal goals? What is your plan to navigate and manage the bureaucracy in order to accomplish your goals?

4. By obtaining our endorsement, what do you hope to say to the voters? Why is this important and how does this support your election platform?

5. What leadership skills (military, management, previous jobs or offices) have you acquired that directly relate to the office with which you are seeking? How do you think they specifically relate to this office?

6. What type of formal management, leadership training or education, if any, do you have? How will this training apply to the office you are seeking?

7. When faced with budgetary shortfalls, how would you make cuts? What criteria will you use to calculate or justify making those cuts? What services do you believe government is obligated to provide over and above other services? Do you believe in across the board cuts? Why or why not?

8. What does leadership mean to you? What is the difference between a leader, a manager and a politician? How do you see yourself; leader, manager or politician?

9. Are you familiar with the King County and Washington State Republican platforms?

10. Do you have any additional comments, concerns, clarifications on responses, or questions for this committee?

5th Legislative District Republicans

Endorsement Questionnaire Candidate Edition

As mentioned in the cover letter, this questionnaire is part of your endorsement packet. Please complete it carefully and thoroughly. You may attach your typed responses to the questions as necessary. It is important that you return the completed questionnaire to the 5th Legislative District Republicans Endorsement Committee as soon as possible so that an interview can be scheduled. If you feel you do not have time to mail back the questionnaire, you may send

it to us as a Word document attachment via e-mail (endorsement.chair@5ldgop.org).

1. Full name ___________________________________________________________

2. Campaign manager name ______________________________________________

3. Campaign address ____________________________________________________

4. Campaign e-mail address _______________________________________________

5. Campaign phone number _______________________________________________

6. Office/Position Sought _________________________________________________

7. Is your race partisan or non-partisan? � Partisan � Non-partisan

8. Political Party affiliation: � Republican � Democrat � Other _________________

9. Current office held ____________________________________________________

10. Previous elective offices _______________________________________________

11. Current employer other than elective office (if any) __________________________

12. Past work experience _________________________________________________

13. Military experience ___________________________________________________

14. Educational background _______________________________________________

15. Have you ever been arrested, charged, or convicted of any misdemeanor or

felony in this state or any other state? � Yes � No (If so, please give a detailed

explanation. This excludes traffic-related misdemeanors.) ________________________

______________________________________________________________________

16. Affiliations with clubs or other organizations ________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

17. Experience directly relating the office you are seeking________________________

18. Do you have any management training or experience? � Yes � No (If so, please

elaborate.) _____________________________________________________________

19. Your personal goals __________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

20. Your political goals ___________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

21. Why are you seeking this office? ________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

22. What is the platform for your election? ____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

23. What makes you the most qualified person for this office? ____________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

24. Name three politicians you admire and describe why you admire them ___________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

25. Have you served your local Republican Party? � Yes � No (If so, in what capacity?) _____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26. Is there anything in your background that could lead to questions regarding your integrity, character or ability to serve in the office you seek? � Yes � No (If so, please describe.) _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

27. Have you sought or are you planning on seeking the endorsement of other group(s) or political parties? � Yes � No (If so, what group(s) or political parties?) _________ ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

28. Have you received the endorsement of any other group(s) or political parties?

� Yes � No (If so, what group(s) or political party?) ___________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

29. Have you been denied the endorsement of any group(s) or political parties?

� Yes � No (If so, which group(s) or political parties? _________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

I, __________________________, acknowledge that the responses to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that if any responses are found to be false or inaccurate that may be cause for non-endorsement or for the revocation of endorsement.

_______________________________________ _________________

Signature Date

Primary Election Endorsement Process The main function of the Gertrude Stein Political Club of Greater Pittsburgh is to endorse candidates running for federal, state and local offices who prove to be allies to the lgbt community and to publicize those results.

We begin our work by sending all candidates questionnaires on our issues. Our members study the signed and dated answers of those candidates who reply, taking into consideration their records as well, and then vote to endorse those who prove to be our allies. We publicize our endorsed candidates in our community.

The purpose of this document is to outline the tasks necessary to complete the Primary Election Endorsement procedure.

• Determine the offices and candidates. • Determine each candidate’s email, fax number and/or address. • Send each candidate a cover letter, questionnaire, and GSPCGP FAQ

sheet. • Follow-up with candidates to return completed questionnaires. • Meet with members to vote on endorsement of candidates that return

questionnaires. • Mail notices to endorsed candidates. • Publicize the GSPCGP endorsement slate. • Publish a news release.

Send congratulation letters to endorsed candidates who win in the Primary Election.

BPW/PAC Endorsement Process Business and Professional Women/USA established a Political Action Committee (BPW/PAC) in 1979. BPW/PAC assists women - and pro-women - candidates who support BPW's legislative platform by providing campaign contributions and endorsements. Through BPW/PAC, individual members can join together and show the collective force of BPW in the American political process. BPW/PAC serves as the financial muscle behind BPW's national legislative agenda, and is supported solely by voluntary contributions from BPW members. CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENTS Endorsements are done on a race-by-race basis. BPW/PAC endorses women and men; Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; and candidates in every region of the nation. Only candidates for a federal office can be endorsed by BPW/PAC. States wishing to endorse statewide or local candidates are encouraged to form their own state PAC for this purpose. Each candidate that is endorsed by BPW/PAC has a record of demonstrating a strong commitment to the issues outlined on the National Legislative Platform. BPW/PAC plays an important role in helping to shape what our Congress looks like and what issues they address. BPW encourages all of its members to become educated about the candidates and the issues, and BPW/PAC endorsements are an educational tool for all members. All candidates seeking BPW/PAC's endorsement must complete BPW/PAC's candidate questionnaire and a copy must be sent to the BPW/PAC Committee: 2012 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. BPW/PAC may elect to waive the requirements for the questionnaire for Members of Congress who have been previously endorsed and have demonstrated a strong record of support on BPW issues. In addition to the questionnaire, BPW/PAC requests additional information including: the campaign budget for both primary and general elections; amount of money raised to date; recent polling data on the race; names of staff/key consultants; endorsements from national/local organizations and the issues and themes that the candidate plans to emphasize during the campaign. This information provides a strong indication of a candidate's viability, credibility and campaign organization; therefore helping BPW/PAC make informed decisions. Candidates will receive endorsements for the current election cycle based on a candidate's record of support for the issues and legislation. Lifetime endorsements will no longer be made by BPW/PAC. In addition, BPW/PAC may become involved in primary races where early funding can make a difference.

ENDORSEMENT PROCEDURES BPW/PAC needs your help in identifying strong candidates who support BPW's issues. Send a copy of BPW/PAC's Candidate Questionnaire and legislative platform to candidates who have already entered the congressional race, and ask them to complete the questionnaire and return it to BPW/PAC if they wish to be considered for an endorsement. Offer to explain issues on the questionnaire, which the candidate may not be familiar with, or refer them to BPW/USA's Public Policy Department at National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Some Congressional candidates contact BPW/PAC directly through the Public Policy Department at National. All candidates for federal office who request information on BPW/PAC will be sent a questionnaire. Because a state often is more familiar with a candidate from their region, and they will be most affected by election results, BPW/PAC appreciates recommendations from BPW members in the candidate's home state. BPW/PAC strongly believes that BPW members from a candidate's home state must have significant input into the decision-making process. BPW/PAC will encourage state input and incorporate this into its endorsement decisions. FOLLOW-UP ON ENDORSEMENTS BPW/PAC will notify a state federation when BPW/PAC endorses a candidate from that state. BPW/PAC suggests arranging a meeting with the candidate to officially announce BPW/PAC's endorsement. Please contact Public Policy staff at National to coordinate the announcement of the endorsement. FUNDRAISING FOR BPW/PAC Federal law requires that only members of BPW/USA may be solicited by or on behalf of BPW/PAC. Contributions must be made by personal check, travellers check or money order. No corporation checks are allowed by federal law. Contributions should be made in a BPW/PAC envelope, available from the National office. If a BPW/PAC envelope is not available, donors must provide their name, address, phone number, and State Federation. (This information is required by the Federal Election Commission.) To receive BPW/PAC questionnaires, BPW/PAC contribution envelopes, or copies of "BPW/PAC Endorsement Policies and Procedures," contact the Public Policy Department at National Headquarters (202) 293-1100, ext. 132.

Rochester Area Right to Life Candidate Endorsement Process

Rochester Area Right To Life

The Rochester Area Right to Life Committee has a PAC, a Political Action Committee. A PAC is a committee of an existing organization. The PAC is formed specifically to endorse political candidates. Donations to a PAC are not tax exempt, although the PAC is, by its nature, non-profit. Our PAC attempts to find electable pro-life candidates with respect to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

The RARTL PAC endorses candidates based on several criteria:

(1) The candidate must have a realistic chance of winning the election. Our purpose is to get pro-life candidates elected so that they can pass legislation that protects innocent human life. Therefore, normally only major party candidates will be endorsed. If the candidate is also the candidate of one of the other parties, that is not a hindrance.

(2) The candidate must answer a questionnaire on his/her pro-life stand. This demonstrates a pro-life stand and also demonstrates that he/she wants our endorsement. A sample of a typical questionnaire from the New York State Right to Life PAC is below.

(3) If the candidate is also an incumbent, then he/she must have a pro-life voting record. Voting against measures that protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia will cause us to question the candidate's commitment.

If there is a demonstrably pro-life incumbent, we do not endorse a challenger. Active pro-life legislators need and deserve our support.

(Do you have a pro-life representative at any level of government? Write to him or her today and say, "Thank you.")

A survey form can change, depending on current legislative initiatives, but there is a certain common thread. Below are some of the questions posed by the New York State Right to Life Committee in 1998 to candidates in that election. We use questions like these for our local efforts.

• Will you vote for a law that would prevent abortions, except those to prevent the death of the mother? (Yes No)

• Will you vote to require parental notification before abortions are performed on minors? (Yes No)

• Will you vote to prevent the use of tax funds for abortion other than to save the life of the mother? (Yes No)

• Will you vote for an "informed consent" law requiring that doctors provide information on the development of the unborn child, alternatives to abortion, and medical risks of abortion before an abortion is performed? (Yes No)

• Will you vote to prevent the use of tissue and organs from deliberately aborted children in transplants or medical experiments? (Yes No)

• A partial-birth abortion involves delivering a living, late term baby, feet first, except for the head, puncturing the base of the skull with scissors, and sucking out the brain. Will you vote to support legislation banning partial-birth abortions except to save the life of the mother? (Yes No)

• Will you vote for a law to eliminate late-term abortions in NYS? (Yes No) • Would you vote to oppose any ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) unless it contained

explicit "abortion neutralization" language? (Yes No) • Will you vote to prevent involuntary denial of life-saving treatment by providing that

when 1) a patient has explicitly directed life-preserving medical treatment, food, or fluids, and 2) the treatment, food or fluids in fact would have a significant possibility of sustaining the patient's life, then the patient's doctor cannot deny it pending the patient's transfer to another doctor willing to follow the patient's wishes? (Yes No)

• In 1991, Oregon approved a health care rationing plan for its Medicaid program. The primary basis for denial of treatment is the expected degree of disability or medical need, or poor "quality of life" it is claimed a patient would be likely to have after treatment. This is a form of involuntary euthanasia. Would you vote to oppose any legislation in this state that, like the Oregon plan, would impose rationing that intentionally denies treatment on the basis of disability, degree of medical need, or "quality of life" of those denied treatment? (Yes No)

• Would you support a law to prevent "assisting suicide" by allowing relatives or other affected by an attempted or completed suicide, as well as public officials, to sue the person who "assists" for money damages? (Yes No)

• Would you oppose any legalization of lethal injections or other measure to kill a person or to "assist" in committing suicide, or "active euthanasia"? (Yes No)

Basic Rights Elect PAC CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

Our Elect PAC makes candidate endorsements based on three main criteria:

� Position on our issues

� Leadership

� Viability

We send a questionnaire to every candidate who is filed to run for statewide office, and statewide legislative offices. Returned questionnaires are reviewed by staff of Basic Rights Oregon.

View the questionnaire to learn how we find out about a candidate's commitment to basic rights for all Oregonians.

PAC members work in teams to interview every candidate who seeks our endorsement whose questionnaire indicates a basic interest in and agreement with our positions on the issues.

Teams then report back to the PAC committee, and based on their recommendation and discussion by the entire committee, we make endorsements.

The MoveOn.org PAC Primary and Endorsement Process

1. The MoveOn.org PAC straw poll

On May 29, we held a presidential straw poll among our entire membership. The poll identified a top tier of candidates in whom MoveOn members were most interested, but also indicated that people wanted more information about the candidates before moving closer to an endorsement.

2. Asking approval for the process

On June 11, we proposed this candidate engagement process and the MoveOn.org PAC Primary in an email to 1.4 million MoveOn members. We asked the membership to approve or reject the process using an online survey. 96.4% of respondents said they wanted us to go ahead with the process as outlined, including a binding primary vote at the end of June that could result in a MoveOn endorsement.

3. Getting to know the candidates

Beginning Wednesday, June 18, we will pass along emails from the three straw poll top tier candidates. Each email will begin with a link to candidate pages hosted by MoveOn.org PAC for all nine declared presidential candidates. Each page includes a letter from the candidate and responses to seven interview questions that were generated and approved by MoveOn members.

4. The MoveOn.org PAC Primary Vote

Voting in the MoveOn Primary will begin 12:00 am, Tuesday, June 24 and will end 48 hours later at 11:59 pm on June 25. Voters will be encouraged to make financial contributions to their candidates as well as casting ballots for them. Donating to a campaign is an important way of showing support -- perhaps the most important at this early stage.

The vote will be open to people who are not already MoveOn members; however, to keep the process fair they must register to receive a unique email ballot. Email ballots are tied to an individual name and email address. Each one counts for one vote.

5. Announcing the results, possible endorsement and continued fundraising

We will officially announce the results when the voting is complete. If any candidate wins a majority (%50 + 1 vote) out of the field of nine candidate, then MoveOn.org PAC will endorse that candidate. If no candidate wins a majority, then MoveOn will continue to engage all the candidates in an extended presidential primary process, possibly leading to another Primary vote in the future.

Green Party of Mendocino County (GPOMC) Endorsement Process

This document defines the process for GPOMC endorsement of candidates for public office. Candidate membership in the Green Party is not required for endorsement, although it may help, especially for partisan offices. Endorsement benefits may include some of the following and other advantages to the candidate:

Positive campaign coverage in our election mailings to nearly 2000 registered Green voters Electronic communication through GPOMC email list and web site

Press coverage of the endorsement Campaign volunteers Help with fundraising; only endorsed candidates can receive monies from the GPOMC treasury. Consideration of endorsement is by 1) request from a candidate, or 2) request by GPOMC member. The Endorsement Committee for any given race will be composed of a majority of GPOMC members registered in the district served by the elected office. For countywide offices, there will be an attempt to have representation from each of the 5 districts. State offices will be considered as countywide offices and regional coordination is desirable. Per the process below, responsibilities of the Endorsement Committee include developing and mailing questionnaires; collecting and compiling responses; setting up meetings as requested; notifying all candidates of the outcome of the endorsement process.

Process:

1. 1. Questionnaires are sent to each candidate. Questions include general Green Party Key Values related, and local or district related. If possible, responses are posted on website.

2. 2. Based on questionnaire responses, personal interview and/or forum,

and feedback from membership, the Endorsement Committee makes a recommendation of endorsement and level of commitment (ways we will help) to the membership via email, or by mail to any member sending a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the committee.

3. 3. The Endorsement Committee’s recommendation is supported or rejected by the membership. A candidate must receive 80% of the GPOMC membership votes cast to gain the official GPOMC endorsement.

The Endorsement Committee may call a special GPOMC general membership meeting for the purpose of discussing endorsements prior to the deadline for votes being cast. For countywide offices, such meetings may be held in more than one location.

4. 4. GPOMC members in a local area may make an endorsement on any

election when the county body does not make an endorsement, or when it makes an endorsement of another candidate. Such endorsements are from, for example, the Anderson Valley Area Greens, rather than from the Green Party of Mendocino County. Such endorsements must be identified as local and may not use the GPOMC identification.

5. GPOMC member is defined as anyone registered in the Green Party in

Mendocino County.

WCLA Endorsements: Careful Process WCLA's annual process of making candidate endorsements is deliberate, arduous, and very careful.

A review of voting guides from 1972 through 1998 shows no errors, though after endorsement there have been some switches to the other side of the issue. Past voting records are just that: all candidates are given the opportunity to rethink their positions. Even strongly pro-choice or anti-choice incumbents are queried, just in case of a change of mind.

Except for candidates cross-endorsed by the Right to Life Party or otherwise known to be unreceptive to abortion rights, WCLA mails a two-page questionnaire seeking their public position on reproductive rights and timely delivery of reproductive health services.

The questionnaire is redrawn each year, as old issues disappear and new issues emerge.

If a candidate misses the deadline, WCLA follows up with a call and frequently another copy of the questionnaire. Polly Rothstein, president of WCLA, explains that WCLA is more interested in ascertaining the candidate's position than in strict adherence to a due date. She permits some leeway, especially as many are on vacation when the questionnaires are mailed and others plead they "never received it" and request another copy. They all get one.

Rothstein and members of the staff review each questionnaire as it's returned. If the questionnaire reveals inconsistencies in a generally pro-choice set of responses, Rothstein may phone a candidate to explain the intent of the question and discuss the issue. She always permits a candidate to change an answer. Rothstein will occasionally ask a candidate to meet with her and members of the WCLA board, just to make sure that the board is clear on the candidate's position.

Rothstein stresses that all endorsements are made on a strictly non-partisan basis. WCLA's board of directors reviews the questionnaires and discusses incumbents' records, leadership, and helpfulness during the legislative session. The board also reviews the opponents' records. Each race is voted separately. This process can take hours, with most of the time spent on a few races.

Electing Judges: Pro-Choice vs. No-Choice

Unlike those running for political office, candidates for judge may not offer opinions on disputed legal and political issues. WCLA sends no questionnaires, but discusses with candidates their general philosophies regarding pregnant women and the law. To qualify for consideration candidates must agree to an interview.

This year, there are five seats open for the state Supreme Court in the five-county Ninth Judicial District, which includes Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland, and Orange. Supreme Court justices serve a 14-year term.

Dems Endorsed; Reps Take RTL

All of the Republican Supreme Court candidates are anti-choice, and four are Right to Life Party candidates as well as Republican and Conservative nominees. Those on RTL are Westchester County Judge Daniel D. Angiolillo, Putnam County Judge John Sweeny, Orange County Family Court Judge John McGuirk, and Yorktown lawyer Mark Dillon. Dutchess County Judge George Marlow is not endorsed by RTL, but he refused to talk with WCLA.

Dillon was nominated to draw Republican voters to the polls in District 4 where RoseMarie Panio seeks to defeat incumbent Mike Kaplowitz.

All Democratic NYS Supreme Court candidates warranted WCLA's endorsement. They are Westchester Family Court hearing examiner Carole Levy, Westchester Family Court Judge Bruce Tolbert, Dutchess attorney John Garrity, Jr., Rockland County Surrogate Alfred Weiner, and former Orange County judge Luke Charde.

Ron Stokes for County Court

Ron Stokes, Democrat running for County Court judge, is endorsed by WCLA. He had earned WCLA's endorsement in 1980, when he ran for state Assembly. His opponent is Republican Yonkers City Court Judge Thomas Dickerson, who refused to speak with WCLA.

Dear Candidate:

The Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's statewide, non-partisan civil rights organization committed to equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) New Yorkers, is pleased to announce that our 2004 candidate questionnaire is now available for those seeking the Pride Agenda's endorsement in the upcoming election cycle.

The Pride Agenda and our Political Action Committee (PAC) are dedicated to advancing our public policy goals through the election process by increasing the political participation of LGBT and allied communities and supporting candidates who will help further our public policy agenda. We inform and educate our tens of thousands of members and the public at large about our endorsed candidates, do targeted mailings on behalf of endorsed candidates, and recruit volunteers to work on their campaigns. Sometimes in more competitive races we are also able to provide financial resources and/or make staff available to work on campaigns.

A completed candidate questionnaire is a vital part of our endorsement process and the first step toward us being able to assist with your campaign. We invite you fill out the 2004 Candidate Questionnaire. If you prefer, we are also able to email, fax or mail you one.

The candidate questionnaire must be filled out and submitted by close of business on Friday, August 6 to be considered for endorsement in a primary, and by close of business on Friday, September 24 to be considered for endorsement in the general election.

If you have any questions on the questionnaire or our general endorsement process, please contact Carmen Vazquez, the Pride Agenda's Deputy Executive Director, at cvazquez@prideagenda.org or 212/627-0305.

Sincerely,

Alan Van Capelle Executive Director

AVC/rdl

Political Candidate Endorsements for 2004 Special Note: The Wisconsin State Employees Union does not make endorsements for U.S. Senate or U.S.

Congressional seats. The WSEU relies on the political process of the AFSCME P.E.O.P.L.E. program for these endorsements.

(Public Employees Organized for Political and Legislative Equality) SEPAC advanced recommendations for endorsements to the Executive Board of the Wisconsin State Employees

Union on 08/20/2004. ONLY those endorsements approved by the Executive Board of the Wisconsin State Employees Union will be

posted. SEPAC will meet again on Friday, September 3rd for review of additional recommendations for endorsements.

Failure to return completed 2004 SEPAC Political Candidate Questionnaire will result in NO CONSIDERATION for an endorsement from AFSCME Council 24 SEPAC.

REMINDER: All completed 2004 SEPAC Political Candidate Questionnaire's are due NOW! If you have not yet returned your SEPAC Questionnaire, you can still do so.

All questions or the need for a replacement or electronic version of the SEPAC candidate questionnaire should be directed to Steven R. Williams at swilliams@wseu-24.org or by phone at (608) 836-0024.

STATE SENATE District Endorsed Candidate District Endorsed Candidate 2 18 4 20 6 22 8 24 10 26 12 28 14 30 16 32

STATE ASSEMBLY District Endorsed Candidate District Endorsed Candidate 1 51 2 52 3 53 4 54 5 55 6 56 7 57

8 58 9 59 10 60 11 61 12 62 13 63 14 64 15 65 16 66 17 67 18 68 19 69 20 70 21 71 22 72 23 73 24 74 25 75 26 76 27 77 28 78 29 79 30 80 31 81 32 82 33 83 34 84 35 85 36 86 37 87 38 88 39 89 40 90 41 91 42 92

43 93 44 94 45 95 46 96 47 97 48 98 49 99 50

Kansas City Chamber of Commerce

“The ChamberPAC’s endorsement process identifies those candidates who can be expected to advocate strongly for employer issues,” said Lew Ebert, president and CEO of The Kansas Chamber of Commerce. The ChamberPAC is focusing its efforts on building a much stronger business caucus that will be active in the 2005 Kansas Legislative session,” he added.

This election cycle, the ChamberPAC has aligned a number of pro-business interests in a common framework, enhanced its political intelligence capabilities, and strengthened fundraising and political contributions to enhance the chances of victory for pro-business candidates.

“Together with Kansas Chamber members The ChamberPAC will help allocate some $150,000 in political contributions during the 2004 primary elections,” Ebert said.

ChamberPAC carries the banner for employers and businesspeople throughout Kansas, Ebert said. Beyond direct political contributions, ChamberPAC also offers in-kind services and other types of political assistance to the campaigns of ChamberPAC-endorsed candidates.

ChamberPAC supports and endorses state legislators and other candidates for the Kansas Legislature who:

• Support the Kansas Chamber’s business agenda and legislative program; • Promote the tenets of the free enterprise system, and; • Pledge to make Kansas a better place in which to do business.

A number of pertinent factors were considered for the ChamberPAC’s endorsements:

• Voting Record The Kansas Chamber’s Voting Record is used as a guide for endorsements, but is not the only determinant. In addition, committee votes are an important element of the legislative process and are considered.

• Leadership Key committee chairs and committee members are critical to the legislative process and have a higher level of visibility in the ChamberPAC endorsement process than in previous years. The same is true for majority and minority leadership.

• Election Realities The competitiveness of a candidate is an important factor in the endorsement and in the amount of financial support. If candidates are strong business advocates with tough races, more resources are made available to them than to candidates who are running unopposed. Another test is whether ChamberPAC endorsement and support is likely to influence the outcome.

• Local Input Local chamber and local business input is considered in the endorsement process.

“In our representative society, individuals and businesses can either choose to be effective participants in the development of public policy or victims of government shaped by others --because politics shapes public policy,” Ebert said.

“The Kansas ChamberPAC is built on a simple, yet solid premise: to identify, endorse and elect to the Kansas Legislature champions of free enterprise, and to encourage greater business participation in the state’s elections.

“There is no role more critical for business than that of keeping our nation and our state economically strong by creating jobs, expanding opportunities for all Americans to participate in the economy, encouraging entrepreneurship, and strengthening our competitiveness,” Ebert said.

ChamberPAC is an independent, bipartisan organization supported by the state’s small, medium and large businesses. Other state trade and business associations look to ChamberPAC for astute analysis of candidates, leadership on political strategy and tactics, and identification of the most important legislative races for business involvement.

The Kansas Chamber is the statewide business advocacy group, with headquarters in Topeka. It is working to make Kansas more attractive to employers by reducing the costs of doing business in Kansas. The Kansas Chamber and its affiliate organization, The Kansas Chamber Federation, have nearly 7,500 member businesses, including local and regional chambers of commerce and trade organizations. The Chamber represents small, large and medium sized employers all across Kansas.