By Steve Levy
It just doesn’t make sense.
Why would so many elected officials vote to allow biological men to play in women’s sports when up to 80% of the public thinks this is a terrible idea?
Why will candidates vote to ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, when huge majorities support the exceptions?
Why would some oppose even reasonable background checks before purchasing a gun?
Why do so many officials vote to allow illegal aliens to receive free healthcare when the vast majority of the American population objects to such handouts?
The answer may be that, by the time the candidates are elected, they have already committed themselves to the special interest that is promoting these extremist positions in return for endorsements and campaign funds.
An analysis by the Center for Cost Effective Government examines a number of questionnaires that are placed before candidates prior to an election. The study looked at questionnaires from both the right and the left.
Special interests are wising up and will not provide endorsements, financial contributions and manpower to candidates unless those candidates have first pledged to support the agenda of that group. These special interests are not interested in compromise or allowing you to keep questions blank. They want you all in.
This is why when Planned Parenthood poses questions on abortion, they don’t distinguish between early and late-term abortion. Does this help explain how Massachusetts just passed a law allowing abortion up to the point of birth?
The organization takes it a step further in asking the candidates their positions on LGBT issues, which really have nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Candidates are asked:
“Will you oppose all legislative attempts to discriminate against LGBTQ + people in North Carolina including attacks on access to housing, athletic teams, employment, education, healthcare, sexual orientation, and gender identity?”
This intersectionality can be seen in questions emanating from many other groups, including the AFL-CIO and the SEIU unions.
It is somewhat bewildering that these unions have become advocates for more illegal immigration, which one would think would lead to competition for jobs and wages for their existing American citizen members. The SEIU asks:
Will you support expanding immigrant access to the government benefits that their tax dollars support and that allows them, their families, and their communities to thrive, including COVID relief, health care, child and other tax credits, access to education, or other basic assistance?
Social Security is on the point of collapse, but could have been saved had some of its reserves been invested in higher-yielding index funds. Unfortunately, these proposals never got off the ground, in part, because of pressure from some of these left-leaning entities, such as the AFL-CIO, which asked:
“Do you oppose replacing any part of Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with individual investment accounts?”
But it appears these political groups have become not just a group advocating for its members, but also pushing the agenda of the national Democratic Party.
Look no further than the AFL-CIO survey that asks:
“If elected, will you support adopting universal voter registration, expanding early voting, using mail ballots, same day and automatic voter registration, ending voter purges, and other measures that increase voter participation/access and combat voter suppression efforts at the state and local level?”
The major crime wave since 2019 was in part due to ending cash bail. The uberliberal SEIU pushed candidates to adopt this unpopular position:
If elected, will you support prioritizing measures that include, but not limited to:
- d) Ending the cash bail system
___________ YES ____________ NO
Why would efforts to get rid of the gig economy pass in state houses when the overwhelming majority of consumers and the gig workers themselves want less regulation and more flexibility?
The answer is that the unions want these workers to be unionized so they can enhance their power.
On the other end of the spectrum is a right-of-center group, Texans for Vaccine Choice, that pushes candidates to oppose all vaccine mandates, not just COVID.
I oppose all vaccine mandates in Texas, including those imposed by both public and private businesses, and I will vigorously work for the inclusion of the prohibition of vaccine mandates in both the platform and the list of legislative priorities for 2023.
Meanwhile, a Texas gun rights group demands the opposition of even background checks:
Do you OPPOSE legislation banning private firearm sales between law-abiding citizens without a Federal Firearms License or background check, creating a de facto gun registry?
☐ Yes ☐ No
A Kentucky Right to Life group seeks support of the proposition that abortion should be opposed even after rape.
-
Do you believe that a child conceived as a result of sexual assault (rape or incest) should be protected by the same laws protecting the lives of children conceived in the loving embrace of their parents?
The fix is to produce a database on a website where voters can see for themselves what is being asked on these questionnaires, and more importantly, how candidates are responding to them. In this way, pressure will be placed on the candidates to avoid checking the box supporting absurd propositions while also keeping voters aware of the stands being taken by the candidate before, rather than after, the election.
Steve Levy is Executive Director of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a fiscally conservative think tank. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as a NYS Assemblyman, and host of “On the Right Side Podcast.” Costeffectivegov@gmail.com