click the pic for more...

Your topics here.

Drugs
Fri, Feb 10, 2006 2:25 pm Hello Jimmy! I've just visited your website voteforjimmy.org, and I think it's very well put together. I like how well you've defined your stances on the issues, and while I haven't read them all, I didn't disagree with anything I read. The website invites readers to write you and ask for your position on topics not mentioned therein. One topic I don't see addressed is the war on drugs. I think that most people can agree that we aren't winning, but promising solutions seem few and far between. Perhaps you will see fit to tell us your take on the problem. Thanks, Eric Nelson, University of Louisville.

Thanks, Eric. You're right; I haven't addressed the war on drugs. There are of course too many issues to address on one little website, but this issue is definitely important enough to merit some attention. It's difficult to talk about the "war" on drugs because there really isn't any war. We can't win if we don't fight. All of our drug interdiction efforts are pathetically inadequate, and they will remain so until we completely change our strategy. We have never been able to put even the slightest dent into the worldwide drug trade. Some (like William F. Buckley) have suggested legalization; I watched the Netherlands conduct that experiment in the 1980s with mixed results. But I agree that the only way to beat the bad guys is through a layered approach that combines vastly increased economic pressure with increased force. Here's what I propose:

- Legalize marijuana sales, but only through government channels. Tax the hell out of it. People will buy it, and in so doing some people may satisfy their desire for a "recreational drug" through a legal means and thereby lessen the demand for more lethal, hard drugs. Legalization of marijuana will also help to free up valuable enforcement assets to go after the really bad guys. Once upon a time Bob Denver (may God rest his soul) was arrested at his home in West Virginia for ordering some marijuana through the mail. Not a bright move on Bob's part, but are we really fighting an effective war on drugs by going after Gilligan?

- Build more casinos, and let's please stop kidding ourselves by building them on the water. Add a federal tax to casino profits.

- Use the revenue from casino receipts and marijuana sales to fund better interdiction efforts and to build more drug treatment hospitals. We'll probably need more funding beyond that to make the system work right, but it will save us money in the long run. Serious addicts would be furnished free drugs only as part of an in-patient care program. Taking them off of the streets will further lessen the demand for illegal narcotics. We also need to furnish clean needles to those who we can't reach. We're not going to help anybody by doing nothing while they contract hepatitis and HIV. 

- Encourage Federal legislation that restricts the sale of over-the-counter medications that contain pseudo-ephedrines. Work with pharmaceutical companies to alter these medications so that they are no longer suitable for use in the production of methamphetamines. Crystal meth production has rapidly become a destructive force of epidemic proportions - worldwide. It's a travesty that the U.S. Congress hasn't done more to contain this dangerous threat.

Money (for my campaign :-)
Tue, February 14, 2006 10:44 am Hi Jimmy, You have a great website, and your positions truly resonate with my beliefs. However, I've lived here long enough to know that if anyone wants to beat Northup, they'll need money. Yet, you say you're refusing to accept any donations, and don't even know if you're going to be able to print bumper stickers or buttons? Just how serious are you, really, about this campaign? Are you really running a campaign designed to win this election, beginning with the primary, or are you more about trying to change the political landscape? Concerned Voter, Louisville.

Thanks, Voter... Your feedback means a lot to me. I'm very serious about this campaign, but I'm also serious about spending little to no money during the Democratic Primary. I don't want us Democrats to deplete our funds running against each other. We will all have ample opportunity to get our messages out during the primary; already two televised debates are in the works - stay tuned to my Blog page for schedules. As such I implore the other candidates in the Democratic primary to take the pledge and not advertise, either. Due to numerous requests I am going to order some bumper stickers, cards, and maybe even a few t-shirts. Stay tuned to the Jimmy Blog for info about that, too.

After the primary, all bets are off. If I am the nominee, I will actively solicit contributions in order to do battle with Ms. Northup in the fall. I'll have no choice. But if I get elected, some RADICAL campaign finance reform will be VERY HIGH on my agenda. I'll make so much noise about this issue that the House will have to enact a reform package just to shut me up.

Meanwhile, I am the "cruise missile candidate." I'm flying under a lot of people's radar, but I am definitely in the air, and I am dangerous :-). In the Democratic primary I'm counting heavily on word-of-mouth to get my message out. Your letter helps to convince me that my message is beginning to resonate with people in this town who care. I'd be ever so grateful if you would help me to spread the word...

Bankruptcy Law
Tue, February 21, 2006 8:35 am Are you for repealing the Bankruptcy Law? I am a former business owner who sacrificed my life savings to start a business. My wife is an educator, who has Lupus. We have an adoptive son who is a special needs child, that the state misled us on. Because of my ill fated venture we are barely treading water, and if my wife loese her healthcare, or has a major episode, we are sunk. The Bankruptcy law allows for no errors in starting a business, if you fail now it is impossible to get back up on your feet. Henry Ford , and Colonel Sanders would still be in debtors prision under the new law. Are you for Americans or Corporations? Concerned Voter, Louisville

Dear Voter: I'm very sorry for the trouble that you're having. The recent changes to bankruptcy laws were designed to address some of the abuses of the system that had become a problem, but I agree that your case appears to represent an instance where these new measures are a bit too Draconian. You'll notice that restrictions were eased somewhat for victims of natural disasters like Katrina, and I most certainly would favor an amendment to the new laws that makes things a bit easier for those with special circumstances like yours. A large part of your problem would be corrected if we could guarantee adequate health care for your wife and your son. Maybe we also need to review the laws as they apply to new business start-ups. As I mentioned on my website I very much favor increased tax breaks to small businesses that are just getting started, because those businesses generate the lion's share of new jobs. Closing LILO (lease-in-lease-out) loopholes that large corporations commonly use would be a good way to help ease the tax burden on small businesses as well. Such amendments would in my opinion be better than a repeal of the entire bankruptcy law. Of course I'm all about protecting Americans, but please remember that I also own a corporation - albeit a small one.

Voter Response: Are you aware that by the Credit Cards Companies own estimate, that only 7% of the BK's filed by Americans were fraudulent? Are you aware that the BK bill was literally written by the lobbiest representing Credit Card Companies and Banks? Are you aware that the bill was designed to go into effect right before the Credit Card Companies doubled the minimum credit card payments? If there was so much abuse why were the credit card companies and banks reaping record profits? Iwould volunter all my free time to your campaign but you seem to believe that corporatist line, that Americans are scheming undeserving good for nothing lazy dead beats!

Dear Voter: I don't believe that corporate line. I don't think that Americans are deadbeats. If you'll look on my website under the "retirement" section, you'll notice that I've made reigning in the credit card industry one of my priorities. As for the new bankruptcy rules themselves, when the bill passed last year by an overwhelming margin, it was assumed that its passage would be a positive step towards reducing fraud. Since you've brought up this issue, I've done some further reading, most notably Consumer Affairs' rather scathing criticisms of the new law. Clearly there are some objectionable consequences to the changes that are only now becoming apparent. I have a lot to learn about the issue, as do many of us. I promise you that I will look into it further. If I may, I will publish our discussion, but withhold your name.

Museum Plaza
Thu, February 23, 2006 12:45 pm Hi Jim! I'm Republican, so I can't vote for you in the primary, but I do wish you good luck. You have a good website. As far as the "Museum Plaza", I don't like the design. The 2 tall towers, even though they are not the same height, remind me all too much of the World Trade Towers. I can't help but think of that every time I see the design. Also, there is supposed to be an underground parking garage there. Again, this is a problem to me. I'm afraid of carbon monoxide buildup and being trapped. There will have to be a constant fan to pull the bad air out and pump fresh air in. This looks like too many problems before it is even built. I do think the area is good for something like the "plaza", but it needs to be a different design and different parking. That's my 2 cents worth, free of charge.

Dear Republican: Wow, I'm gaining cross-over appeal! :-) As I mentioned in the Louisville section, I very much like the Museum Plaza project, and I think that its presence would improve Louisville's image. I think that we can overcome any technical issues with its construction, and the "Twin Towers" image doesn't bother me. If it were up to me I would re-build the World Trade Center to look just as it did - only one story taller. If I manage to make it through the primary you might actually vote for me? :-) :-)

Republican Response: Yes, if you are on the ballot in November, I would consider voting for you; after all, I vote for the person I believe to be best for the job. The Democrats have to come a long way for me (Clinton, Patton, Wilkinson), but maybe you would be the one to convince me... Good luck though with the campaign.

Immigration
Fri, February 24, 2006 10:43 am Hey Jimmy, Here's another issue for you. I'm republican and I heard you on WHAS and liked what you said. Unfortunately I can't help you out in the primary, but If you can make it out, you'll have my vote. A big issue you forgot is Border Control. Most Americans, anywhere from 58% to 75% depending on which poll you look at, want the borders controlled. The only problem you have is, the Representatives in your party want open borders, but they don't represent most Americans, which is kinda funny since their job is to Represent Americans FIRST. But that's another debate. Of course there are a few Republicans that want open borders, including the Main one, Bush. But he is out of the mainstream on this issue. And so are Democrats. So my Question is? Are you going to be one of the VERY few Democrats that actually represent your people on this issue? Or are you going to give in to the leaders of the House like everyone else does? Basically like a Sheep to the Farmer. You should try a whole new strategy. Try to represent Louisville and unit Dems and Reps with this issue and others. You would be amazed (look at the polls) how many people you could gain. You talk about jobs being lost, well guess what, I'm in Engineering and it's happening here with Legal Immigration. Not to mention low paying jobs like my brother in construction. If you care about jobs, you will end the Border Problems and probably slow down Legal Immigration in area's like Engineering, cause its depressing my wages. Although I do pretty good, I can hear it from people I graduated with. Guest Worker: If we can't stop people from walking across the borders, or OVERSTAYING VISA'S like the September 11 terrorists, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT A GUESTWORKER PROGRAM WILL STOP PEOPLE WHEN THEY OVERSTAY THERE VISA'S. Its just another way to flood this country with cheap labor hurting people like my brother in construction. We're not stupid you know. Not to mention, Terrorists (Their not stupid, they know how to come here now), Depressed wages, Drugs, Crowding Schools, Overpopulation, Hurting our Hospitals, ( Who pays for people with no insurance, um the Middle class) Exporting Billions in money to other countries. Not paying Taxes Social Services paid out and probably the biggest, No Forced Assimilation Just because America wants to be humane does not mean we hurt Americans in the process to either gain votes (Democrats) or supply Big business with money (about half of the Republicans). This will be a top 2 issue for me and a lot of people I know. Which every candidate (Not Anne Northup, her record speaks for this issue) does something, will get my vote. Thanks Republican Voter.

Thanks, Republican Voter. Earning some cross-over appeal with a Republican is (almost) as good as getting a vote in the primary! How's this for an answer to the immigration issue: - Can the guest worker program - it's ludicrous. - Don't build "The Wall" - it's too expensive. - Improve documentation for legal workers and levy stiff penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers - Develop better programs to match unemployed people with employers who need seasonal labor. - Don't declare English as the "official" language of the United States - that sends the wrong signal to legal immigrants. - Work with Mexico to improve their economy (alongside ours!) - that's the root cause of illegal immigration anyway.

Republican Voter Response: I would like to give you a few tips on your answers. Non of the replies you mention solve the problem. When you get into debates, you have to have answers that will solve the problems, verses just sounding like a politician. You can't fool anyone spinning the truth. And the truth is our borders are in a state of crisis. Please review. - Can the guest worker program - it's ludicrous. Agreed. But doesn't stop the problem. Just stops it from getting worse. - Don't build "The Wall" - it's too expensive. Agreed. To expensive, plus Wall's don't work and we don't want a Wall around America anyway. - Improve documentation for legal workers and levy stiff penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers Yes, but the problem here is who is going to in force this? Penalties are good, but every employer uses contractors which can make up any amount of people and pay them under the table. So penalties will never work unless there are A TON of NEW people to in force the work side laws. Which means work side enforcement, which Democrats will never allow it. You think your party is going to go to a construction company while working and check people. Never going to work. Plus, not letting employers deduct those wages from total income won't work either. It's better for them to pay under the table and no payroll taxes. - Develop better programs to match unemployed people with employers who need seasonal labor. This will never work, why would employers hire Americans when the can screw over illegals. Its not the programs employers need, they want cheap labor. They wouldn't use these programs anyway. - Don't declare English as the "official" language of the United States - that sends the wrong signal to legal immigrants. Agreed somewhat. Even worse is to teach Spanish as a primary language in our public schools. That sends the wrong signal. My great grandparents from Italy and Germany never had there kids learning German in public schools like in south Florida and LA teaching Spanish. That just puts them behind, plus its slow assimilation. With that in mind, it might be better to make it the "official" language to send the signal that you MUST learn English and assimilate and become an American. But regardless, this does nothing to fix our Borders. If anything it encourages people to come, since they don't have to change because we'll Accommodate them. - Work with Mexico to improve their economy (alongside ours!) - that's the root cause of illegal immigration anyway Wasn't that what NAFTA was for. This will not work, and if it does, it could take years. What do we do now to Fix our Borders. When a house is on Fire, you don't call the repairman, you call the Fire department to put out the fire. So, what do we do to fix these problems today? We tried bandages in 86 and 94 and did it work? We have 3 million plus coming across our borders every year. Are you telling me no terrorists are coming? Should we just except a certain amount of terrorists a year so we don't offend anyone? I didn't know NOT offending people was more important than our Security. But I guess cheap labor and votes are more important. That's the mindset of current Politicians. You should be the voice of change, not the same. Your better issues are campaign reform, globalization, tort reform. I think we need tariffs and you shouldn't have to be rich to serve the public, nor should we allow Lawyers to sue everyone and their mother. Remember, you have to serve the people on issues even if you don't agree with them. And if securing the borders with ANY means possible is what they want, you must vote that way regardless whether you agree with it or not. Remember you serve Americans first and yourself second. That's what's missing in Washington today. Remember that and you'll reach out to a lot of voters. Good luck.

Republican Voter: Thanks for the additional insight. You're right; ending the guest worker program won't solve the immigration problem, but it's a start, and we have to start somewhere. You make an excellent point regarding the enforcement of existing laws. A law is one thing; enforcing that law is something else. Enforcement is expensive, and there isn't a single agency in our government that has enough resources to effectively enforce the laws over which it has jurisdiction. The only possible solution is a carrot-and-stick approach - and when it comes to such issues, I always favor the carrot before the stick. Let's reward companies that voluntarily submit complete documentation on all of their workers and who agree to be spot-checked. And let's levy very stiff penalties for those who don't comply - let them live with the threat of documentation spot checks. I'm going to break ranks with some Democrats on this one. I do want to make sure that everyone, regardless of their legal status, is treated fairly and humanely by our government. My mother comes from an Italian immigrant family, and my wife is Canadian. The vast majority of INS workers are courteous and professional, but I've personally had some bad experiences with them because of my foreign family ties - I can only imagine what it must be like for illegal immigrants. They are being exploited and abused, and we have to work harder to stop that maltreatment as well. And we have to continue to work on a long-term solution for the immigration problem - and that means working to improve the economies of our neighbors in Central America - alongside our own.

Spaghetti Junction
Thu, Friday, March 31, 2006 1:01 PM Jimmy, You have a lot of good ideas but none of them that I haven't heard before. This is a community that through it's elected officials allowed the debacle that is now known as Spaghetti Junction to be built in the first place. The city of Louisville only exists because of the Ohio river and the Falls of the Ohio. The early settlers of our community developed the riverfront to best suit their needs at the time. The people that were tasked to build the future of our city dropped the ball somewhere in the 50's and 60's and allowed the building of I-64 on the waterfront that stifled growth for many years ( it still does). I too have had the opportunity to spend several extended periods of time in Europe and marvel at the transportations system both in the intercity as well as intracity. Butch, Louisville

Dear Butch: Well, the only thing that we can do now is to increase our resolve not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Even Henry Ward, the highway commissioner who was responsible for the construction of I-65 through Louisville, admitted later that its placement was a mistake that destroyed the heart of our city. We've learned our lessons, haven't we? Let's correct our mistakes, and use the marvelous transportation systems that Europeans have built as an inspiration for what we can achieve.


Term Limits
Thu, Friday, March 31, 2006 1:01 PM I truly believe that you have the best of intentions but if you insist on term limits, how do you expect to be able to get anything accomplished in one or two terms. Remember you will be representing people in a state that can't even get a bridge painted and a community that refuses to listen to two of the areas most successful business men when they have an idea. Butch, Louisville

Dear Butch: I envision term limits of 18 years for members of Congress - nine terms for Representatives, three for Senators. I could probably be talked into twelve-year limits. Either length of time would allow members to accomplish a great deal, while preventing them from becoming entrenched 'Cardinals" whose influence extends too deeply into the system. I realize that in some cases term limits would force talented members to leave government, but the benefits of term limits, to me, outweigh the liabilities.

Education
Thu, Friday, March 31, 2006 1:01 PM  Your ideas on education are also good, however a major problem is to make sure that the teachers keep up with the times as far as what needs to be taught in the classrooms. The teachers union will fight tooth and nail to defeat anyone that wants to hold a teacher accountable for staying creditable. There are way too many former teachers in administrative positions instead of still being in the classroom and getting paid way to much not to teach in a classroom. Butch, Louisville.

Dear Butch: Thanks. I am fully prepared to do battle with the teacher's union, if that's what it takes. This issue is too important for me to shy away from that fight. I do want to hold teachers accountable for their performance, and I do want to make teaching the most competitive job in the public sector. In exchange for that, I also want to make teaching positions the most highly compensated and the most sought-after jobs in government. Regardless of its effect on my political future, I will fight to achieve those goals – to the best of my abilities.

Security
Thu, Friday, March 31, 2006 1:01 PM On security, you really need to talk to a few people who have "been there, done that". I'm not talking about the few disgruntled soldiers that had to miss a couple of semesters of college that the National Guard is paying for them to attend in the first place.

Dear Butch: When it comes to security, I'm one of those people who has 'been there, done that." Although I never served as an active-duty member of the military, I did spend 13 years as a missile engineer in the defense industry, and nine of those years were spent at the Headquarters of the U.S. European Command in Germany. I worked on a daily basis with U.S. intelligence services, military analysts, pilots, and enlisted-rank soldiers. I'd like to think that I have some pretty good ideas about what we need to do in order to achieve real security for our country…

Tariffs
I like your ideas on tariffs. I will not be able to vote for you in the primary as I am registered Republican, I very seldom vote a straight ticket in the "real" elections. Waiting to hear more from you. Butch, Louisville.

Dear Butch: Cool! More cross-over appeal! I greatly value your feedback. Wish me luck on May 16th! Since I have taken a pledge not to advertise, word of mouth is the only way that I will be able to succeed. Help me to spread the word? Surely you have some friends who are Democrats! :-)

Tort Reform
Tue, April 11, 2006 10:06 am Jimmy: Great website -- it's refreshing to see someone have the guts to go "on the record", particularly with "hot button" issues. I agree with you on most issues, but am a little concerned about your views on tort reform. I am a trial lawyer, and I do a lot of plaintiffs' work on contingent fee. But I've also done a lot of defense work, and am very familiar with the abuses on both sides.

I consider the foundations of tort reform -- limiting recovery of damages for pain and suffering, and limiting the contingent fees an attorney can recover for representing a plaintiff -- unethical, immoral, and frightening in their consequences for our civil justice system. In the medical malpractice area, doctors will tell you the problem is greedy lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers will tell you the problem is bad doctors hurting patients. There's truth in both arguments. We need to stop frivolous lawsuits, but we can't immunize bad doctors from the consequences of their mistakes.

I can tell you that the lawyers I know who handle medical malpractice cases turn away dozens of cases for every one they take. The ones they take they invest enormous sums of money in because typically their clients can't afford to pay for the court costs or experts necessary to prosecute their claim. These lawyers do this despite the fact that the odds are typically weighed against them -- jurors are hesitant to award money against doctors (we all want to believe that doctors don't make any mistakes, right?), and the pervasive tort reform/anti-trial lawyer advertising of the medical and insurance industries is adding another layer of prejudice an injured patient must confront at trial. Doctors win the vast majority of cases that go to trial -- that doesn't mean the case is frivolous. If it was, the case would've been dismissed by the court on summary judgment and would never have gone to trial.

Under these circumstances, in my experience, lawyers rarely file frivolous medical malpractice claims -- they're simply not a good investment. The bigger problem is all of the meritorious cases that these lawyers have to turn away because the expense of proving the case, coupled with the difficulty of overcoming prejudices of the jury, make it unlikely that the lawyer will recover what he has to put into the case to win.

With this in mind, it is clear that limiting contingent fee recovery is only going to limit further the number of meritorious cases that are brought. That's not good for injured patients who can't find a lawyer to take their case, and do we really want to hold doctors to the standards of their profession only if they do something really bad, like kill somebody? How about paralysis, a persistent vegetative state, removing the healthy breast instead of the one with the cancerous tumor?

This is a problem that needs to be solved by the medical and legal professions -- my profession needs to do a better job of getting bad lawyers out of the system, and the medical profession needs to do a better job of getting bad doctors out of the system. How then do we "cure" the problem by limiting recovery of damages for pain and suffering to some arbitrary figure like $250,000 or $500,000? How come the answer is to penalize an injured patient who has beaten the odds, proven their case to a jury, and has persuaded a jury that they are entitled to an award of pain and suffering damages in excess of some predetermined amount set by a legislature with no knowledge of the facts of their case or the physical and psychological torment they have to endure for the rest of their lives?

What is your reaction to John Edwards' proposal -- a "three-strikes" rule applicable to both professions? File three frivolous lawsuits and you're disbarred. Injure three patients and you lose your medical license. The last thing we need to be doing is hurting truly injured patients any more than they've already been hurt by failing to adequately compensate them for their damages.

Thanks, Jimmy, and keep up the good work. I wouldn't have spent the time on this e-mail if you hadn't captured my attention.  An Interested Trial Lawyer


Tue, Apr 11, 2006 2:54 pm Hey, Jimmy.  I'm a lawyer, and I mistakenly was under the impression you were AGAINST tort reform. Now, even though I am a plaintiff's attorney, and even though you totally dissed my comrades who advertise on buses (who are simply trying to get out the good word), I will stand behind your campaign regardless of your views on tort reform, because I truly think you have a very ethical and long overdue message, and I look forward to supporting you through the end of the road, whenever it may be.

However, when I read what you think of "frivolous" lawsuits, I just have to share some facts with you. When I started law school, I felt the same way as you -- "crazy juries and selfish lawyers are causing people to lose their jobs!" Well, guess what? The jury awards aren't causing people to lose their jobs. The companies who decide to pay the awards by cutting jobs instead of their CEO's salary and stock options are the ones who cause people to lose their jobs. People lose their jobs because people with money and power decide to pay for their own mistakes by punishing those with no power. I've spent many a night studying Tort law and wishing a Court could order not only the award, but how the payment of it is structured. Unfortunately, courts do not have that power.

First of all, crazy jury awards don't really exist. They are ALWAYS cut down, years after the award is made public, on appeal, and no one reports that the crazy jury award was cut down by a Judge who had to because of laws in place across this country which prevent such awards (but they don't tell the jury making the decision -- and they don't tell the public, either. It's crazy.) There's even a Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages to a 9-1 ratio to compensatory damages (i.e. real expenses such as medical bills), but no one mentions that case.

Second, medical malpractice lawsuits are not causing doctors to leave practice -- insurance companies are doing that. The insurance companies are raising their rates like crazy, and not once have they been able to make a solid correlation between lawsuits and rising rates. However, the one factor which does directly correlate to rising rates is bad investments on the part of the insurance companies. Seriously -- check the numbers. Insurance companies take the premiums their insureds (doctors) pay into the system and they invest that money -- often resulting in huge profits. However, sometimes they lose a LOT of money, and how do you think they recoup those losses? By raising rates.

Okay, enough of this. There's a reason I like you as a candidate -- I like rooting for the little guy who stands up for what's right -- in politics and in the courtroom. I'll do it for you, and I'll do it for people injured by the heartless mistakes of big business until the day I die (or until I strike it rich. Kidding!)

Hey, lawyers. I appreciate you taking the time to write, especially since your responses are so thoughtful. Since the Masterson's debate I've had a few young lawyers volunteer to join my little organization, and they've been beating me up a bit on the subject of tort reform - justifiably so, as I have a lot to learn. The rantings on my website are admittedly only a starting point for discussions, and your responses are exactly the kind of discussion that I want to generate. Clearly I don't have all of the answers; none of us do, and I need to depend on intelligent folks like you to help me out.

I do like John Edwards' three strikes proposal. The bottom line (from my worldview) is that there are abuses in the system that need to be addressed, and I am open to any constructive thought as to how to address them. At the same time, of course I want to preserve the rights of the individual to seek redress of grievances.

Thanks for the words of encouragement. Since I'm running an extremely low cost campaign, I'd be ever so grateful if you could help me to spread the word. Proper use of the on-going revolution in internet speech is how we're going to beat the big money interests who have stolen our democracy.
 
 

This site was designed entirely by James W Moore, and I am the sole author of its contents. Since it runs on my own web server, I can legitimately claim that it was paid for by James W. Moore for Congress, even though I didn't charge myself.