Kansas fourth district Congressional candidates answer individual questions


Last week’s forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas featured a set of questions tailored individually for each of the four candidates who participated.

The candidates for this nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. Election filing records maintained by the Kansas Secretary of State indicate that Paij Rutschman of Latham has filed for the Republican Party nomination, but little is known about this candidate at this time, and Rutschman did not appear at this event.

Hartman answered his question first. The question and his response are covered in my article Hartman state tax issue still a little bit murky.

Anderson’s question asked when was the last time he voted in any primary election. Anderson answered “2008, I believe.” He added that “the primary is the most is the most important election” and that he would defeat Raj Goyle in the general election. He asked the audience to examine the candidates, their history, what they’ve done, and how they’ve conducted themselves.

He used the opportunity to recommend voters choose a candidate who will follow the Constitution, “the one in my pocket that they’re not using right now in Washington.”

Schodorf was asked about the recently-passed tough Arizona immigration law. Would you support such a law? Schodorf said that she understood why Arizona enacted the law, saying Arizona was forced to do it due to the federal government’s inaction. She said the federal government should have been enforcing a strong border. She said we need to help Mexico keep the border safe so that guns, drugs, people, and money do not come here. She told the audience she has voted for tough laws against the trafficking of illegal immigrants.

She added that she supports using the National Guard to secure the border.

Pompeo’s question concerned a Wichita Eagle article covering a Washington fundraiser for him that was attended by lobbyists. Would lobbyist contributions affect your voting, and how would we know?

Pompeo noted that he had four times as many Kansas contributors as the other candidates combined, a source of pride for him. While he said he has accepted contributions from political action committees, other candidates also sought such contributions, but were not successful in obtaining them. He cited his endorsement by the Kansans for Life PAC, which was sought by the other pro-life candidates for the nomination. He also mentioned his endorsement by the Club for Growth, which was sought by one of the other candidates, he said.

In rebuttal, Anderson said that yes, PAC money will affect decisions and votes, that PACs want favors from legislators.


In checking the candidates’ responses, I was not able to verify that Anderson voted in the August 2008 primary election in Sedgwick County. In an email response to my question, Anderson wrote that he “truly wasn’t sure if I had voted in the 2008 Primary as I was deeply involved in opening my business, PostNet.” He’s right: listening to the recording of the forum, he was hesitant in his answer.

Regarding contributions from political action committees, I would recommend that voters consider the purpose or goal of each PAC. If the goal of the PAC is to increase taxes and spending — particularly when for the exclusive benefit of its members — voters should take that into account if they are interested in fiscally conservative candidates. Other PACs and organizations like the Club for Growth seek growth, prosperity, and economic freedom for everyone equally.


7 responses to “Kansas fourth district Congressional candidates answer individual questions”

  1. Exposing Hypocrites

    In fact Jim Anderson has not voted in a primary election in a very long time. I had previously checked the voting records of the candidates, so it was interesting to hear Anderson’s dishonesty.

    And YES it was outright dishonesty. He was well aware that up until AFTER the August 2008 Primary election in Kansas he had NOT even so much registered to vote in Kansas.

    And going clear back every year, to the year 2000, while he lived in Indiana, he still did not vote in a Primary election in any year. This is the man who pretends to be the expert on how we should conduct our lives when he has not followed his own advice.

  2. Maddie

    I have been to all three Candidate Forums in Wichita and what I understood Jim Anderson to say was that THIS primary election was the most important. I have also heard him say that the situation we are in is everyone’s fault for not paying attention and participating as we should have, him included.

    It is funny to me what you are willing to consider so egregious in an effort to show your candidate as meritorious. If you don’t like Anderson, fine. He speaks to me as a citizen, as a Christian, as one of us. He has been married one time in his life to the mother of his children. They have raised their family with religion and conservative values. Those things matter to me.

    In my conversations with others who have been deeply involved in local Republican party politics they feel Anderson hasn’t “paid his dues” to run because they didn’t know who he was, he didn’t seek their permission or blessing. Good for him. You know what playing party politics gets you? Mark Parkinson and John McCain.

    This year, this primary, we need a little more than politics as usual. We need a maverick, we need a pilot.

  3. Exposing Hypocrites

    Maddie, it doesn’t matter what you “understood” Jim Anderson to be saying. A lot of people “understood” Obama to be saying what they wanted to hear also. Fact is Jim Anderson has not been honest with Kansans. He’s hidden a great deal of information about himself and would be creamed by Goyle. Republicans can’t afford to hear only what we want to hear – we have to face reality.

    Reality is Anderson lacks common sense. Who else would move to a new state & within 24 months, and with no experience, declare he’s the one who should represent the people of that state? Without having learned to drive he wants you to “fly with him.”

  4. Maddie

    Exposing Hypocrites:
    You just proved my point. Anderson is not worthy to you because he hasn’t lived here long enough, “paid his dues”. What you don’t seem to get is the way you say this as if you know better than me and all the other peon voters. This is a primary, where all the voters of the party have the opportunity to decide. You are entitled to your opinion and I mine. The difference is I wish you well voting for Pompeo, he’s just not for me, while you vilify Anderson at every turn.

    And seriously, I’ve met Raj Goyle and he is a very likable guy, the only one on our side with more personality is Anderson. I agree to disagree, you will not change my vote.

  5. Anonymous

    I would rather vote for and believe a drunk bum on a street corner than vote and believe in a candidate who hangs around croperate lobbyists and changes the subject midway through his answer.

  6. […] week, all five began to show their teeth: most have participated in several debates (such as this one, blogged on by Bob Weeks of "Voice for Liberty"), but got in a scuff on Monday over the Pompeo campaign's […]

  7. […] week, all five began to show their teeth: most have participated in several debates (such as this one, blogged on by Bob Weeks of “Voice for Liberty”), but got in a scuff on Monday over the Pompeo […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.