Washington 2017: The U.S. Political RP IC-Volume II (OPEN)

[Tumblrena]

Newport Beach, California
Republican Party Fundraiser
2032
Saturday
2 September
2017

After the town hall in Kaimuki was successful McGareth is continuing with his change of events to more Senatorial ones to try to regain his focus after the breakup. This time it means attending a fundraiser in Newport Beach in California. The event is not one that he is used to or comfortable in. In his race for Senate meeting with Majority Leader Carter had helped bring in party money and the situation with the state party and donors in Hawaii was much different than the much more established powerful and glitzy Republican Party in California and the situation was different as a sitting Senator than as a recruit for the race. He is dressed formally in black suit and black tie attire with a white undershirt but has kept his characteristic sunglasses. He seems to be noticed less around the room probably because he looks too much like security with his dressing but he is not really sure what his goals are at the event anyways and is mostly using it to gather experience at events like it and start to enter that part of the political scenes so it does not bother him.

He continues to semi randomly walk the room currently near the buffet table.

[Main Nation Ministry]

Newport Beach, California
Republican Party Fundraiser
2032
Saturday
2 September
2017

(Image)

After the town hall in Kaimuki was successful McGareth is continuing with his change of events to more Senatorial ones to try to regain his focus after the breakup. This time it means attending a fundraiser in Newport Beach in California. The event is not one that he is used to or comfortable in. In his race for Senate meeting with Majority Leader Carter had helped bring in party money and the situation with the state party and donors in Hawaii was much different than the much more established powerful and glitzy Republican Party in California and the situation was different as a sitting Senator than as a recruit for the race. He is dressed formally in black suit and black tie attire with a white undershirt but has kept his characteristic sunglasses. He seems to be noticed less around the room probably because he looks too much like security with his dressing but he is not really sure what his goals are at the event anyways and is mostly using it to gather experience at events like it and start to enter that part of the political scenes so it does not bother him.

He continues to semi randomly walk the room currently near the buffet table.

Taylor Cox
GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

While Cox was miserably thinking of Cao, Cox noticed someone familiar near the buffet tables. Was that security? No, it's someone he knows. Wait! Cox started to scheme again, as he walked over to the buffet tables to greet them. "Senator McGareth? You're here from Hawaii?" Cox casually asked to seem friendly.

[Bruke]

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

”Well-“ Lee was interrupted by the arrival of Sydney Cao. He was familiar-ish with her work. He listened, then he nodded, “Senator Cao, its a pleasure to meet you too,” he said, offering to shake her hand.

“What brings you to Newport Beach? Beyond the weather, of course.” She gave a slight chuckle at that last remark.

[Tumblrena]

Newport Beach, California
Republican Party Fundraiser
2032
Saturday
2 September
2017

McGareth hears a voice behind him that he does not recognize but turns around and removes his sunglasses to see a face that he does recognize from a previous event in California and several photographs looked at after that. He thinks back to his time reviewing what happened on Black Friday just before New Year's but decides he will answer the question but succinctly. "Yes I am."

[Uttland]

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

”Well-“ Lee was interrupted by the arrival of Sydney Cao. He was familiar-ish with her work. He listened, then he nodded, “Senator Cao, its a pleasure to meet you too,” he said, offering to shake her hand.

“What brings you to Newport Beach? Beyond the weather, of course.” She gave a slight chuckle at that last remark.

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

"I just missed the atmosphere of events like this! Politics has its perks, and it's getting to see interesting people interesting and great places. Couldn't resist."

[Main Nation Ministry]

Taylor Cox
GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

"McGareth! My goodness! It's a surprise to see you here!" Cox said, having his hand out so McGareth can shake it. "It's been nearly a year since you arrived back in California. How are things back in Hawaii? I went to Hawaii to attend the marathon, but I didn't get news of what was happening over there currently. Came here to donor?"

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Carlos Mateo
GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California.

Despite having already planned a Senate run, he decided that, for the best interests of the party and perhaps himself, he ought to donate a small amount of money, around $50,000-100,000 just to make him look loyal and to stave off any rumours that may arise soon. After all, there might even be a few good people at the party who were willing to help with his problems.

He had walked in, dressed in a rather expensive suit, his hair (or lack thereof) covered up in another expensive black hat with diamonds on it. It was time to gain a few endorsements...

[Dentali]

“What brings you to Newport Beach? Beyond the weather, of course.” She gave a slight chuckle at that last remark.

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

"I just missed the atmosphere of events like this! Politics has its perks, and it's getting to see interesting people interesting and great places. Couldn't resist."

"Glad you're staying involved, even retired youre an important voice with a wealth of experience."

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

"Would I still be able to reduce my tax bill through legal means?"

"Of course"

"Do you have any other requirements, representative?"

[Tallahassee News Station]

Flores: "The Shakesperean tragedy of the Rise and Fall of Martin Taylor was a three act play that took about three days. Everyone's new favorite Wehrmacht loving Stalinwasntthatbadinist went from the high of giving speeches to thousands of adoring Seattle faithful and Deputy Attorney General fanboys one day, to getting creamed in a debate by a chick whose greatest political accomplishment was getting beaten by Alexander flipping Breckenridge, to dropping out of his own seat to run in an election to get back in it, which he then dropped out of. Truly history will remember his name. But, today we have someone running in an entirely different election, someone so hungry for worms that the early bird announced a whole year early, and he's been tearing up the state ever since. Here with me today is Glen Anderson, and if you all are wondering why its just "flipping" Breckenridge, he asked that I tone things down enough so his daughter can here this, and since I'm currently shilling to get us syndicated on the Disney channel, I accepted.

I'm Anita Flores and you're listening to the Anita Flores show.

You're on the air Glen. Welcome to the show."

Anderson: "Thank you and I appreciate you doing that"

Flores: "So lets start off with your campaign and the most pressing question about you running it. And of course that question is, "When's the last time you looked at a calendar?" Or is your phone's date broken? It looks like you're off and running before they've even loaded the starting gun."

Anderson: laughs a bit "Early bird gets the worm? I had been thinking about running for governor for about 2 years and when I finally came to the conclusion I was going to run I decided to run right away."

"I announced early for 2 reasons, firstly its always bugged me when someone knows they are going to run but they keep denying it to the public... Its always made me roll my eyes so I didn't want to do that, and I wanted to be honest with people about my intentions. Secondly I knew very early I wanted to hit every county in the state, so that would take up a ton of time and I wanted to give myself enough space to accomplish the goal. Turns out the campaign moved a lot faster than I first expected."

Flores: "You seem to have a thing for running around everywhere on the campaign trail, you've done it before when it wasn't even your election. Do you just have a thing for life on the road? Considered being a politicized touring band instead of an elected official?"

Anderson: "Their are a bunch of new methods for getting out your message, social media, podcasts, and such... certainly they have their place and we are of course doing all of that but nothing will ever beat good old fashioned retail politics, going door to door and introducing yourself to people, talking to them one on one finding out their concerns and showing how your plans and policies will address them. It feels like ive shook a million hands at this point."

Flores: "So what do you do with the people who've got concerns that your plans and policies don't fix?"

Anderson: "I am happy to say that for the most part i've gotten to say 'I have a plan for that', if someone has a concern that hasn't been address I usually ask them about their ideas then I bring them back to my team and we get to work. If someone has a local concern like a pothole getting filled I usually make a call to try and get it addressed."

"Most of my plans however are about individual empowerment, giving people flexibility and control over their own lives. Lowering taxes, deregulation, education savings accounts, getting healthcare costs down... having a good economy and good education is the foundation for empowering individuals to control their own destiny and solve their problems without government intervention."

Flores: "I'm always for anything that ends with "without government intervention". But letting people solve their own problems only works if they want to. What about the ones that want someone else to do that for them? Do they just get hung out to dry?"

Anderson: One of my measures of success of my administration would be how many people can stand on their own without government assistance. Some people are unable to work, some people cant find work, I have sympathy for them and they are going to get help. But we are going to institute work requirements to receive programs like food stamps, similar to the program just instituted in Florida, roughly 20 hours a week and if you can't find a job you can volunteer and work for a charity. Work requirements on welfare have a proven positive effect on welfare recipients, getting them back in the job market and independent of government aid.

Flores: "What happens to the guys that refuse to work at all?"

Anderson: When someone is legitimately capable of working and refuses to work? They haven't retired or have any kind of medical issue? The food stamps are conditional on work requirements, doing charity... I mean 20 hours a week is a low bar. If you completely refuse to meet the lax conditions set by this welfare reform... then seek private charity. I hate to be heartless but the money either goes to someone who doesn't contribute or someone who does.
I'm not willing to divert aid from people trying to actually get out of poverty and give it to people who who aren't putting forth basic effort.


Flores: "Sticking with econ, you seem like a guy who understands supply and demand. Any plans to try to knock down the federal minimum wage to give your state a boost before you come riding in?"

Anderson: Right now Pennsylvania's minimum wage is the federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour. I don't see that changing anytime soon in either direction... I pride myself on being one of the most pro small business members of Congress, raising it will have devastating effects on small businesses. I don't support abolishing the minimum wage but I do believe we need to reform it around small businesses, cutting them some slack... while taking measures to ensure workers are not exploited by big business... but raising the minimum wage would be taking a hammer to the problem when you need a scalpel

Flores: "You've still got a long run left as a Representative. Why not try to lower the federal minimum?"

Anderson: One of the most difficult things small businesses have to deal with is instability in taxation and regulation, their is value in having a predictable minimum wage. I am not against a minimum wage in concept and it does have positives, workers deserve some level of wage security, a stable workforce etc. A bare minimum wage is a good thing to establish.

Flores: "So would you not cut taxes or regulations because you don't want to have 'instability'?"

Anderson: No i'm going to cut both. But the minimum wage provides stability to workers, apologies I believe I misspoke.

Flores: "What do you think about the workarounds for the minimum wage? Businesses hiring people who don't quite have the paperwork or birth certificate the government wants without quite reporting it?"

Anderson: Thats kind of what I mean by a scalpel rather than a hammer, we have businesses evading both the spirit and the letter of law and short changing workers one way or another. Workers need and deserve protections, rather than raising the minimum wage we need to close loopholes and toughen up enforcement of our labor laws.

At the same time we need to acknowledge that while Unions have a place and are important in many cases they aren't doing their job advocating on behalf of workers and are focusing on giving themselves kickbacks. Pennsylvania for example has a big 'ghost teachers' problem, where teachers are working full time for the union often making 6 figures and are also getting paid by schools despite never actually teaching there. Practices like that need to stop.

Flores: "Which workers?"

Anderson: Which workers should have protection by labor laws?

Flores: "That's the question"

Anderson: Everyone deserves equal protections under the law... are you asking me specifically regarding illegal immigrants?

Flores: "Sounds like that's the question within a question"

Anderson: I'm just trying to answer clearly... Under my administration Pennsylvania would certainly not be a sanctuary state. Furthermore I am going to push for measures to increase compliance with E-Verify. Illegal immigration will not be tolerated in the state, and municipalities that consider themselves 'sanctuary cities' will have penalties.

However we need to acknowledge that in many cases illegal immigrants are filling real needs. To address that we are going to be organizing summits with the farming and business community and get regular reporting from our labor and agriculture departments regarding labor needs, both in terms of skills and raw numbers of people. Once we have accurate numbers we are going to create a pipeline from trade and vocational schools directly to the farms and businesses that need them, standard high schools too. If those needs are still not met then we will make it easier for farms and businesses to higher legal immigrants with those in demand skills. This more than anything will reduce illegal immigration.

One of Congress's biggest failures in these past decades is the lack of immigration reform. And honestly its something that I personally have been unable to ever get traction on... We should make it a much more decentralized system where individual states can make requests for immigrants based on their individual needs.

For example, if Idaho does the math and believes it needs another 2,000 extra people to work on farms next year they can request 2,000 immigrants with farm experience. 2,000 people who are applying for work visas with farm experience then get priority if they agree to go to Idaho to work on farms and they get a work visa for that state specifically for several years. If they do the math wrong and a portion of those people become unemployed or if they leave the state in violation of their visa then Idaho get penalties on how many they can request in the future.

Flores: That's a hard line there. Why such a problem with someone migrating to find work if they're working well? Company likes to hire them, they like to be hired, so what's got you worked up about it?"

Anderson: So as it stands we need to know whose coming to our country, 20,000 children are trafficked as essentially slaves across the Mexican-American border every year. If our border patrol wasn't overwhelmed by illegal immigration we would be able to drastically reduce it. Not to mention the percentage of violent criminals crossing the border... the majority are looking legitimately for work and to provide a better life for their families but enough come into the country with intent on committing more crime that we need to accurately track immigration.

In my proposed system its a hardline because we want to ensure that states aren't just asking for massive amounts of immigrants just to get a higher population and therefore more federal aid and electoral votes... more house seats. Its to prevent abuse.

Flores: "So if the majority are coming for work and better lives for their families, why do they get punished for the minority? Is that your general standard?"

Anderson: Let me ask you this, lets say you are hiring a new producer for your show and 10 people apply... and you know that one of them is a violent criminal. Don't you think you have a right to conduct a background check?

Flores: "Sure do. And then you're saying that it would be fine for me to hire the other nine?"

Anderson: no I’m not, I’m saying you have a right to do a background check. The federal government has that right too, citizens deserve it.”

Flores: "So if you've got ten people you can hire, and one of them is a violent criminal, you throw them all out on the street?"

Anderson: that is not what I am saying in the least, I’m saying if even a small percentage of those trying to cross the border are violent criminals we should conduct background checks on all of them before allowing them in the country. If you are here illegally you do not get any checks at all.

Not everyone who is trying to come to America should be allowed in, and to separate them we need a well funded and robust immigration system with the ability to process applicants.

Flores: "So if someone isn't a violent criminal, free entry?"

Anderson: that’s just the most extreme example, the fact is we just do not have the capacity to handle ever single person that wants to enter the country. So we should decide who enters based on merit.

Flores: "If businesses think they're worth hiring, isn't that merit? I'm hearing about you being pro worker and pro business here Glen, but then you want to lock out workers from the jobs they want and businesses from the workers they want to hire.

Anderson: I'm pro-American first and foremost. Our unemployment problem is bad enough, we don't have the ability to just allow everyone in the country that wants to be here. We don't have enough jobs and resources to go around as it is.

We live in a country than has a social safety net, it needs serious reform but its also vital that in the meantime we need to keep people off of welfare. Jobs are harder to find right now, if an American takes the job that's one less person relying on welfare, if the company imports a worker from another country then the American is one more person on welfare.

It's a question of supply and demand, if demand for workers with certain skills is low than we shouldn't increase the supply more than that. I'm not saying we end immigration but we need to make sure we prioritize people with in demand skills that we don't have enough of here.

Let's take the argument that its a job that American's can't or won't do, alright.... someone crosses the border illegally to fill a spot in the workforce... what about the 9 other people applying for the same job? Only one gets it, so what happens to the others? 62% of illegal immigrants receive welfare of some kind. Many are stuck in poverty and turn to desperate acts.

We should be able to say, 'okay we have 20 jobs available in this field, 12 Americans are qualified for the position so lets get 8 immigrants with the relevant skills' rather than having 30 immigrants apply for the 20 jobs and squeezing out the 12 Americans.

Flores: "So, what other restrictions on business do you have to be more "American first" besides on hiring?"

Anderson: I am doing overall regulations relief, including massive reform to occupational licensing. I'm lowering taxes and ending corporate welfare. I am doing everything I can to lift restrictions on business, we will likely have a net increase in immigrants coming to the state due to the economic prosperity, I do not see how making sure we are not taking in more immigrants than their are jobs available for is a restriction on business.

Flores: "You'd said you would lock out the ones already here"

Anderson: If you crossed the border illegally yes, you broke the law and should face the legal repercussions for breaking the law. If one of your producers robbed a liquor store and went to jail for it you wouldn't be complaining that the government is hindering your ability to hire because of that.

Flores: "Lock them all up then?"

Anderson: If elected governor I wouldnt have control over federal immigration policy, but I would instruct law enforcement to cooperate with them fully. The emphasis on deportation needs to be on those who committed additional crimes after they cross the border, I also believe in amnesty for those brought here as children but yes those who come here illegally need to be deported.

Flores: "But to be clear, you want deport everyone who came as an adult even if they haven't committed any crimes past the border, they're just farther back in line? Ten million+ deportations is the aim?"


Anderson: Illegal Immigrants knowingly violate US Law, when the first act of an immigrant is to enter the U.S. illegally, the second to reside there unlawfully, and the third so often to adopt false identities, he undermines American law on the expectation that he will receive exemptions not accorded to U.S. citizens, much less to other legal immigrants.

There is no good argument for not deporting aliens who have criminal records, whether they are violent crimes or identity theft, drug possession or trafficking or other so-called “victimless crimes.” In addition, the government must deport individuals whose crimes might be limited to just violating immigration laws. The government doesn’t have the resources to deport every illegal immigrant, but they must demonstrate that the law is and can be enforced—otherwise, laws have no deterrent effect.

I do not support the deportations for Dreamers, which is a population of 3-4 million I believe, because they had no say in the decision to break the law.

The overwhelming share of illegal immigrants residing in the country have not completed high school or have only a high school education, it would require highly implausible assumptions to avoid a substantial net fiscal drain from this population. This has been confirmed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).

Every illegal immigrant here knows or doesn't care to know that by entering the U.S., he has taken a slot from a would-be legal immigrant, one, unlike himself, who played by the rules and waited years in line for his chance to become an American. Illegal Immigrants are exploited by employers and shook down by the cartels.

I am not in Congressional Leadership, as Governor I would have no control over federal immigration law but were I leading the Republican Party my first concerns would include effective border security and regional engagement, enforcing immigration laws, assimilation, and legal immigration reform. Deportation would come after all of that, and I would be willing to cut a deal to keep deportations lower.

With all this said the Bill of Rights does not apply only to citizens, every illegal immigrant would have their day in court. A portion of the population will voluntarily deport, and we need to give immigration judges the summary judgment authority commonly available to federal and state court judges.

In some specific cases such as with the Dreamers, temporary relief from deportation is a reasonable tool to use as long as it is not turned into a loophole to avoid immigration enforcement.

Finally we should allow relief from deportation for a limited number of illegal immigrants in specific circumstances, we should have requirements for cancelation of removal but only after we reduce illegal immigration. Under no circumstances should citizenship be automatic.

So in short, I don't believe in deportation for the sake of deportation, should I be able to wave a magic wand 10 million people would not be deported. But over time and with due process a significant portion of the population would be.

Flores: "Let's get that "significant portion" as a percentage and cut through the language. Talking about the non dreamers that came over as adults, no criminal record here, how many are set for deportation? 99%?"

Anderson: No I won't use percentages for this because ever case deserves individual trails and their shouldnt be an arbitrary number we should deport. Also if you want to use percentages make them accurate percentages, the 99% of this population are not non-dreamers who havent committed other crimes.

Lets use accurate numbers, 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, between 3 and 4 million entered before their 16th birthday and are known as Dreamers. So thats roughly 30% right there that wouldn't be deported...and I would be very open to upping it to those who entered before their 18th.

You want to talk about crimes committed? Ignoring that they already broke the law twice by coming here and staying here?

The IRS reported over a million confirmed cases of identity theft over the past 5 years, TIGTA discovered another million confirmed cases of illegal immigrants year using Social Security numbers that had been fabricated or belonged to someone else... which is a felony. The immigration Reform Law Institute has reported nearly 40 million instances over the past 5 years wheres names and SS numbers on W-2 forms did not match records.

If you work in this country you need to fill out an I-9 form to prove you are legally allowed to work in the United States. So illegal immigrants would either need to not fill these forms out and the employer would let them work illegally or they put a false identity on the form. Both of these are criminal acts.

A significant portion of the illegal immigrant population has also evaded court summons which is illegal as well. None of these are victim-less crimes.

So an illegal immigrant in this country would be taken to trial, evaluated and if they committed criminal acts and didn't meet whatever restrictions or exceptions we had placed then they would face the legal consequences. In most cases deportation.

If you break the law you get a trial and then you face the consequences. We need rule of law, it cannot be applied selectively, these were laws passed by congress and should be enforced. If you want to change the law, great fight for that... But if we hold everyone equally before the law, we cannot just choose to not enforce them.

Flores: "You couldn't give me any numbers on any issue if you weren't making approximations Glen, so lets come on and drop the stump speeches before we spend this entire time on them. I'm sure you have other things you want to talk about more than this. We're talking about the population that came here as adults and committed no crimes here. Gimme an estimate for what percentage of those would get deported. Or do you just literally have no idea at all what the effects of that policy would be at all? I thought you were a numbers guy here Glen, policy wonk. One sentence answer here."

Anderson: Policy is never so simple that you can boil it down to a single sentence.

They have by virtue of crossing the border illegally and staying here illegally committed 2 criminal acts. I have given you great detail regarding that.

You want me to say it will be a large population? Yes it will be large, millions of people most likely but every single on will have a trial and exceptions will be made. On principle I can’t give you an arbitrary percentage but it’s likely the majority

Flores: "Numbers are that simple, but I'll take what I can get. So lets hit up current events for a minute for your party and something you might have to deal with as Governor. News just broke of a woman accusing Representative Mullins of rape, he's a colleague of yours in the House. Of course we're fresh off a year with two high profile false rape allegations against Senator Clark and President Reed. What do you think about those allegations, and as Governor what are your plans for dealing with allegations, particularly criminally and on state college campuses


Anderson: Well I only just heard about the accusation regarding Representative Mullins when I was on my way in, I haven’t had a chance to read the article yet, so I will not comment on it specifically, but I will comment on the issue more generally.

So on one hand I am incredibly encouraged by the fact that more women than ever are coming forward with allegations of sexual assault, Sexual Assault and harassments for most of history was underreported or just flat out ignored by law enforcement.

However we are seeing a very bad tendency, especially on college campuses. Too often its a farce of a legal process. Their is a case that happened at Purdue I believe quite recently where a female college student accused her ex boyfriend of groping her in her sleep. The John Doe wasn’t given evidence before his hearing, the Jane Doe didn’t ever appear before the hearing committee or provide her own sworn account, their was no opportunity to cross examine, the John Doe couldn’t even present evidence or call a witness. They found him guilty and he lost his ROTC scholarship.

Now luckily atrocity of justice is being appealed in the 7th Circuit but it highlights a greater issue of Campuses mixing ideology with due process. The Winston admin enforced academia's rejection of due process, through their legal guidance and exerted improper pressure on the issue. I am happy to say that courts across the ideological spectrum have increasingly rejected this kind of thinking and lack of due process but we have further to go.

In many cases, justice is done, in a way that even a decade ago it might not have been. But in our zeal for justice, we cannot ignore due process and basic legal principles, that people are innocent until proven guilty and that we should try things in courts not in public opinion.

I honestly do not even believe Colleges and Universities should be handling complex legal cases through campus tribunals. Sexual assault is complex and they have no professional competence to handle rape and felony assault cases, a campus would not be asked to handle a murder case why should we they try sexual assault on a campus? Crimes should be tried in the Criminal Justice System.

Flores: "Do colleges not get to have their own codes of conduct, just whether the courts say something is criminal or not? Where does that line get drawn?"

Anderson: Colleges can have their own codes of conduct sure, but in the case of potential criminal acts it should go to the courts. In the case of Purdue it violated Title 9 and the John Doe lost his ROTC scholarship, that goes beyond the college in isolation.

Flores: "Should they be able to do something like expel someone even if they're not found guilty criminally?"

Flores: "Should they be able to do something like expel someone even if they're not found guilty criminally?"

Anderson: No as I said, colleges can write codes of conduct but in the case of actual criminal conduct it should go to the courts. Codes of conduct regarding cheating on tests, having a dry campus and such are fine for a campus to have. But colleges must send criminal matters regarding criminality to the courts and defer to their judgement.

Flores: "Is that both private and state schools?"

Anderson: If a school receives federal funds they should be required show due process and defer criminal proceedings to actual courts, and a school shouldn't be able to take away things like ROTC scholarships which obviously involve the government.

Flores: "State funds? Lets go broader, what kind of government requirements are you going to put on private businesses, colleges, charities, whatever, that get state funds in some way?"

Anderson: To get state funds a college should meet simple state standards such as criminal justice in the aspects we just spoke about.

Now in terms of state funds... First I want to make a quick tangent regarding a big part of my campaign, which is cutting corporate welfare, in which Pennsylvania leads the county. I plan on rolling back corporate welfare and then cutting the overall tax rate with the savings, that is a better investment for our states economy.

Back to your question, in a general sense regulations will be lessened. Things like religious freedom will be protected... no one will be forced to make a cake for a wedding if they don't want to. I am not going to use the threat of revoking funding to force private businesses or institutions to conform to my moral standards.

Did you have a specific aspect of government requirements you wished to discuss? It's fairly broad.

Flores: "Just getting your general take. Now you've been pretty hard on corporate handouts, nothing wrong with that. What about government-private contracts? What are your plans with them?"

Anderson: I plan to rely on private-Public partnerships as much as possible during my administration. I plan on privatizing liquor stores, the state lottery, the turnpike, rod finance and construction, state parks, higher education financing... In many areas the private sector does it better, while saving the taxpayer money.

Any contracting undertaken by Pennsylvania will tie compensation to performance, or as as I call it, benefits-based procurement. Contracts with very precise goals ensure services are not compromised to achieve savings. Additionally all bidding will be as transparent as possible, Pennsylvania has a history of pay for play and we deserve better than that.

Flores: "Privatizing the lottery sounds like a revenue loss. That going to hurt your tax cut?"


Anderson: We came close to privatizing the lottery in 2012, with an offer from a company called Camelot Group. In return for a 20-year contract to manage day-to-day lottery operations, Camelot would commit to increasing net lottery revenue to the state, with a minimum guaranteed amount of $34.6 billion over the full contract term, an amount reflecting a significantly higher growth rate than the state has delivered over the last 20 years under in-house operation.

Now the state lottery isn't broken, its doing well and its growing. The question is can we do better? We are going to take a look at private offers and see what we can get. If we get a similar offer to Camelot I would be in favor of taking it.

Flores: "You brought up road financing and construction. Is infrastructure going to be something that gets fully privatized, take advantage of the cost savings and efficiency from that?

Anderson: I honestly don't know how far I will be able to push privatization, the degree to which we will privatize infrastructure will be something to be negotiated with the legislature. But my principle will be that infrastructure investment doesn't require growing government.

Anderson: I will say my 3 biggest priorities in terms of privatization are the state lottery, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and liquor store privatization.

Flores: "What about private licensing, privatizing licensing, those areas?"

Anderson: Very much so, the best example of it is the privatization of liquor licensing. It should be consumers not bureaucrats that determine the number of liquor licenses, the Liquor Control Board or PLCB is antiquated, corrupt and bleeding money. The PLCB is one of the most restrictive boards in the country, and its not about health its about bleeding people dry financially and maintaining the boards thousands of union employees.

The state government has a massive conflict of interest concerning liquor because its squeezing out private businesses, most of them mom & pop shops. Every attempt at 'Modernization' has failed, border bleed due to the government monopoly costs us $180 million annually, the board is over $230 million in the red, and the Board is scandal ridden.

Meanwhile, privatizing liquor licensing has led to increased employment in Washington State and Canada. Prices will go down with more competition, it will generate millions in short term income for the state and the public is overwhelmingly in favor of privatizing liquor licensing. Its clear that we don't need a gatekeeper on this.

Flores: "And here's the devil's advocate question, won't privatizing liquor and cheaper booze mean more alcohol abuse and drunk driving deaths?"

Anderson: Pennsylvania already ranks higher than our neighbors in alcohol-attributed deaths per capita. 3/4ths of alcohol consumed in Pennsylvania is not sold in PLCB stores, people drive great distance to get cheaper liquor.

The CDC did a comprehensive 30 year study regarding liquor consumption following privatization, they could find no direct and consistent correlation. Some states had increases in consumption, some decreases, some no change. Alcohol consumption is cultural, it doesn't increase with privatization. With that in mind I would rather have increased economic activity and available funding to combat drunk driving, than have our current situation.

Flores: "So does privatization not reduce costs, or is the demand curve a fake?"

Anderson: Even if demand doesn't increase liquor license privatization will increase the supply of available liquor and by extension the competition. Couple this with the regulatory and tax rollback and businesses will lower costs to be more competitive.

Flores: "And lower cost means cheaper booze. Doesn't that mean more drinking and more alcohol abuse and DUIs with it? Demand goes up when prices go down."

Anderson: "As I said the data available doesn't show that."

Flores: "You don't believe in the demand curve? That's a pretty far left view there."

Anderson: I believe in the demand curve, yes, people will likely buy more alcohol in state and drink more... i'm just saying the data doesn't show an increase in abuse, DUIs or alcohol related deaths.

Flores: "What do you think about other "vices"? Is the reefer going to be legal under you?"

Anderson: I’ve seen some very compelling evidence for marijuana legalization, I definitely am in favor of legalizing medical marijuana but I’m not there yet regarding legalization of recreational marijuana. I’m not going to push for it.

But if it passed through the legislature or it was put as a ballot question I would probably move forward and approve it

Flores: "What about thoughts on tobacco?"

Anderson: my biggest concern there is the proliferation of e cigarettes and the like, a lot of people think they aren’t as bad for your health as normal cigarettes, that’s incorrect. We need to redouble our education campaigns to meet the new methods. If you choose to smoke tobacco that’s fine, you should just know the health risks.

Flores: "Would your government change anything with how its involved directly? Taxes, regulations, going up or going down?"


Anderson: I’m gonna be tackling a lot of taxes and regulations, I have no plans to lessen them on tobacco directly

Flores: "Now that last part of that three letter word bureau, guns. Your position right now is "I don't want to confiscate ALL firearms", which is so weak a qualifying that I'm pretty sure even Jared O'Leary could say it. Your current policies are banning individual private gun sales and letting the government confiscate your guns if your sibling doesn't like you. Sounds like something Vilseck would have loved to pass"

Anderson: I don't want to confiscate any legally owned firearms. I said that in Philadelphia which has a massive problem with illegally owned guns, that was the context of the comment. If you own a gun legally I have no intention of legal gun confiscation. As for the private gun sales part of your criticism, I only want to make all gun purchases subject to the same kind of background checks.

Too many people are dying from gun violence in this country, not just from the mass shootings that we see on the news but from everyday violence on the streets of cities of Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Baltimore. Gun control reform is difficult, every “common sense”, and i’m using air quotes for those listening, reform proposed runs up into inevitable issues that usually do more harm than good.

I don’t support an assault weapons ban, my brother runs a company and has received death threats the AR-15 is the first line of defense of his home and his children. I own a handgun, and I voted for the Minutemen Act which is in my opinion the single most pro gun piece of legislation ever passed through Congress. So I think my support of someone's right to bear arms has been well shown.

I do not support violent felons, or those subject to restraining orders because of domestic abuse, or the dangerously mentally ill or terrorists, being able to get guns. These are all individuals found to have engaged in unlawful and violent actions and received the due process provided by the Constitution.

At the same time mass shootings are on the rise and I have worked to harden targets such as schools to protect from potential shooters, and supported the Minutemen Act so there are more good guys with guns on the streets.

Now lets talk Red-Flag laws. This fills the gaps between criminal law and laws governing mental health. These are clearly defined and clearly limited measures that temporarily seize firearms if admissible evidence is provided that shows threatening behavior. Now properly drafted these are good tools, improperly drafted they are a broad tool that can be badly abused.

So what is a properly drafted red flag law.

1. Only people who have direct and consistent interaction with an individual such as close relatives, doctors and members of the household have standing for the petition.

2. Evidence must be clear and admissible that the individual is a significant danger to themselves or others.

3. The individual must have the opportunity to contest the claims within 72 hours of the initial filing.

4. After the time has lapsed the firearms must be returned immediately.

Red Flag Laws are not a cure all, they are a piece of the puzzle to solving the challenge of mass shootings.

Flores: "Glen, you started off by saying you didn't want to confiscate any legally owned guns, and then you ended by laying out how your gun confiscation orders will work. You get to contest the claim within 72 hours, and then maybe possibly get your gun back? So confiscate the guns first, and then maybe talk about due process?"

Anderson: I'm not talking about mass gun confiscation, and no I don't want to confiscate any legal guns. However in certain specific situations... people should have their guns taken away. Nowhere did I say you had to confiscate the guns before due process was applied.

Flores: "So before these guns are confiscated, the accused, the totally innocent person, they'll be able to defend themselves in a court of law, the government will have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt before anything happens?"

Anderson: The burden of proof will be on the government yes.

Flores: "And any time someone files one of these confiscation attempts, the person gets notified ahead of time, and gets to defend herself in court before anyone tries to take her guns?"

Anderson: "Yes they are notified and would have a court order to appear within 72 hours. Let me emphasize that we have many questions left to answer about how these laws would work, and it is all far from finalized. But the principles are firm, we need to put due process first and make sure the burden of proof is on the government."

Flores: "I'll get to "universal background checks" in a minute, but to wrap this up and be clear, when this happens the person, no matter what they're doing or where they are, they could be on their honeymoon, has to come back to defend themselves under penalty of law, and if they don't make it they lose their guns and they're criminally liable for violation a court order, because a sibling of theirs might not have liked them being a gun owner?"

Anderson: No it needs to be immediate evidence of a threat, admissible in court and substantial enough to be taken up by a judge. It's a high bar.

Flores: "If you say so. Now, why don't you lay out how your "universal background checks" would work?"

Anderson: The idea behind Universal Background Checks is to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons or the dangerously mentally ill. Under current law, licensed firearms dealers are required to run instant background checks on all buyers. However, once an individual person owns a gun, he is not required to take this precaution when selling it — it’s illegal to knowingly sell to a felon, but knowledge is not always present, and it’s hard to prove even when it is. Its hard to know the exact numbers but research clearly shows a large percentage of guns used in crimes are procured this way. These ‘straw purchases’ are a major source of weaponry for drug cartels for example.

Universal background checks is a way to hold people accountable for giving guns to criminals, making these straw purchases more risky is going to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. Of course its not a magic wand, and implementation is tricky, in California dealers run a service checking for private sales… a tab i’d be happy to have the government cover in Pennsylvania.

Another question is what if a parent buys their child a small rifle? I was in York talking about this with a man whose parents bought him a .22 rifle when he was a teenager, hunting is a major part of our culture, owning guns is a major part of our culture. I don’t want to interfere with that and we have questions still to answer, I don’t have all of them right now. Any universal background check proposal will have been vigorously vetted, meticulously written and we will have groups at the table that are strong gun advocates. At the end of the day I voted for Minutemen because I believe gun ownership is a net positive, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reform our safety measures while protecting the 2nd amendment.

Flores: "So lets say Dad wants to transfer a gun to his kiddo whose getting hitched, a real caliber, lets say .308. How does that work under your "universal background checks?"

Anderson: As I said this is an issue that needs to be discussed at the table when formulating this law. And I can admit I am not personally a gun guy, i'm not going to just arbitrarily say '.308 sounds scary better ban it'. In that case I would say if its a honest to god gift... immediate close family members, spouses... that's alright in my book.

A woman who works on my campaign has a rifle, she had a friend considering buying a rifle and wanted to learn more about them. So she brought the unloaded rifle to the friends house they handled it for a few minutes and then handed it back. Occasionally when friends come over to her farm they take turns shooting with the rifle passing the gun between them.... These are things I do not want to be illegal under the law. You should be able to borrow a gun for short periods like that.

This law is intended to curb straw purchases not gifts between families or legitimately borrowing a firearm for a short period.

Flores: "So if you're done with your "discussion" and figuring out where you stand on the this and you're seeing a system that's basically a ban on individual private sales in everything but the name, do you scrap it? Or is it universal background checks, no matter the cost?"

Anderson: That's a hypothetical that will not happen, we can find a middle ground here. I believe we can institute reforms that protect liberty while increasing security, but Liberty comes first.

Flores: "So if you're so confident you can make such a great plan, why haven't you come up with one yet?"

Anderson: I think it would be best if I held a roundtable event and spoke with a number of advocacy groups and experts before finalizing it, making sure all perspectives are considered. I have done so with most every piece of legislation and every plan I have yet made, I just haven't gotten to that one yet. Gun legislation is not my main focus as a candidate, my top priorities are the economy, healthcare and education.

Considering the sheer number of detailed plans I have put out and how open I have been about my positions on issues, I would ask you trust me when I say this is coming down the pipeline soon.

Flores: "Everytown, Brady campaign, are those kinds of advocacy groups going to be at the round table?"

Anderson: I've invited Brady to many events and discussion and roundtables, he has never responded. I can't speak to individual groups, but we will be seeking groups that advocate for more gun control.

Flores: "Really. Are you planning on inviting the Westboro Baptist Church to meetings on any sexual orientation policy too?"

Anderson: I would not compared the Westboro Baptist Church to the Brantley campaign... The group would have to be able to contribute to productive and substantive conversation, a group like the Westboro Baptist Church is only capable of hate speech.

Flores: "No one was talking about the Brantley campaign, but let's get real. If you think its a bad idea to invite people who are completely opposed to a right to talk about it, then why are you waving on in anti-gunners to talk about guns?"

Anderson: I'm sorry i misheard you then. Being in favor of more gun control should not disqualify you from the conversation, if someone wants to get rid of all privately owned firearms and has a take no prisoners approach to it, thats a different story.

Floes: Sarah Brady, "I don't think gun owners have rights". That's a quote. "We must get rid of all the guns." Also a quote."

Anderson: "Which is why I didn't say the Brady campaign had a seat at the table, I don't have a concrete list for you about who will be there I can only give you the criteria."

Flores: "All right then, let's go into that other table discussion. LGBT policy, all those letters. What are your plans?"

Anderson: I support gay marriage, I have done so for several years now, and I support religious freedom... no one should bake a cake for a wedding if they don't want to. I don't have too many plans however I want to give more targeted support to the community which is at higher risk of things like suicide and homelessness.

Their is an issue with Trans individuals, if someone transitions I fully support allowing them to go through a legal process to change their status from one gender to another, or even have the gender X. But we need to establish some litmus tests for them to use restrooms or compete in sports of the gender they are identifying with.

Flores: "So what is this "targeted support", and what are these "litmus tests"?

Anderson: As I said the LGBTQ community is more at risk than others to become homeless or commit suicide, I want to do outreach tailored towards the community and at risk individuals to help prevent that.... Thats what i mean by targeted support.

Now Litmus tests, in Connecticut their state policy has allowed 2 individuals, who identify as women but were born with and still possess the sexual characteristics of men, to compete in women's high school track. They have swept competitions this past year. Now for the young women competing that's a loss of scholarship money, its a massive unfair advantage and their is now a Title IX complaint in the works. I'm all for transgender rights but not when they run up against the rights of women.

Basically I want a litmus test for Transgender individuals be to be able to do things like compete against women in school sports. You won't be able just to identify as a gender to be legally recognized as said gender, you will need to go through a legal and medical process to do so.

Flores: "So after whatever this legal and medical process is, you think it would be fair to let biologically male people compete against girls?"

Anderson: To be frank I honestly don't believe that we are at the point where the biological differences between the sexes can be closed to a point where their would be no unfair advantage. However with the rate of medical and scientific progress we are seeing I do not believe it is out of the realm of possibility that we could get there in our lifetime. Having a concrete set of standards for the issue now will be useful to deciding the issue in the future.

Flores: "So, you first got into office as a Representative a couple terms ago, now you want your term as Governor, you're still pretty young for a politician, and you've got your shaking hands and kissing babies game down to an art form so, what's next? Term as Governor, then your Presidential run, or is that going to wait until after two terms?"

Anderson: I think I’m one of the few in Congress who isn’t dreaming about being President. Never say never, but i have no interest in running for president, I’ve always been committed to the task in front of me and as governor the state will have me fully committed.

Flores: "Your critics would say that you're not fully committed to your job as Representative when you're making a hundred stops campaigning for Governor. Even if you're still holding your own with number of bills written or whatever your metric is, can you say you're giving Congress your all?

Anderson: If I win the primary I’ll resign as congressman. And yes I am giving it my all, if I didn’t think I could I wouldn’t be running and I think the fact a record number of bills this congress and haven’t missed a vote shows my commitment.

Flores: "If you're giving it your all in Congress while campaigning like this already, why resign if you win the primary?"

Anderson: Primary and General are two different animals. No time limit of the primary, I can start early and make as many stops as I want. General election I don’t have as much time... whole reason I started as early as I did was to be able to do both, had I waited I don’t know if I could have hit every county.

Flores: "Looks like we're almost tapped out on time. I'll give you a free airtime hundred seconds or so if you want to proselytize the masses."

Anderson: Thank you for the interview, i've had a blast. I wish we had more time to talk about my education plan, my support for Education Savings Accounts and Charter Schools but thats life. Anyway...

I've been all around the state and all around the country and the common theme I've been hearing is frustration. People everywhere see a real disconnect between Harrisburg or Washington and everywhere else. We feel that not only are our elected leaders not solving the serious problems that face us, but that they are actually causing the problems, and making things worse.

Regardless of party the people of our state constantly tell me we are heading in the wrong direction, and through all my discussions, my travels across the state and country it has become abundantly clear Pennsylvania cannot change direction without changing governors, that is why I am running for governor, to get Pennsylvania working again.

Flores: Flores checked her watch. "Ah h*ll, it's my show, let's go for that if you want to. Hit me with your education plan."

Anderson: 20 second elevator pitch, it focused on ESAs education savings accounts, which are like vouchers 2.0... we take some of the funding and give students education savings accounts which parents have a great deal of leeway using, private schools, tutoring, school supplies... it’s the best way to tailor to the individual needs of kids.

We do this a bit an it’s wildly successful, I want to bring it to levels comparable to where Florida is right now, it has a satisfaction rating at something like 90% and quality of education has improved drastically for a lower cost.

Flores: "Why not just make the switch? Give the cash to the parents to choose rather than the bureaucracy?"

Anderson: we need some structure and stability, I believe in a balance and right now things are balanced in favor of teachers unions more than parents, students and even teachers. ESAs help fix that problem.

Flores: "Who should have the biggest say? Do you think parents and their kids should lose power just to appease teachers unions?"

Anderson: I can't speak for every state, but 100% the teachers union in my state has gotten out of control. Governor Vilseck ran with the teachers union being a massive donor, and then was the one in charge of negotiating with them... you can imagine the results. We need to change that practice and then put power back in the hands of parents and students.

Flores: "That's what I'm asking about. You're proposing letting parents work with a fraction of funding to get a little bit of choice right now, and you said you didn't want to give them too much choice because you wanted a balance with the teachers unions. Why should parents and their kids have to lose choice to cater to those unions?

Anderson: Its not catering to teachers unions, I want to maximize choice but the state does need to have a basic school structure and standards. Teachers like any employees have a right to unionize and seek better conditions, but its gone beyond that to the point it is actively harming education to the enrichment of union leaders.

Flores: "You think the government is better at deciding what standards should be than the parents are?"

Anderson: I think that their is value in having objective standards by which to judge student performance. Parents are great judges of what aid their kids need to meet those standards and should be empowered in that regard.

Flores: "Not too bad of a note to end on. Thanks for coming by Representative, and hope your daughter likes the show. We'll be back soon, on the Anita Flores Show."

[Dentali]

"Of course"

"Do you have any other requirements, representative?"

"I'm leaning towards endorsing but I want to see you campaign a bit, how you hit the ground and handle doing retail. Ideologically i'm fine with you, I just want to see you making it happen."

[Tallahassee News Station]

(In studio)

Flores looked up for the producer's hand motion, then leaned back. "All right, we're clear. Interview really wasn't half bad, you could have done better of course, but everyone can, even me." She smirked. "So, want to grab a bite to eat?"

Anderson: "Thanks to you my daughter wants to take up MMA... sure i'll grab a bite with you off the record."

[Tallahassee News Station]

You couldn't really go wrong with a burger joint unless you were dealing with a vegetarian, and the little outing wasn't really built around food, so Flores and Anderson ended up at Cassell's Hamburgers for their bite. It wasn't quite as busy as usual and Flores snagged a corner booth and just asked for a water while they decided what to order.

"So, you have any plans while you're out on the coast, or did you just come down to see me?"

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

"Do you have any other requirements, representative?"

"I'm leaning towards endorsing but I want to see you campaign a bit, how you hit the ground and handle doing retail. Ideologically i'm fine with you, I just want to see you making it happen."

"Alright, thank you for your time, Representative."

[Dentali]

(Image)

You couldn't really go wrong with a burger joint unless you were dealing with a vegetarian, and the little outing wasn't really built around food, so Flores and Anderson ended up at Cassell's Hamburgers for their bite. It wasn't quite as busy as usual and Flores snagged a corner booth and just asked for a water while they decided what to order.

"So, you have any plans while you're out on the coast, or did you just come down to see me?"

"Honestly I was planning on beaching it a bit, then I have a fundraiser to attend. Boring black tie thing for the party, maybe get some money out of it."

[Bruke]

“What brings you to Newport Beach? Beyond the weather, of course.” She gave a slight chuckle at that last remark.

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

"I just missed the atmosphere of events like this! Politics has its perks, and it's getting to see interesting people interesting and great places. Couldn't resist."

“You’ve read my mind, it seems.” Sydney smiled and nodded in agreement. “Although I must confess, I am here to do more than reminisce...”

[Uttland]

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

Lee nodded and thanked Anderson for his compliment. Then he turned to Cao, “Well, what are you here for, then? Out of curiousity.”

[Bruke]

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

Lee nodded and thanked Anderson for his compliment. Then he turned to Cao, “Well, what are you here for, then? Out of curiousity.”

Sydney chose -in this instance- to be straightforward. “I’m trying to drum up support for my gubernatorial campaign. I’ve never really taken to the quiet life, and California needs real leadership now more than ever. I’m sure you felt much the same when you decided to run in Washington state.”

[Tumblrena]

Newport Beach, California
Republican Party Fundraiser
2032
Saturday
2 September
2017

"Hawaii is still the best place on Earth like always." McGareth says. He does shake Cox's hand but not with familiarity.

"I can only afford a plate. I'm here to percolate." He says accidentally rhyming.

"But you are rich enough to be a donor aren't you?" He questions with a few thoughts coming to his head.

[Dentali]

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

Lee nodded and thanked Anderson for his compliment. Then he turned to Cao, “Well, what are you here for, then? Out of curiousity.”

Sydney chose -in this instance- to be straightforward. “I’m trying to drum up support for my gubernatorial campaign. I’ve never really taken to the quiet life, and California needs real leadership now more than ever. I’m sure you felt much the same when you decided to run in Washington state.”

"You already have mine Sydney" Glen said with a confident nod

[Bruke]

Sydney chose -in this instance- to be straightforward. “I’m trying to drum up support for my gubernatorial campaign. I’ve never really taken to the quiet life, and California needs real leadership now more than ever. I’m sure you felt much the same when you decided to run in Washington state.”

"You already have mine Sydney" Glen said with a confident nod

“Why, thank you Glen. And I think I may be able to return your help, in spades.” Sydney gestured to the room of (mostly) elderly men that made up the donor class here in Southern California.

“I should be able to put in a good word for you with just about any donor in the room. Whenever you are ready, I’ll make the introductions. But for now... conversation seems to be in order. Gentlemen, what do you wish to discuss?”

[Uttland]

"You already have mine Sydney" Glen said with a confident nod

“Why, thank you Glen. And I think I may be able to return your help, in spades.” Sydney gestured to the room of (mostly) elderly men that made up the donor class here in Southern California.

“I should be able to put in a good word for you with just about any donor in the room. Whenever you are ready, I’ll make the introductions. But for now... conversation seems to be in order. Gentlemen, what do you wish to discuss?”

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

First, he reaffirmed that he too would support Cao in her election, but then he considered her last question. Lee was looking for advice one thing. So he turned to both Anderson and Cao; “Neither of you have much experience in memoir writing do you?”

[Dentali]

“Why, thank you Glen. And I think I may be able to return your help, in spades.” Sydney gestured to the room of (mostly) elderly men that made up the donor class here in Southern California.

“I should be able to put in a good word for you with just about any donor in the room. Whenever you are ready, I’ll make the introductions. But for now... conversation seems to be in order. Gentlemen, what do you wish to discuss?”

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

First, he reaffirmed that he too would support Cao in her election, but then he considered her last question. Lee was looking for advice one thing. So he turned to both Anderson and Cao; “Neither of you have much experience in memoir writing do you?”

"I had a bit of a hand in compiling Gootlatch's otherwise no... I have been maintaining extensive journals however, since my time in college so I plan on using them to write one eventually.... I also have a friend from Penn State who does ghostwriting of autobiographies."

[Bruke]

“Why, thank you Glen. And I think I may be able to return your help, in spades.” Sydney gestured to the room of (mostly) elderly men that made up the donor class here in Southern California.

“I should be able to put in a good word for you with just about any donor in the room. Whenever you are ready, I’ll make the introductions. But for now... conversation seems to be in order. Gentlemen, what do you wish to discuss?”

GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

First, he reaffirmed that he too would support Cao in her election, but then he considered her last question. Lee was looking for advice one thing. So he turned to both Anderson and Cao; “Neither of you have much experience in memoir writing do you?”

“I have actually been working on a memoir for quite some time. How far along are you in the writing process?”

[Main Nation Ministry]

Newport Beach, California
Republican Party Fundraiser
2032
Saturday
2 September
2017

(Image)

"Hawaii is still the best place on Earth like always." McGareth says. He does shake Cox's hand but not with familiarity.

"I can only afford a plate. I'm here to percolate." He says accidentally rhyming.

"But you are rich enough to be a donor aren't you?" He questions with a few thoughts coming to his head.

Taylor Cox
GOP Fundraiser, Newport Beach, California

"Been reading Dr. Suess I see." Cox joked at McGareth, though he switched back to the topic at hand. "I sold my previous mansion for several million dollars, where I had some reserved for my gubernational campaign. I'm planning on giving out 100,000 dollars, but I'm happy to raise it for generosity. We might already reach a million dollars in a couple of hours, depending on how many people from back at Los Angeles are coming."