www.CAcleanAction.org

Peter Kuo scored 70% on the Clean Money questionnaire

His opponent, Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski, scored 100%.

They are running for state Senate District 10 which includes the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Santa Clara, Union City, Milpitas, Newark and parts of San Jose and San Leandro.

The California Clean Money Action Fund asked all candidates for state office in California to answer six questions about whether they support legislation for more disclosure on political ads and public financing of campaigns.

Overall Score.

Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Overall Score: 70% Overall Score: 100%

The overall score on the survey is determined by the answers on the first five questions. For every “Yes”, the candidate gets 20%, for every “No” they get 0%. An answer of “Other” gets 10% unless it’s clear from their explanation that the candidate would or would not support the legislation.

Q1. Do you support legislation requiring ballot measure ads to clearly state their three largest true individual, corporate or union funders instead of committee names, even if the funds are transferred through one or more intermediary committees or organizations?
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "Other"
Answer: "Yes"

"I believe a concept like this would expand transparency, however I would support such a measure that required disclosure of any individual or organization the reached 'major donor' status, using top 3 donors doesn't necessarily achieve the legislations intent."

Q2. Do you support legislation requiring independent ads for and against candidates to clearly state their three largest true individual, corporate or union funders instead of committee names, even if the funds are transferred through one or more intermediary committees or organizations?
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "Other"
Answer: "Yes"

"Like disclosures on ballot measures, I would support a concept like this because it expands transparency but again I am not sure if just picking the top 3 will achieve the legislations intent."

Q3. Would you support legislation described in questions 1 and 2 if your constituents were clearly in favor of it while major campaign funders opposed it?
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "Yes"
Answer: "Yes"

"I would support any legislation that expands transparency as long as it was thoughtfully crafted. Though some supporters may oppose the idea, I believe it is the right thing to do."

Q4. Do you support legislation requiring state and local candidates to stand by their political ads, saying in those ads that they “approve this message” as federal candidates must?
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "Yes"
Answer: "Yes"

"This short message at the end of ads clearly explains to voters who does and does not come directly from each candidate."

Q5. Do you support legislation providing competitive amounts of public financing or small donor matching funds to campaigns of qualified candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support and abide by strict spending limits?
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "Other"
Answer: "Yes"

"This concept has very good merits and intent, however before pledging to support such legislation I would want to consider what types of matching funds would be furnished to candidates and what the spending limits would be."

Q6. Would you support a system of public financing of campaigns as in question 5 that covers all state races, including Assembly, State Senate, and statewide offices, if it were funded by an annual tax or fee of no more than $8 per California resident? *
Peter Kuo (R) Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D)
Answer: "No"
Answer: "Yes"

"I do not believe that furnishing funds and resources to candidates by the government is a good thing. While the intent to level the playing field is an admirable goal, in countries where public funds and free advertising are issued to candidates many candidates who are not serious abuse the system and reduce the seriousness in the electoral system. Reforming our current structure with policies to level the playing field could achieve these goals without drawbacks other countries have experienced."

* The wording of this question created some confusion about its intent. The intent was to ask about funding of public campaign finance for state offices with a tax or fee that averaged $8 per person, an investment in the integrity of our elections that is less than one-third of 1% of California's General Fund this year. However some candidates responded to the question as if it were proposing an additional flat tax of $8 to be paid by every Californian. Due to the confusion the wording of this question created, its answers were not scored and did not count towards the overall score for the Clean Money Survey.

Note: Candidate explanations are shown as submitted. CCMAF has not edited the candidate explanations for content or writing style.

California Clean Money Action Fund
3916 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 208, Culver City, CA  90230.  United States.
Phone: (800) 566-3780.  Fax:(888) 633-8898.  info@CAcleanaction.org