The Empire Page

In keeping with our goal of providing in-depth interviews with those running for statewide, office, we wanted to find out who Jonathan Tasini is and why he plans to run against incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Q#1: Why are you running for the U.S. Senate seat currently being held by Kirsten Gilligrand?  Since you've never held elective office, why not run for a seat in the House of Representatives or the NYS Legislature, for example?

A: This election will be about one issue: change can’t wait. There is a deep well of desire to change our country—which led to the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, change can be unsettling and scary to people. To embrace change, I believe the voters, across the political spectrum, want someone whose principles and values they can trust to bring about real changes in the rules of the economy and the direction of our global policies. I believe my opponent will be the weakest candidate for our party in the general election because the voters will simply not trust the appointed Senator, who has been an avowed advocate of the National Rifle Association, someone who has been anti-immigrant, an aggressive defender of Big Tobacco and, now, wants voters to believe she holds a whole set of new principles and values.

But, I believe the appointed Senator is not the issue. In these troubled times, I still believe that the values of our country embodied in our Constitution—equal justice under the law, promoting the general welfare, securing liberty, and providing for the common defense—are the right ideals upon which we build a decent society. But, to fulfill those ideals, we—people of all political backgrounds—need individuals who speak for the people, not insiders who come from a dysfunctional political system and speak for the Wall Street financiers, banks, and pharmaceutical companies. If voters are able to hear the voice of our campaign (very subtle hint for people to invest in our campaign in whatever way they can afford), I think we will win the race. If voters believe that change can’t wait, the choice will be clear.

Finally, there are many examples of people who were elected to the U.S. Senate as their first office. The first, and best example, is Paul Wellstone, one of my political heroes. If we had a majority of Senators in the Wellstone model—meaning, people who actually had principles they believed in, as opposed to principles adopted just to get elected, and who spoke for the people, not the banks, Wall Street, the gun lobby--the country would be a far better place.

 

Q#2:  Earlier this year White House discouraged other Democrats from challenging Gillibrand. Further, she is likely to have the support of the state party with its army of county chairmen and committeemen.  What kind of organization will you have to put together in order to compete and how much of that organization do you have in place today?

A: We are putting together an organization that we feel comfortable will be successful. We certainly respect our party activists and leaders who can actually translate their support into voters going to the polls. However, voters turn out to the polls for reasons beyond the work and encouragement of the existing party machine. If we are correct about the moment in time and what the issues will be in 2010, we think that we have a plan that will win the primary.

 

Q#3: Will you seek the nominations of any of the state's  other parties?  In particular will you ask for the nomiantion of the Working Families Party, the Independence  Party and the Green Party?

A: I will seek the Working Families Party nomination.

 

Q#4:  Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton as New York's "junior" Senator less than a year ago.  Grade her on her performance thus far.  What has she done -- if anything -- that you agree with and what has she done that you disagree with?

A: I was glad to see her rally with other supporters of womens rights against the House language in the health care bill which undercut the rights to privacy and access to safe abortions (the so-called Stupack amendment)--but I, and other advocates for womens rights, were concerned that she did not make an unwavering commitment to vote against a final health care bill that retained any language that undercut long-established womens rights. I also applaud her for switching her position and finally coming out earlier this year for marriage equality, joining many of us who have been fighting that battle for “equal justice under the law” for a number of years—we need every ally to win.

To reiterate, the issue is not a particular position. My opponent represents a dysfunctional system, a system which encourages the election of people who have no core principles and who will simply adopt any positions as long as those positions translate into more individual power. Voters are fed up with that system.

Q#5: On your website you make several recommendations concerning the Federal Reserve including "End the myth that the Fed should be an 'independent' agency to keep "politics" out of monetary decisions."  How is that a myth?  To the extent the Fed is independent it is so because that's how Congress set it up, and while making the Fed more susceptible to political influence might sound good to you when the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, but are you sure you would want it to work that way when the day comes that the Republicans are in the majority?

A: Congress has enormous power of oversight of the Federal Reserve Board—yet does not exercise that power. For example, by statute, the Fed has twin responsibilities—price stability AND full employment. Yet, when was the last time you can find a Fed chairman mentioning full employment as its goal? Congress has the authority to require the Fed to pursue that goal but it does not. And this is a bi-partisan problem—the abdication of responsibility to the Fed has been the product of laziness and neglect on the part of both parties.

And this isn’t about Republican versus Democrat. It’s really about being vigilant and having some common-sense. The abdication resulted in the financial crisis: Ben Bernanke, ever since he joined the Fed in 2002, should have been aware that his predecessors and colleagues essentially sat by, and even encouraged the housing bubble with cheap money (which created $8 trillion in housing equity. And the failure by Congress to exercise strong oversight of the Fed allowed the bubble to rage—and as a result we now have double-digit unemployment.

 

Q#6:  You say on your website that "Our campaign is fighting for an economy for the people, not one favoring abusive corporations who choose a low-road economy: competition based on price which leads to insecurity, rising inequality, poisonous labor relations, no commitment to our communities, environmental damage."  If the US government is going to control corporate decisions on pricing, hiring, etc. how is that different from they way Chinese Communism operates?  Is that the model you're offering Americans?

A: No, the model is a model of rules, not rhetoric, that builds a path for sustainable communities.


Q#7: On your website you say "the moment we walk through the doors of our workplace, we enter into a world that strips away all our basic rights. Within the walls of the workplace, the whim of the corporation is more powerful than the U.S. Constitution."  In truth, people who work for corporations in the US today have more protections, more rights and enjoy a higher living standard and a longer life than any time in human history.  Further thousands of people in America are forced to pay union dues against their will.  So, if you truly support "freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association," do you support the right of workers not to belong to a union in all unionized workplaces?

A: Everyone should have the right to choose to be in a union.


Q#8:   Last question: If you are unable to get enough signatures to primary Senator Gillibrand, will you attempt to get on the ballot on a third party line?

A: We will easily qualify for the ballot. In 2006, my campaign collected almost three times the number of signatures to get on the ballot. We will collect a far higher number this time.