Some local north state candidates rebuff tea party pledge; plea focuses on … – Record

Some north state candidates are refusing to sign a Redding tea party group’s pledge that says they must resign or agree to publicly disclose their transgressions if the tea party deems them to have violated the state or U.S. constitutions.

A number of candidates, including Shasta County Supervisor Leonard Moty, say they refused to sign the Bostonian Tea Party’s pledge because it would make them beholden to the whims of a special-interest group.

Moty said he already signed a pledge to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions when he was first elected, and he doesn’t feel comfortable putting himself in a situation where the tea party would have power over him based on their own set of constitutional interpretations.

“I represent all the people — not just one special-interest group,” Moty said. “I think this is what this pledge attempts to do, make you beholden to their wishes.”

Other candidates had no such qualms. Redding City Councilman Patrick Jones, a candidate for the 3rd District supervisor seat, said he signed it.

“I generally agree with a lot of the principles in the tea party,” Jones said. “I read the pledge, and I didn’t think it hit any particular language that concerned me a great deal. I think adhering to the Constitution is very important.”

Cherrill Clifford, a 4th District supervisor candidate, agreed.

“Just because it’s a special-interest group, it doesn’t mean it’s something evil,” said Clifford, who’s a regular at the Bostonians’ weekly meetings. “It’s the content of what I had to sign is what matters to me.”

Greg Mann, a Redding jeweler who heads the Bostonians, didn’t return two phone messages and an email this week, so it’s unclear how many candidates signed or refused to sign the pledge.

One of Mann’s emails obtained by the Record Searchlight shows Mann sent it to 15 north state congressional and Shasta County supervisor candidates and one candidate running for state Assembly.

The pledge starts out simply enough. The candidate agrees to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions. The candidate also pledges to show “humility for the honor bestowed upon me as their elected civil servant, and will always strive to act in the best interests of my constituents, my state, my nation and the Constitution of the United States of America.”

The second half of the pledge states that should the Bostonian Tea Party or any of the candidate’s constituents believe the candidate has “willfully failed” to uphold his or her oath of office they’ll make themselves publicly available to whoever filed the complaint within 60 days to address their concerns.

The pledge then states: “Upon examination by the Bostonian Tea Party or other affiliate constituency group, should it be determined that I have willfully violated my ‘Oath of Office,’ I shall either immediately and publicly apologize for my un-Constitutional behavior and seek to overturn or remedy any adverse actions taken, or I shall immediately remove myself from office to make way for a representative who will be more scrupulous in obeying the Oath of Office, or, if necessary, I hereby agree to allow public disclosure by the aggrieved party(s) of any and all alleged un-Constitutional deeds and thus breech of this contract, in any form or manner of print, media or other public discourse deemed necessary by the Bostonian Tea Party or other affiliate constituent groups, particularly as it coincides with future reelection bids.”

Moty said that last bit amounts to public shaming.

“It reminded me of back in the 1600s in Salem when they put you in stocks for public ridicule,” he said.

One of Moty’s competitors for supervisor, Steve Allen, said he signed the pledge, but only after he made revisions.

Allen signed the top half, but scratched out the rest. He said he later rewrote the pledge removing the part about removing himself from office if the tea party felt he should do so. He agreed to meet with Mann’s group to discuss the matter.

“I found them to be responsive to my concerns,” Allen said.

Republican congressional candidate Pete Stiglich, who counts as supporters many in the Bostonian group, said he helped the group draft the pledge and he felt it was toned down enough to sign, though he was uncomfortable with its earliest drafts.

Others running against Stiglich refused to sign it.

Jim Reed, a Democrat, said he’s refusing to sign any pledges, saying they’ll keep him from being able to compromise should he become elected. He took issue with the tea party appointing itself as a constitutional enforcer.

“The tea party is a quasi-governmental agency all of the sudden enforcing certain rules,” Reed said.

Gregory Cheadle, a Republican, said he was concerned about who decides whether a candidate violated the pledge.

“Who is going to determine what’s constitutional?” said Cheadle, who’s studying to be a lawyer. “If I feel something is constitutional and someone else doesn’t, who wins?”

He said the pledge amounts to the same “strong-armed” political tactics the tea party condemns mainstream political groups for using. “If I sign something like that, I’m putting myself in a foxhole with dynamite,” he said.

Leave a Reply