State Rep. Rodney Tom (D-Today), now challenging Sen. Luke Esser, sent this dishonest mailer.
The flyer calls Esser "extreme" and purports to quote him: "I am 100% opposed to stem cell research". Not true. Esser has championed funding for stem cell and other life sciences research. Tom's hit piece cites Esser's NO vote on HB 1268, but ignores Esser's (unsuccessful) amendment calling for stem cell research without human cloning and that the majority which voted NO on 1268 included Senate Democrat Leader Lisa Brown.
Esser co-sponsored 5581, the Life Sciences Discovery Fund bill. He voted NO on final passage (it was a partyline vote), only because the bill was amended by House Democrats to expand its scope beyond life sciences. Rodney Tom didn't bother to vote on final passage.
UPDATE: Esser adds in an email:
The extension of two tax incentives for research-and-development in the biotech and other high-tech fields scheduled to expire in late 2004 were the highest priority of the biotech industry in 2003-04.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 18, 2006 11:58 AM | Email This
As Chair of the Senate Technology & Communications Committee in 2003 I became a champion for extending those tax credits -- which directly promote stem cell research.
In 2003 I was the prime sponsor of SB 5529 (which would have maintained the tax credit for B&O taxes on biotech R&D and other high-tech R&D) and Sen. Finkbeiner was the prime sponsor of SB 5531 (which would have maintained the tax credit for sales and use taxes on biotech R&D and other high-tech R&D).
We weren't successful until the 2004 session, when a bill prime sponsored by Rep. McIntire (HB 2546) which combined SB 5529 and SB 5531 was passed into law.
You are right they are false ads. However Esser's
downfall will be his foolish oppostion to I-933.
He has upset a great deal of the property rights
people that supported him the last time he was
up for reelection.I don't think there's anyway
he can repair the damage though.They simply
don't trust Esser anymore.
Sigh.
Posted by: Hinton on October 18, 2006 01:50 PMhttp://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=593
Posted by: Michelle on October 18, 2006 05:26 PMIn fact, he is quoted as saying: "I personally have been voting No on every Referendum that comes along, because I don't think that's how we ought to be governed."
In fact, here's a few hundred well-chosen words from right here at SP on the issue: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004797.html
Posted by: Hinton on October 18, 2006 05:46 PMMy apologies. I stand corrected. For some reason, when I first read your comment I thought you were talking about Dino Rossi. I don't know how I made that mistake. That's why I referred you to that link though.
Yes, McGavick opposes initiatives. I have nothing in his defense.
Posted by: Michelle on October 18, 2006 10:09 PMUnless you know something else--if anyone is lying its them. But I guess only Luke gets to call out detail stuff (or try, I still don't understand why he voted against the research).
Posted by: Bell Dud on October 18, 2006 11:58 PM