Platform : Should a Political Spouse’s Beliefs Be Considered When Voting?

In recent days, the role of Arianna Huffington in her husband’s Senate campaign has become a hot topic in the race. Former staffers have stated that she acts virtually as campaign manager, and questions have been raised about her affiliation with a controversial church founded by a man who calls himself John-Roger. In earlier races, the investments of Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, became public issues. TRIN YARBOROUGH asked political activists how much a spouse’s beliefs and actions ought to affect a candidate.

SUE BURNSIDE

Political consultant, Los Angeles

I think if a spouse or partner is actively on the campaign trail, we need to view them as a co-candidate, because their influence is obviously very large. For example, Mrs. Huffington has been interviewed on the McNeil-Lehrer TV program, but her candidate husband has not. And she debated Robert Dornan in her husband’s earlier campaign for Congress but her husband has not. Since she is shaping and giving the candidate’s message, we need to view her as a co-candidate. When a spouse is as involved as Mrs. Huffington or as Hillary Clinton, it means they’ll have a major role and be part of the daily decision-making if the candidate is elected. So we need to learn who they really are.

On the other hand, if it’s just a supportive spouse who’s not taking an active role, they shouldn’t be scrutinized in the same critical light. There shouldn’t be a lot of dirt brought up about a spouse like that. With all the problems and corruption and complicated issues involved in campaigns it’s already hard enough for voters to sort things out.

LARRY PICKENS

Political Aide to L.A. City Council member Jackie Goldberg, partner of School Board Member Jeff Horton

People need to know that the “significant other” of someone in politics plays a very important role. A significant other really has to be 100% supportive of the person campaigning or serving in office. Sometimes you’re the only one they can come and talk to, even if you’re just listening. In my own case, listening has helped me to grow.

Voters should consider the political beliefs, the community involvement and the organizations of a spouse or partner because those things give a key to the candidate. For example, Hillary Clinton’s involvements and her support of Bill Clinton made me think better of him. The kind of spouse or partner a candidate chooses says something about that candidate. Of course, a lot of times you don’t know anything about them until after a candidate is already elected.

I don’t think certain kinds of negative information about the significant other should be considered. For example, if a spouse has a drinking problem, you shouldn’t blame the candidate. People have minds of their own, and the candidate shouldn’t be blamed for what’s done by someone acting out his or her own flaws.

But why shouldn’t the significant other also get to express ideas to the candidate, just like every citizen? After all, we want a candidate who listens to everybody, because that kind of listening and working together is how all of us move forward.

MARY SOLOW

Member, L.A. County Commission for Public Social Services

When a spouse is involved in campaigning and in making campaign and political decisions, who they are should be of great interest to voters. In the Senate race in California, Michael Huffington’s wife appears involved in many political decisions, so who she is becomes of interest. On the other hand, I’m not sure that Dianne Feinstein’s husband is involved in politics at all.

You can’t say that all spouses are either an asset or a detriment. Sometimes a spouse is even more appealing than the candidate. While the main emphasis in deciding how to vote should be on the candidate, it would be foolish to ignore meaningful information about the spouse. I would be tremendously concerned about a candidate whose spouse belonged to a group I considered dangerous in some way, or who was corrupt or had shady connections. That kind of information ought to be weighed as part of the evidence on how a candidate might behave if elected.

ZYRA MCCLOUD

President of Parent and Community Action Team, Inglewood

I think about 25% percent of a person’s decision on how to vote should be based on the spouse of a candidate. A real leader is a strong person, inspired by a greater calling, by a feeling from within, one that’s between the leader and God.

I would probably weigh the religion of a spouse at zero percent, unless it’s a way-out religion that would be detrimental to the people of this country. And I would consider the circumstances of choosing a religion.

Look at Tina Turner, for example. She went into Buddhism at a desperate time in her life, and Buddhism worked for her. So I wouldn’t count a spouse as more than 25% unless that spouse belonged to some organization like the Ku Klux Klan. Then the warning flag would go up.