24th Congressional District

In a primary election that will thrust the winner into a hotly contested battle with national ramifications, three Republicans are vying for the opportunity to take on Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman in the 24th Congressional District, which stretches from Van Nuys to Thousand Oaks.

Joe Gelman, Randy Hoffman and William Westmiller are the GOP contenders in the district, which the Republican Party has targeted in hopes of holding on to its majority in the House of Representatives. Republican leaders have named Sherman one of the top 10 incumbents in the nation that the party wants to unseat this year.

Gelman, of Sherman Oaks, is a businessman and former newspaper columnist who was an outspoken city civil service commissioner before being forced to resign because of his anti-affirmative action views.

Hoffman, a Thousand Oaks multimillionaire, leads the fund-raising race, mainly because he has loaned himself $425,000 of his own money. He helped build Magellan Systems, which makes global satellite positioning systems, into a thriving corporation.

Westmiller, of Thousand Oaks, is a small-business owner.

All three candidate were asked their views on issues that currently shape the national agenda.

* * *

Question: Education has emerged as one of the top local and national political topics. Do you believe parents should be given vouchers to help them afford private schools for their children? And do you favor the establishment of state and national education standards to assess student and school performance?

Gelman: I believe in school choice in the form of vouchers. Many of the same folks who defend our failing public school system wouldn’t dare send their own kids to public schools, and that is the ultimate test. Parents ought to be given the same choice enjoyed by our president, vice president and other high-profile defenders of the failing status quo. On establishing standards, that depends what the standards are. I don’t trust federal education bureaucrats to set such standards. Local school boards are probably best suited to set standards with guidance from selected professional educators and academics provided by the state education system.

Hoffman: Public education is in such poor shape that vouchers would only further erode our schools’ ability to educate. Because a voucher program will not fully fund private education, many children will be stranded in public schools further weakened by the loss of funding. Let’s rebuild our schools now. On standards, as the father of four, I value the importance of good education for all children. I support serious education reform that includes breaking up L.A. Unified School District, teacher tax credits for continuing education, teacher competency testing, rigorous national standards and tests, stopping social promotions, class-size reductions and more public charter schools.

Westmiller: Tax credits for school tuition are a first step toward giving parents full control over their children’s education. Universal charter schools would allow full competition among public and private schools striving for educational excellence. Objective standards for student, teacher and school testing should be developed at state and local levels.

*

Q: Given recent highly publicized incidents involving firearms, ranging from the bank shootout in North Hollywood to the deaths of students in Jonesboro, Ark., do you think more rigid gun control measures are called for?

Gelman: Gun violence is a symptom of cultural decay and a decline in the emphasis of morality and ethics. Our public policy needs to reflect reality and it doesn’t. I support tougher sentencing laws for gun-related violence and a quick-check system that prevents those with criminal records or a diagnosed history of mental instability from buying guns.

Hoffman: Crime is a very personal issue for me. I lost a brother to drugs, and my family suffered a violent home invasion. We must make our neighborhoods safe again through tough laws, more police, stricter enforcement of gun-control laws to disarm criminals and banning military-style assault weapons from our streets.

Westmiller: Disarming the innocent is a dangerous advantage for the guilty. If criminals believed that everyone might be carrying a concealed weapon, the crime rate would plummet. Evil deeds flow from evil intentions, not the objects used. There should be no federal laws restricting the right to self-defense.

*

Q: Do you support a woman’s right to an abortion?

Gelman: My position is “allow but discourage.” I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion but I am troubled by the casual attitude many have toward the practice. I favor common-sense restrictions such as a ban on partial-birth abortions, restrictions on late-term abortions, 24-hour waiting periods, parental notification and consent for minors and no government funding for abortions.

Hoffman: I am pro-choice. I believe it’s the woman’s choice, and I think the government should stay out of it.

Westmiller: Every woman has an absolute right to her life and control over her own body. Abortion is a terrible option that should always be avoided but should never be encouraged by federal government policy. No tax dollars should ever be spent to encourage, condone, support or finance abortions.

*

Q: Do you support the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act which, among other things, would prohibit national parties from receiving unregulated “soft money” contributions that were at the core of the fund-raising abuses of the 1996 election cycle?

Gelman: I do not favor prohibiting individuals and organizations from contributing whatever amount of money they see fit to causes they believe in, as long as the source of money is legal, ethical and is fully disclosed to the public. I favor leveling the playing field between wealthy candidates and average citizens who wish to serve the public.

Hoffman: We must reform our campaign financing in order to restore trust in our government. Restoring public trust is essential to solving our nation’s problems. I support more open campaign disclosure laws, tougher penalties for those abusing them and the regulation of “soft money,” all elements of the Campaign Integrity Act.

Westmiller: Federal election laws are a maze of nonsense regulations that mask the real abuses of political power: special access, interests and rights that violate the principle of “equal protection under the law.” The Constitution forbids restrictions on political speech, but also forbids the granting of special benefits, subsidies and grants.

*

Q: Do you support Proposition 227, the state ballot measure that would virtually end bilingual education?

Gelman: I strongly support the elimination of bilingual education programs. California cannot afford to engage in policies that divide us as Americans, be it by race, gender or language. Our government must promote policies that emphasize a common American culture and equality of opportunity. That includes a common language.

Hoffman: No matter how you measure it, bilingual education in California has failed our children. I strongly support and plan to vote yes on Proposition 227.

Westmiller: Parents should have the final word on the kind of education they want for their children. Proposition 227 empowers parents, allowing them to decide how their children will be taught English. We should grasp every opportunity to reduce the power of government bureaucrats over the education of our children.

*

Q: Do you support either a flat tax or a nationwide sales tax as a means to achieve income tax reform?

Gelman: I strongly favor simplifying our tax code with a national sales tax, modified flat tax or combination thereof. I lean toward a national sales tax but believe that a national debate should commence immediately. I favor the substantial overhaul and virtual elimination of the IRS as we know it.

Hoffman: Our tax code harms the development of new industries and new occupations--it is not designed for our Information Age economy. My principles for tax reform are straightforward: Simplify the code, protect charitable and home mortgage deductions, eliminate the marriage penalty and death taxes, reduce the overall level of taxation.

Westmiller: A flat tax is the only fair way to distribute the proper costs of a limited government. After a deduction for basic living expenses, a flat tax of 10% would be simple, progressive and equitable. The only difference between a flat tax and a sales tax is about 30 days.

*

Q: Do you think Congress should intervene to bring the investigation into the President Clinton / Monica Lewinsky affair to a conclusion?

Gelman: I believe Congress should wait for Kenneth Starr’s report. Starr should be allowed to do his job as he is constitutionally mandated to do. I blame the overwhelming majority of delays on White House stalling tactics, aggressive damage-control activity and a shameful smear campaign directed at Mr. Starr.

Hoffman: The investigation needs to come to a conclusion. It has taken enough time and cost too much money. It is hurting our ability to solve pressing domestic problems and show world leadership.

Westmiller: Every government official, including the president, should receive equal treatment under the law, subject to any civil or criminal complaint. A separate branch of government with unlimited resources and authority, like the special prosecutor, is a violation of the Constitution as well as local and state jurisdiction over criminal law.

*

Q: Do you support a bill in Congress that would raise the price of cigarettes by $1.10 a pack and authorize federal regulation of tobacco as a drug?

Gelman: This is a tax mostly on lower-income people in order to create more government bureaucracy. I oppose addicting the United States government to tax dollars and I oppose FDA [Food and Drug Administration] control over tobacco products. I support reasonable restrictions of smoking and advertising.

Hoffman: Children need to be protected from drugs and tobacco. I support higher tobacco taxes, regulation of tobacco advertising and ending tobacco farm subsidies. It is ridiculous that our government is subsidizing tobacco at the same time it is trying to prevent our children from smoking.

Westmiller: Every individual and business should be liable for the injuries they cause without clear warning. Every smoker has had those warnings for decades. More taxes and more regulation will not cure bad habits. Federal drug control, like alcohol prohibition, requires a Constitutional amendment and would, again, be a total failure.

*

Q: What special qualities would you bring as a member of Congress from the 24th District?

Gelman: I bring a unique history of fighting for high-profile ideas in our state and city. I bring a rich experience in public affairs and public policy that no other Republican candidate in this race can match. I bring a deep understanding of the major issues and a strong core belief system. In short, I bring experience and principles that money can’t buy.

Hoffman: Unlike the career politicians, I have real world experience. I took a start-up company with no product and no proven market and built it into a world leader in the satellite communication and navigation industry. Today my company employs 500 people and carries the flag of American technology to more than 80 countries.

Westmiller: A lifelong devotion to individual rights; comprehensive knowledge of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and parliamentary procedure; political activism at the local, state and national levels; public speaking and debate experience; small-business ownership; and 15 years of residence in the San Fernando and Conejo valleys.