Oliver Steinberg's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
Key
Official Position: Candidate addressed this issue directly by taking the Political Courage Test.
Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, but Vote Smart inferred this issue based on the candidate's public record, including statements, voting record, and special interest group endorsements.
Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, or we could not infer an answer for this candidate despite exhaustive research of their public record.
Additional Information: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position, from their answers or Vote Smart's research.
Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as candidates submit them. Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.
Oliver Steinberg has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2020 Political Courage Test.
Minnesota Congressional Election 2020 Political Courage Test
| Pro-choice | Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| I strongly object to way this question is worded, because it incorporates the distorted rhetorical framing of two disputing sides. Each viewpoint is based on premises that simply cannot be reconciled with the other side's premises, so the disputants resort to overly-simplistic labels, searching for semantic advantage. The dispute arose over the Roe v. Wade court decision; the legal basis of which was NEITHER "life" nor "choice" but rather the right to privacy--what Brandeis called "the right to be let alone--the right most valued by civilized man." It undoubtedly belongs among the non-enumerated Ninth Amendment rights retained by the people. | |||
| Yes | In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket? | ||
| Yes | Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare? | ||
| In modern times, the 1950's was our period of the most widespread prosperity, general economic stabilty, steadiest industrial production, and satisfactory governmental services, so I suggest we return to the progressive taxation rates we enjoyed under the Eisenhower administration. The imminent global warming catastrophe is the consequence of our fossil-fuel addiction, unsustainable population growth, and failure to evolve beyond the ceaseless-expansion model of capitalism. Therefore we'd better realize that radical reform measures are required. We should be willing to redistribute wealth, conserve limited resources, humanely plan to defuse the "population bomb," and strive to protect free, open, democratic societies. | |||
| Yes | Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions? | ||
| I call for Constitutional Amendments clearly ending the legal fiction of "corporate personhood" and "money as speech," restoring the authority to closely regulate campaign & lobbying spending, requiring periodic review & renewal of corporate charters. Otherwise political democracy will succumb to economic oligarchy, if it hasn't already. In a prophetic speech delivered in 1873, Wisconsin's Justice Edward Ryan raised the very questions which the 2020 election will decide once and for all: "Which shall rule--wealth or man; which shall lead--money or intellect; who shall fill public stations--educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?" | |||
| No | Do you support the protection of government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct? | ||
| No one should be above the law or immune from the penalty for misconduct or dereliction of duty. Justice Brandeis rightly said that if government itself becomes a lawbreaker, it invites contempt for the law--it breeds anarchy. I would also observe that the petty official who mistreats a citizen and cannot be held to account for it is as much a tyrant as the Big Brother dictator who rules a continent or a planet without constraint. To the objection that petty or frivolous lawsuits would proliferate and impede efficiency, I don't think that's insurmountable; besides, basic justice should be paramount. | |||
| No | Do you support increasing defense spending? | ||
| As Gene McCarthy used to point out, the so-called "Defense Department" was simply, honestly, and properly called the "War Department" for 150 years. ("Defense" is a cyncial euphemism.) And we spend way too much on war! 35% of all the military spending in the world! Over 300% of the next spender, China. We're taxed for it once, then taxed additionally to repay war costs covered by money borrowed from China, Japan, OPEC nations, filched from the Social Security trust fund, etc. Let's invest 2/3 of our war spending in a "Manhattan Project" to mobilize against the threat of global warming! | |||
| Yes | Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| No | Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| Yes | Do you support providing financial relief to businesses AND/OR corporations negatively impacted by the state of national emergency for COVID-19? | ||
| Federal spending done primarily to "prime the pump" for economic growth would seem to be less inflationary than just printing currency. No doubt we should re-examine the entire banking and financial sectors, and their structure and regulation (or lack of it) to see whether it's possible to put the greater public good ahead of the insiders' perks and profits. In the short term, the emergency relief payments must be furnished, but because of the Trump administration's untrustworthiness, the taxpayers deserve close audits and accountability, and nothing ought to be squandered on those that aren't really jeopardized by pandemic-inflicted losses. | |||
| No | Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards? | ||
| I can't answer this question affirmatively because it's too imprecise. Does it refer to curriculum content standards? Uniform educational achievement test standards? Physical facility standards? Per-student investment? Compliance with unfunded mandates for pupils with special education needs? K-12, or beyond? Teacher training and qualifications? Even were the question phrased more precisely, I'd have to say that the Education Department under its current administration would more likely degrade standards than enhance them. Ever since the Reagan years, the Republicans have pursued policies meant to weaken public education, and the incumbent administration doesn't hesitate to wage war against science and academic integrity. | |||
| Yes | Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? | ||
| Yes | Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? | ||
| We need a Manhattan-Project-type of commitment to end fossil fuel addiction within a decade; to improve our scientific understanding of the destructive course of already-happening greenhouse effects; to seek environmentally-safe technological advances in the effort; to develop sustainable economic relationships which conserve and recycle limited resources and protect natural features, processes, and communities. | |||
| Yes | Do you generally support gun-control legislation? | ||
| The first thing to do is repeal legislation that insulates the manufacturers and distributors from product-liability lawsuits. Then, compulsory history lessons for all politicians about the actual origins, purposes, context, and meaning of the Second Amendment. End the so-called "war on drugs," to DEFUND THE CARTELS AND GANGS. Decide how to regulate or disband the so-called "social media" platforms which are designed to heighten political antagonism and which provide recruiting conduits for white supremacists, jihadi terrorists, and other armed anti-social elements. Use FCC authority to restore equal time broadcasting to counteract radio demagoguery. Enforce anti-trust laws against mass communications conglomerates. | |||
| Yes | Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")? | ||
| No | Do you support requiring businesses to provide paid medical leave during public health crises, such as COVID-19? | ||
| Replace the 2010 ACA with a single-payer healthcare system (a.k.a. "Medicare for all" or similar) which would remove insurance profiteers and dragooned employers out of the equation entirely. Canada can do it. Australia can do it. Every other wealthy nation can do it. There is no excuse to perpetuate the stupid PAY OR DIE system that we are stuck with. | |||
| No | Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border? | ||
| No | Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? | ||
| The only people entitled to set restrictions on immigration are the Indigenous people whose ancestors lived here when immigrants (colonists) first arrived. And if they had the power to decide, which morally they should, I don't think the descendants of immigrants (I'm one myself) would like the result. THE BORDER WALL IS AN OBSCENITY. 21st-century political throwbacks to the 19th-century Know Nothing party have no excuse for their xenophobia and prejudice. Worst of all are the callous demagogues who gain political power by viciously scapegoating the homeless, tempest-tossed, but hopeful souls . . . who are up against the wall. | |||
| No | Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)? | ||
| Yes | Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts? | ||
| We ought to have a Department of Peace. The first priority should be to look in a mirror. How is it that we perceive "governments hostile to the U.S." in all directions? It's stupid that the USA harbors an enormous arms-for-export industry. We make the world unsafe for others, why should we be surprised when they reciprocate? Sorry, I don't know how to reduce the threat from rogue regimes like the nasty one in North Korea. What's more, the rest of the world doesn't know what to do about Trump's USA. Remember the United Nations? Let's revive that worthwhile institution. | |||
| Yes | Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)? | ||
| As a principle, free trade is hard to refute. But in practice, unless trade policy complies with what one could call "fair trade," it comes with built-in hidden costs. It's not fair, if goods or commodities are produced by workers who don't enjoy the right to freely and safely join labor organizations and bargain for good wages and working conditions. It's not fair, if goods or commodities are produced without regard for environmental pollution or workers' safety. And its especially despicable when trade agreements allow corporations to BLOCK environmental and labor protections with privileged legal claims of "lost potential profits!" | |||
| "Manhattan Project" mobilization against global warming. Funding from war budget and reinstated Eisenhower income tax; also confiscate petroleum-derived megafortunes. Restore democracy and civil liberties; end drug prohibition; establish Constitutional control over secret government and spy agencies like CIA/NSA/ICE. etc.; abolish Electoral College; obliterate legal fictions of corporate personhood and "money as speech." Prosecute Trump administration malefactors for corruption, obstructing justice, misusing funds, making NO exceptions. Explain Fascism: A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Don't you wish you could vote for me? |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.