The opinions below are that of the author, a registered Republican. The opinions expressed are not necessarily that of the Peoria Area Association of Realtors, their committees, or their Board of directors
The Realtors Political Action Committee (RPAC) is a lobbying entity that was created by the National Association of Realtors to protect and promote the tradition of home ownership and real estate investment.
To achieve their goals, RPAC seeks out and supports legislators who support the rights of property owners, fight for tax reforms, and work to reduce burdensome regulations on business. It is funded by private contributions from thousands of Realtors across the nation, and has had a significant impact on legislation that relates to real estate and investment.
In the past year, the state of Illinois RPAC worked to defeat Blagojevich’s proposed service tax, a tax that would have devastated the professional and service industry. RPAC was also instrumental in passing legislation that prevents private entities from being able to acquire real estate through eminent domain, and our state RPAC continues to defeat the efforts of local lawmakers to levy real estate transfer taxes (sales tax) on homeowners.
A mechanism in place for determining who should receive RPAC funds is candidate interviews at the local level. The Legislative Affairs Committee for the Peoria Area Association of Realtors arranges and conducts these interviews, then passes their recommendations along through its Board of Directors to the State RPAC. I am a first year “rookie” member of this committee. Our objectives include getting to know the candidates who seek or are holding local, state and national political offices, keep them abreast of issues that are of concern to Realtors and property owners, and, impact their decision making and voting propensity while in office.
In that capacity, last Tuesday we had the opportunity to interview Colleen Callahan, the Democratic nominee for the 18th Congressional District.
My first impression of Ms. Callahan was that her picture does not do her justice. She exudes a warmth and friendliness that, for a moment, made me wish that we were more aligned politically. However, fresh out of the gate I feel she made a mistake by not completing a pre-interview questionnaire that was provided to her by our committee. She stated that she did not want the committee to pre-judge her answers. My impression was that it allowed her a lack of accountability, and/or that she possessed a lack of understanding of the issues. Granted, candidates before her left some questions blank, but all had at least made a rudimentary effort. In my opinion, an hour of googling would have been well worth the effort and served her well during the course of this interview.
She was also vague in her answers to questions posed from the committee members. Her responses, very broad and poetic, with little to no specifics. For example, a primary concern of the Realtor industry is that, as independent contractors, we lack the ability to obtain group coverage for health care – a major problem for those with pre-existing conditions. As a result, 60% of Realtors lack health insurance. Ms. Callahan acknowledged the health care problem, but even after a thorough prodding for her proposed solutions, offered none.
I then went to her website  looking for answers. I found the web address at the bottom of page 2 of a google search. No specifics there, either. As much as I am personally drawn to her warmth and charisma, I just don’t think the “Trust me I’m a good person and my sheer personality alone will affect change in Washington” argument is going to work in the 18th District.
To be considered a serious candidate, we deserve to hear serious solutions. Lets see a position statement on the issues! I am all ears!
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
I just wanted to point out to you that, despite your politics, you are not a “registered” Republican, because in Illinois we do not have “registered” Republicans or Democrats. You may be a “declared” Republican in that each time you vote in a primary you are asked to “declare” in which primary you wish to participate. You may think there is no difference between the two, but there is. Registered party affiliation came from closed primaries where only those previously registered as party members could vote in the primary. Also, if you wished to change your registration, some states required that you sit out one primary before you could “register” in a different party. If you think this is boring, don’t worry. I’m soon the Pundit will be back soon.
Diane,
I wouldn’t put down Callahan for her lack of solutions to specific problems addresses in your committee meeting. All candidates have to drudge through an endless number of boring PAC and editorial/endorsement meetings. Even if you talk out of both sides of your mouth, the greatest politician isn’t going to have a detailed proposal for each concern a constituent raises.
I know that its the tendency for each group to think their interest is the most important, but its usually not. If anything I think the tendency for every interest group to have a PAC is a burden on the political process.
And it is curious to me that as a Republican you would be looking to a potential congressman/congresswoman to solve a health insurance problem in your chosen profession. Government doesn’t solves problems it creates them, your best bet to solve the health insurance problems would be to work as a group to solve it.
dd – thanks for the clarification… you learn something new everyday. As far as the “boring” comment.. I do know a few good jokes
11Bravo – The health insurance snafu that I addressed is a problem that is unique to all that are self-employed, not just Realtors. Wether you are a Realtor or the owner of the corner drugstore, if you are self employed, you are screwed as far as health insurance is concerned. Just ask around!
Aaron Shock did address this issue specifically in our committee meeting, and laid out a well thought out plan that would maintain the privatization of health care but allow for group coverage of professional associations.
Finally, I agree that if she were addressing the “Save the Prairie-dog” PAC, I would yield to your philosophy regarding PACs in general. But who reading this post is not affected by laws that pertain to real estate? Who does not live in or rent a home? Who would not be affected by a doubling of the long-term capital gains tax rate?
My point is that if we don’t hear any specifics in the meetings, and we don’t see any specifics on her website, are there really any specifics at all? What exactly would we be voting for? I’m just askin.
Many organizations send questionnaires on issues to all candidates for legislative offices, and the Realtors are a big, important one.
All credible candidates answer those questionnaires. That’s not the same as writing out a detailed policy position for each group.
Callahan obviously thinks that her personality will overwhelm people and that she doesn’t need to express how she stands on issues.
Not wanting to be “prejudged” by not filling out a questionnaire means she wanted to skirt the issues and be able to play both sides. It is highly cynical and not exaclty a “higher level of public discourse” that Barack Obama preaches about. It is also just plain unprepared.
If she is elected, does this mean she will not want voters to “prejudge” her by voting yes or no on issues? In this case she does follow Obama…this is the equivalent of voting “present” and dodging a yes or no vote.
I believe McConoughey, Morris and Schock all filled the questionnaire out in their primary. Colleen thought she could get by with BSing her way through the interview. If the Realtors are not an important enough of an organization to fill out their questionnaire, why did Callahan bother to schedule time for their verbal interview? Completed questionnaires enable those interviewing candidates on behalf of the Realtors to be well prepared for the in person interview.
Let’s be clear: “Registered Republican” is a obviously a way of saying “a very dedicated republican voter.”
It’s a common expression, like “Yellow Dog Democrat.” It doesn’t mean anyone’s electing any dogs.
Billy, you are mostly correct, although you can take the word “very” out of “very dedicated Republican voter”. I have on occasion, for the right candidate, voted Democratic.
Diane,
The same argument could be made for the meat-packing PAC, the bottled water PAC, the pet owners PAC, the …
The Realtors PAC is no different than any other, except for the fact that you are interested in it so you find it more relevant.
I do agree with your over all observation of the complete lack of substance coming from the Callahan campaign. It is so intriguing since she is supposed to be a PR/Communications expert…
I’m not terribly excited about Callahan either. I just haven’t heard much from her. However, the fact that she’s running is enough to vote for her. Look at the alternative.
Why don’t we ask Mr. Schock what he’d do. Maintain the privitization? There’s a surprise. Any way a Republican can bleed money from people, they’ll do it. Offering group coverage, on the other hand, is a step in the right direction.
Hell, at least it was better than the last solution I heard: http://peoriapundit.com/blogpeoria/2007/11/08/politics-schock-nukes-to-taiwan-position-is-irresponsible-opponent-says/
A follow up comment…RPAC is NON-PARTISAN, and does not consider party affiliation as it relates to campaign contributions. Also, if anyone does not understand this statement: “The opinions expressed are not necessarily that of the Peoria Area Association of Realtors, their committees, or their Board of directors”, then please phone me at 309-645-8608 and I will try to explain it to you.
A question for Diane: What is Aaron Schock’s “solution” to your realtors’ health insurance problem?
Bj – I think I addressed this in my first comment. Allow professional Associations of independant contractors to offer their members “group” health plans much like employers can offer their employees “group” plans. Group health coverage offers far more protection to individuals than an individual plan does. Hope that makes sense. That’s the best I can do.
So, Aaron’s “solution” is to “stay the course”, because it’s my understanding we already have that ability. Is that about right?
When will Small Businesses, including Real Estate brokers like Ms. Vespa, understand that the current U.S. health care private insurance based delivery system is the wrong paradigm? Every other industrialized nation provides universal coverage at sustainutally (40% +) less cost. We have to get past imposing ideological “Free Market†solutions to a service that doesn’t respond to market dynamics. We stop pouring money into a leaky bucket and fixed the bucket.
Yes Louis… Universally crappy coverage.
Please, is that what we really want? Talk to the Canadians who come across the border and pay out of pocket prices in the US because the quality and availability of healthcare in Canada sucks.
Tony beat me to it…
Oh Yeah, the Canadians, French, Swedes, Germans…all have much better heath stats, and the public opinion support for their systems far exceeds America’s. Look around Peoria…Whose building the most fancy new facilities—Doctor groups and Hospitals….Do they ever consider how wasteful those expenditures are when these behemoths are paid for by sick patient money. Try and get an appointment, as I did just yesterday, and have to wait two months. Take your ideological blinders off….The current private insurance based system spends nearly 30% of every health care dollar on back room paper pushing and overhead while other countries spend less 10%. The AMA and drug companies rely upon voter ignorance and apathy to maintain a poorly ran and overly bureaucratic, but very profitable for them, health care industry.
You’re exactly right Louis, we should relinquish that deicison of whether or not a treatment or procedure is “cost effective” to a government bureaucrat. I would much rather have them making decisions regarding my health.
Don’t begin the lecture on back room paper pushing and overhead, for God’s sake you’re talking about the GOVERNMENT. Having been involved in government bureaucracy at both the local, state, and especially at the federal level I would bet my life that no organization has more back room paper pushing and overhead then the government. I can’t even believe you threw that argument out there… I nearly fell out of my chair.
The only ones saying Canadian healthcare sucks are American health insurance companies. I want references on all these Canadians alledgedly jumping the border. Anybody?
11Bravo…I agree that government wastes a lot of taxpayer money…i.e. Military toilet seats and general weapon systems that don’t work….However, government administrative costs for Medicare and Social Security are less than 2% of expenditures and represent a small fraction of private insurance overhead ….As for your faith in for-profit insurance companies to cover beneficial health treatments vs relying on government guidelines, I believe the self interest of insurance company profit motive is a much more limiting factor than the negative influence of a bureaucrat subject to political pressure. Perhaps you’ve had better luck getting your HMO to change payment policies than most other Americans have experienced as evidenced by HMOs receiving consistently high negative ratings in public opinion polling.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what earth-shattering “beef” Mr. Schock brings to the table on health care.
[...] Vespa recently asked Colleen Callahan, candidate for the 18th District House Seat in Illinois, “where’s the beef?” regarding Ms. Callahan’s supposed “vagueness” and “lack of [...]