Campaign Advertisements 2007

Click on image for larger view.

In July, I painted this advertisement onto the right rear fender of my scooter which I ride around town and park near Richmond's City Hall while I am at work.

The preceding advertisement is "Paid for and Authorized by Silver Persinger." However, in all honesty -- I used some old enamel paint I had sitting around and it took about 4 hours total to paint. So it didn't really cost anything besides my time. But I definitely authorize the message.

Below is an advertisement I designed for the backcover of an event program for the NAACP's upcoming annual Freedom Fund Gala. I did have to pay for this advertisement, $150. Thus far it is the largest campaign expenditure to date.

Letters from a Constituent

Last week I received an email from a constituent who lives in Sandston. For the benefit of voters, I am publishing my answers to his questions. Other voters may have the same questions as this gentleman. I hope my responses are informative.

"Dear Silver,

Hi, I am looking at the candidates for the upcoming election, and viewing your website. You'll have to explain a few things to me. First of all, it appears that you are interested in putting more power into the hands of civically educated citizens. I wonder how this is going to happen if the majority of us aren't that.

I'm also looking at your platform, and I see that you're against the death penalty, which is fine. That's a personal preference. But what exactly is your argument against the death penalty? Is it a moral argument? Is it a politcal one?

I'm also unclear as to why you would want to legalize marijuana. I personally find nothing worse about marijuana than any legal drug. At the same time, have you ever met a pothead before? Don't answer that, just think about it. Are you for encouraging the usage, or just having a more lassez faire attitude towards it? Don't you think it's possible to adopt a more lassez faire attitude within this system?

Maybe I'm asking questions which you hold very strong opinions towards already, but I am still curious as to your answers. We definitely need this type of dialogue occurring, and perhaps your answers will help me to understand better why you are running.

Thank you.

M.G.
Sandston"

The following is my reply:

"Hello Mr. G.,

Thank you for taking the time to write a candidate for office. You are the first independent citizen to contact me.

I will attempt to answer the questions you put to me.

More power to the people, why do that?

True, people are uninformed now. Naturally this is not the most desireable condition for an electorate. However, I am an ardent supporter of Democracy. I also believe in the basic goodness of mankind. I believe that humans when given choices will make the proper decisions. Also realizing that they don't ALWAYS make the proper decisions, I also believe that people are capable of correcting their mistakes. Why support a system that concentrates so much power into the hands of a few? Because they are experts or "informed." Additionally, it is my belief that local people know better how to arrange their affairs than an abstracted centralized government that isn't representative of its constituency.

A big part of my campaign is that I want citizens to become more informed and if I am elected I will do all that I can to inform citizens about what is going on in the General Assembly. Likewise, I look forward to being educated by the citizens on what is important to them. I advocate open government and public decision making. More power for the majority of the people and less for cronies, special interests, and small groups of career politicians. My campaign is about engaging citizens in our democracy -- if I can't even engage citizens enough to win their piddly vote -- I don't want to win because I won't be representing their views.

Why against death penalty? Moral or Political?

I am against it for both moral and political reasons. Politically, because it is not uniform in its execution, the majority of the people who are executed are black and poor. I also believe the death penalty is unConstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual punishment." What could be more cruel than death? There should be nothing "usual" about killing a fellow human being. I think life in prison is more of a deterent than the death penalty. Death is an easy out for a murderer. Additionally, innocent individuals are occasionly executed and that is not a mistake the state can afford to make. Morally, I am against it because I suscribe to the religious belief that it is wrong to kill. I also belief in forgiveness. I am a humanitarian, and believe prison is a more humane punishment to death.

On the other hand, I support a woman's right to legal abortion. If you'd like my rationale on that issue drop me another note.

Why legalize marijuana?

Well, like you said, there's "nothing worse about marijuana than any legal drug." I agree with that and actually believe it is less harmful. Why legalize it? A few reasons, it is a relatively harmless drug, could become an important cash crop for Virginia, and as Lincoln said, "Prohibition.. goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.. A prohibition law strike a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Additionally there is the infringement on the individuals liberty when they are thrown in jail. For committing a "crime" against themselves. I am also a firm believer in the God given rights of Liberty and Free Will. There is also the economic consideration that it costs $20,000 and more to maintain one prisioner for a year, then there are all the other costs associated with enforcement, courts, and torn apart families. In my opinion, the punishment exceeds the crime. Yes, I've known many "potheads" as you call them and they are a fine bunch of folks. I don't think anyone should go to jail for using any drug and I think the state ought to fund free voluntary addiction treatment programs.


You know, politics is all about having an opinion. How a person comes to their political beliefs is a mystery and different for everybody. I have had an easy and blessed life. I didn't have the advantage of great parents but I was raised in a good home by an older couple. I have come to my political views through a combination of my personal experiences and reading from the Bible to the history of the labor movement. My platform, particularly my national platform which can be viewed at http://www.freesocialism.org

The Richmond Times-Dispatch and Censorship

In the Friday, August 17, 2007 [page A10] issue of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the editorial page lamented about how "Elections pose dilemmas." By that they were talking about the "dilemma" of running op-ed and opinion pieces from candidates running for office because they "inevitably will serve the writer's electoral interests" and "columns become de facto ads." However, they found it in their hearts to open their columns to the local candidates this time around to "offer a twist." They invited candidates in contested races for the State Senate and House of Delegates to send them, "concise statements about the abusers' fees. A word count of 450 seems about right." The deadline was one week away, August 24. Surprisingly, no one I knew told me about the invitation to candidates to respond. It was kind of a fluke for me to read the op-ed page that day. I subscribe to the paper (except Sundays) but I mostly just read the Metro section and any front page local "stuff."

I submitted my response on the morning of August 24, a crisp 446 words. The following Sunday, I expected but did not see the candidates' responses to the abusers' fees. The following morning I emailed editor, Mr. Faulk to ask when the responses would be printed and told him that I'd expected to see them in Sunday's paper. He responded, "We are pretty much done accepting copy for a Sunday Commentary section by Tuesday of the week of publication. It virtually would be impossible to set a submission deadline of Friday at 5 p.m. and to print the piece in that Sunday's section. (By Friday at 5 p.m., the Commentary section is within hours of being printed. So by that point it must be vetted, laid out, art chosen, and edited, edited, and edited again.) Our plan is to run them this Sunday."

And run them they did, in the September 2 issue [E5]. And edit, edit, edit, they did. The Times-Dispatch is horrible about maintaining links, so here it is while it lasts.

For the sake of simplicity, here is the text attributed to my name in their paper:

"I fully support repealing the abuser fees for traffic violators. The goal of the legislation is not really to reduce reckless driving, but to generate revenues to fund the transportation budget. The increase in fines also creates a real economic hardship for many citizens, and excludes non-Virginians. Enforcement of these fees will be impossible and sporadic at best.

A couple of editorials in this newspaper have cited a lack of courage on the part of the General Assembly to raise the state's gasoline tax. If elected, I will have the courage to support raising the tax on gasoline. How much of an increase I am uncertain; study is required to determine what is an appropriate increase for our needs. It makes sense to tax the users of the transportation system. Those who drive more or drive wasteful vehicles would pay more. Additionally, I propose a $3-per-package tax on cigarettes that would be dedicated to funding transportation -- the current tax is 30 cents.

Of course, the real solution to Virginia's transportation difficulties is to develop a statewide high-speed rail system and light-rail systems in our cities. We need to get out of our cars. Car culture is a unique benefit enjoyed by the majority of Americans. It is by no means a natural right, socially responsible, or sustainable in the long term. From a global perspective, what would a good, sustainable transportation system look like? Fast, efficient, convenient, and free I hope. America should take the lead and be an example."

That all sounds well and good; and accurately represents my view but here is what they CENSORED:

"What entitles America which constitutes less than 5% of the world population to consume 25% of the world’s resources? Is it our military supremacy? It is also helpful to keep in mind that half of the world’s six billion people live on less than $2 per day."

And my concluding paragraph:

"In order to fund rail improvements, I propose the Commonwealth regulate marijuana like tobacco. The release of non-violent drug offenders from jails and prisons will save the Commonwealth millions of dollars. Marijuana is a popular drug, no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. I propose charging a $6 tax per box of 20 cigarettes. $5 from every box to go toward funding a state-wide high speed rail system and light rail systems in our cities. $1 from every box to fund free state-wide addiction treatment programs for all drugs including tobacco, alcohol, and gambling.

To learn more about my campaign, please visit: www.VoteSilver.com"

Now, my question is why did they edit that? Was it because I went beyond the discussion of the "Abuser Drive Fees" or I got off-topic? I would argue that neither is a just complaint. The topic is transportation and how to fund it. What was accomplished by their censorship of my response? They effectively limited my "Free Speech," that most essential of political rights. We no longer have a Free Press in this country, we mostly have a corporate press that dictates what we hear and see. What of the disservice done to citizen-readers, the spirit of Democracy, and open debate? To hide my positions from the citizens when in possession of such views is a disgrace. It stinks of Tyranny cutting out the tongue of Free Political Speech. It's an insult to the trade of journalism.

I am for Freedom, Justice, Liberty, Free Speech, and Socialism. I agree with Jefferson, "... truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." As the old saying goes, "Truth has nothing to fear but concealment."

Read the complete and unabridged version here.