Spanky Edwards is currently running for the U.S. Congress for the 17th district of Illinois. He is running against incumbent Cheri Bustos in the democratic primary. Bustos has represented the district since she first won election in 2012. She is also the head of the DCCC which is supposed to work to reelect incumbent democrats.
Edwards was kicked off the ballot when a number of his signatures were rejected because the people who signed it did not live at the address they were registered. He is currently a write-in candidate in the Democratic Primary on March 17th against Bustos. Bustos has refused to debate Mr. Edwards.
Zachary Gittrich: How many valid signatures does it require to get on the ballot and how many signatures did you file?
Spanky Edwards: The requirement is 833 signatures. I filed 996. But the issue as far as the electoral policy in Illinois is ass backwards. The qualifications switch by district, and it gives the 2 party system a huge advantage over 3rd party and independent. To get on the ballot if you’re a democrat is 833 signatures. For a republican is 5-600 signatures. For an independent its over 11,000 for the same position in the same district. That creates this gridlock in congress cause districts are red or blue. We have 700,000 people a district, if you have 1000 signatures you should be on the ballot, it shouldn’t matter what party you’re from. We talk about Russia cheating in an election when we disenfranchise ourselves.
ZG: You’re running against an incumbent Democrat. What are the reasons you think you’d be a better representative of the 17th district than Cheri Bustos? What are the specific differences you have with her representation?
SE:
1. She is afraid of Medicare 4 All. Healthcare is an essential service and a human right. So Medicare 4 All right now would save 70,000 lives a year, and it will provide a higher quality of life where people don’t have to take out loans, file bankrupt, or sell their houses to pay for medical bills. We have one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world. Too much of our money is spent on insurance, not healthcare.
2. Bustos has no plan or ideas for poor. She talks about Farmers when 12 farmers have lost their farms since she’s been in office. She champions veterans; we have a high homeless veteran rate in 17th district. She talks about her support for middle class, to be middle class in America is to make $150,000 a year; to have a high quality of life to afford cost of living. So when Bustos talks about the middle class: teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders don’t make that much. My proposal is we create a middle class salary for public service. They should be making $150,000 because they provide an essential service that we can’t live without; they maintain order: it would be complete chaos without them. The federal government, and hospitals, democratic enterprise, free enterprise, taxes on luxury items can go to coffers to raise money for those type of programs.
ZG: Do you have any pets?
SE: No
ZG: You have stated you support M4A. Is that single-payer?
SE: Single-payer. No cost at Point of Sale. No middleman between you and your provider. People like their health care provider not their insurer. Doing this would create a cultural shift.
ZG: If enacted, how would the transition from private to public healthcare work for the 160 million people who currently have private insurers?
SE: Bernie’s plan, which I support calls for 5-10 year transition from private to single-payer.
ZG: What kind of assistance would be available to private insurance company employees who may lose their job?
SE: I worked in insurance. So I know these are transferable skills. There are other types of insurance that they could transfer to: car, life, etc. We are going to reinstate the Freedman’s bureau. Hire MBAs, county agents, and retired veterans, in order to build homes.
ZG: Cheri Bustos voted in favor of both articles of impeachment against the President. Would you have agreed with those votes?
SE: Yes.
ZG: How would you rate the democrats efforts to impeach the president? Do you think there were other issues they should have focused on when it came to impeachment?
SE: So, Cheri voted at least twice to delay impeachment. The only reason she voted for those articles was because it was politically expedient. Trump should have been impeached cause he never cut ties with any of his private businesses which he benefits. And that wasn’t even one of the articles. So I think the Democrats did a piss-poor job at going after him; They only brought up two out of the–I would have thrown ten charges at his ass. The Russia investigation wasn’t even brought up in impeachment. So with regards to Russia, either the Democrats used it as political propaganda and Russia did not interfere; or they didn’t care enough to add it to the articles of impeachment. Either they’re bullshitting us with propoganda and it didnt happen-
ZG: … which I wouldn’t be surprised.
SE: Yea it wouldn’t! And, we’re used to the kind of political propaganda: the Willie Horton type propaganda, they’ll say anything to get elected.
ZG: It also obfuscates the fact that billionaires regularly influence our elections, Israel regularly influences our elections.
SE: Absolutely. Absolutely… Israel in particular, we have been prevented from even critiquing Israel in any form or way. That’s problematic when it comes to holding another foreign government accountable when I can’t tell the truth about them. What we have to understand is that Jewish life and Palestine life are equal. So, if I can critique Palestine, I can critique Israel, I can critique Russia and Germany and America as well. We all can be critiqued, no one is above that and it produces a terrible and unfair dynamic when it becomes illegal or there are severe consequences for just giving an honest political critique.
To your original question, Cheri Bustos did not want to go for impeachment, because she feels she lives in a Trump District and she’ll get voted out by Trump people. Lane Evans had this seat for 24 years; 12 terms in 17th district and he ran as a progressive. I would say it one of the most progressive districts in Illinois. So she’s lying. She knows people aren’t going to check her on that, because she was not expecting me to challenge her.
The democrats collectively got schooled, they got their ass kicked by a political novice who is a bully and a thug; they got thugged; they got punked. If this was a high school football game we’d say they got pancaked. That’s exactly what happened.
ZG: Government is regularly viewed as criminally inefficient. Conservatives automatically say everything government is bad; and Liberals argue its better than the private sector and it’s the duty of the government to do these things, but even they seem to acquiesce to the seemingly natural fact that government is inefficient. How would you address inefficiency in government services?
SE: That sounds like another job for people from insurance companies they can transfer over and provide those particular expertise. But in regards to job training. I have a certificate from the University of Rhode Island in nonviolent conflict resolution, so I understand how to resolve that type of gridlock. I’ve been in those offices, too. And the way they treat you, they look down on you; or, they know there’s absolutely nothing you can do cause you need them. You’re probably at your worst moments when you’re in those lines. You’re probably at your worst when your in government offices. They know that and they know you have to be nice to them but they don’t have to be nice to you, and there’s this particular power dynamic over you, and the whole experience is terrible. I would propose legislation to train government workers who work with the public to be trained on conflict resolution, and to be able to understand that they are providing a ministry. That they are providing resources for poor peoples, and it is benevolent. I want people to work in those office who are benevolent and nice and love, and feel like their job is fulfilling not just a check. That’s going to be some of the type of things I’m looking for. And if you have a terrible experience in government lines, blast them on social media! I think that’s how you get anything done in 2020, blast them on social media.
ZG: You have stated you support the Green New Deal. Do you support a complete ban on all new oil drilling and fracking?
SE: Yes on fracking. Case by case for oil. Until we are completely solar, I think that’s the point of the Green New Deal is to transfer our dependency on fossil fuels to renewable energy.
ZG: How do we continue to manufacture all the things that require oil, especially plastic?
SE: There are biodegradable products like hemp. Hemp can replace plastics, clothes; its very strong, its easy to grow, so investing in hemp would be better for the environment and oceans replacing plastics.
ZG: Currently, all products sold do not have to have clear instructions on recycling, would you support a regulation requiring some type of instruction for all products?
SE: I don’t know if regulation as far as mandatory is the best thing cause that leads to going to jail for littering and not recycling. That’s a slippery slope the regulation side. We should do litter campaigns and recycling campaigns. I think all forms of government need to do better jobs at recycling. We need to teach in our schools how to do this.
ZG: Would you support regulation requiring all goods sold be recyclable?
SE: In order to do that, regulations on small business tend to effect them worse. So, again, we could use hemp so you can throw it away.
ZG: Would you support regulations or tax incentives to encourage businesses to take more responsibility in recycling?
SE: I would want the government to work in concert with the free market to change the types of ways we shop and buy things and operate collectively, so it’s not just the federal government mandating stuff, but us seeing what your experience is in your store, so we notice you have these materials, here are other products that are cheaper and more green. I think that’s a win-win for everyone.
ZG: Do you support court-packing to readjust the politics of the Federal judiciary?
SE: I haven’t thought about it. I think it should be done in a non-partisan way. The Democrats let that happen. And the Democrats often work in tandem with Republicans. Obama and congress didn’t put up a fight.
ZG: Are there any current federal judges you would support impeaching and removing? (Both Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury at their nomination hearings.)
SE: I would support an inquiry to investigate it. As long as its done in a fair and just way… see I’m a referee by trade, so as long these are the rules and the rules are just and don’t provide an unequal advantage. If you violated the law then you have to suffer some sort of consequences.
ZG: Do you support a constitutional amendment creating term limits for Federal judges?
SE: Yes.
ZG: Do you support granting statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington D.C., Guam, Mariana Islands, and America Somoa?
SE: Absolutely. If North and South Dakota can be there own states than all these can be their own states. Either give them statehood or free them from being American territories. How we treat them is like 3rd class citizens.
ZG: Do you support a constitutional Amendment creating term limits for members of congress?
SE: Yes.
ZG: Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and most people on waiting lists for public housing wait years. What policies would you propose to address this issue?
SE: The Green New Deal has a housing component, and economic reconstruction. In America, your wealth is connected to your home. I support bills creates 100% housing. Completely reconstructing how we do housing.
ZG: Do you support a maximum wage?
SE: No. A maximum wage is unamerican. I want people to make as much money as they can. That competitiveness–I love to see billionaires compete, to see whose going to be on top. That’s what makes America. The problem I have is that they don’t pay their employees $100,000. So anyone who has a billion dollars but has minimum wage workers, you aren’t a true billionaire your a thief!
ZG: What type of taxes do you expect to support?
SE: I support fair tax.
ZG: You recently posted on your FB of your strong support for people benefiting from government programs. Predictably many conservative voices quickly brought up objections that it creates a ‘culture or behavior of dependency.’ How do you counter this argument?
SE: People should have a basic standard of life because we are so wealthy. Many of the people that are poor have been exploited or their ancestors have been exploited. Realistically, there aren’t many opportunities to make living wage. Even teachers don’t make a living wage. That type of ideology is rooted in racism, white supremacists propaganda that they use to break up poor white people and black people coalitions during reconstruction. That’s rooted in Jim Crowism.
ZG: How do you counter this argument in the black community where there is still a strong conservative tradition?
My answer is similar to Dr. King. We talking about two types of people: people that have platinum gold boots, their shoes automatically tie themselves, silver spoon in their month, those people platinum diamond plated platform shoe people are telling people who don’t have boots at all to pull themselves – that’s immoral. To say that everyone is on the same plateau – that’s not the case. America was intentional when engineering this type of disadvantage. So to say everyone pulls themselves up by their bootstraps when the system is intentionally taking your boots. America created this problem. Many poor families have to give up a family member to live in public housing, and that’s bullshit. This has negatively effected Black Lives. So the government says “we’ll take care of you, you don’t need that man. We’ll take care of you; if you have a baby you’re gonna get healthcare, a house, food, you don’t need a man.” So why wouldn’t a poor person take advantage of that, so they’re not homeless and starving.
ZG: We have been in a state of perpetual warfare since both of us were in 6th grade. We are currently in military conflicts with 7 different nations. Do you support these wars? Would you end any of the wars?
SE: We’re in more than 7 countries. I don’t support these. As a proponent of conflict resolution, I think that in 2020 there is enough resources for everyone to have all their needs met. Many of this is rooted in racism and militarism, again, militarism is like 50% of every tax dollar goes to the military. So its a multi-trillion dollar industry. I feel like if we take the money out of it, we’ll end all those wars tomorrow.
ZG: How do we deal with the geo-political consequences of this?
SE: So its about working out a non-violent peaceful resolution so there is a win-win situation for all parties involved.
ZG: We spend more money of discretionary spending on military than anything else and have by far the largest and most powerful military on the planet. Are there cuts you would suggest to reduce this? We currently have hundreds of military bases all over the world, if you could pick certain bases to close, which ones?
SE: Absolutely. America is in about 20 different countries. Why? If we’re there to help and empower them then great, lets do that. But it should sunset. We should be able to be self-sufficient and sustainable in cutting back on our military. A lot of the military budget is waste. There’s a trillion dollars at the pentagon that no one knows where it is. Just to be efficient I’ve talked to military people all the time they have an unlimited amount of money. They literally have an endless supply of it. Our budget is way more than China, and they have a billion people. The question is the types of things the America does to the whole world. Our military should be to protect America and build alliances. We don’t have to do imperialism anymore. We don’t have to be police of the world; lets support them without the military.
ZG: There are some very serious issues happening regarding immigration, especially with regard to ICE & CPB. Some have even called for abolishing these institutions. What would you do?
SE: Were spending multi-billions of dollars on something that is non-violent… I’m not even gonna say its a crime. I don’t understand why America is treating Mexico like that. The entire Southwest used to be Mexico. We annexed that. They have ancestors there before America was even a thought. So for us to treat our friends to the South as 3rd class people or are not just as valuable as us is a problem. Again, ICE is racist, this is a racists system. I disagree with the way we deport and destroy families.
ZG: So you do support abolishing ICE?
SE: Yes, abolish ICE. The idea of deporting people whose ancestors were native to this land is absurd. Since America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, I would support legislation for a more humane immigration system.
ZG: What about situations where there is a known, credible threat from a terrorist. Would we still not deport them?
SE: That’s a whole different story. That has nothing to do with ICE. The overwhelming majority of immigrants being deported have no criminal record and are not terrorists. If we wanna deport terrorists lets deport KKK members and white supremacists. We wanna deport terrorists, then those are our number 1 terrorists in the country.
ZG: Do you think serious crimes have been committed regarding immigration and the border by these institutions and this administration?
SE: Absolutely. Its putting people in cages. Not creating a humane system or even a plan. They had no plans for the children or for the families. They just rounded them up, sent them to the South and had them waiting. The kids are being raped, dying, sick; they have no plan; that’s a piss-poor plan. And its causing detriment to thousands of lives. So, I would prosecute all of them. Someone needs to go to jail for creating this type of violence on people.
ZG: There are many black conservatives that are extremely skeptical of loose immigration laws? What do you think are the best methods for convincing them otherwise?
SE: I don’t think they have a serious understanding of whats going on. So, as an educator, I would be open to starting an educational program that explains what is going on, these are the conditions in the country these migrants are in, so they are running escaping their country as refugees to save their lives. I think most Americans have a heart, and I feel like if we will be more open to accepting immigrants because they’re refugees.
ZG: The country is obviously in a perpetual state of gridlock, political crisis, and general decline. Do you think parts of the constitution need to be changed in order to guarantee more political stability? If so, what constitutional amendments you propose?
SE: I think every 40 years we need to have a constitutional convention. We live in a completely different America than our forefathers. I don’t think they should be able to dictate to us 200 years ago later how we should operate; we’re just as smart as they are and people living should be able to create our own constitution.
I would also abolish the electoral college. I would abolish slave labor in prisons, remove that from the 13th amendment. How we elect candidates. Abolish the use of private for-profit prisons.
ZG: What are ways would you address issues of voter suppression?
SE: Automatic voter registration at 18. I was kicked off the ballot. That’s a form of voter suppression. The people that signed my petition pay taxes on houses they live in and were not allowed to elect me. All men are created equal, all opportunities for representation must be equal.
ZG: As a prison abolitionist, you think that prison should only be for violent criminals who pose a threat to our society. Mass incarceration is obviously an enormous problem. You offered a number of innovative ideas to punish criminals including: Lower their credit, fine them, beat they ass periodically, public shame them, make them work a minimal wage job, in the projects, take their houses, and cars and wealth away for 10 years. How would you go about rehabilitating criminals?
SE: So, I being very facetious when I said that. But, I think everyone who is in prison for a non-violent offense, 90% of them would take alternatives on that rehabilitation list. Hell, I’ll takes some licks if its five years for a nonviolent offense or lashes for something I actually did. Rehabilitation: non-violent training. This is one of the most effective ways to create a harmonizing society. Again also, creating more opportunities to live in the middles class, that would remove a lot of petty crimes and non-violent crimes, cause people are really stealing to survive. But, you have millionaires on wall street who steal your car, your house, and everything you own. Make them pay a fine, force them to live in special housing, lower their credit, take their stuff away. But I don’t want to spend the tax money to keep those type of nonviolent crimes in prison. Prison should be for people who pose a violent threat to society. That’s what its there for; that’s why the fences, barbed wires are created. With prisons we create supercriminals, so someone who committed tax fraud are in their with murderers. So the tax cheat gets mentored by a professional criminal, and doesn’t get caught again.
ZG: How do you go about articulating prison abolition to the average person who can’t conceive of such a thing?
SE: I didn’t say that I was a prison abolitionist, I said I’m a modern day abolitionist. So, I don’t think non-violent people should go to prison. If you’re a violent threat, then I understand prison. But there are a lot of people in prison who aren’t violent. They just made a mistake. Those are the type of people I would emancipate.
ZG: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
SE: The 2 party system is not working for poor people. Hell, I’ve been poor under a Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administration. Even after getting a Masters degree, I’m still poor. Neither party has resolved issues concerning me.
If you vote for me, I’m the best candidate if you’re making under $200,000 a year. My opponent, Cheri Bustos has no plans to deal with poverty. And she’s our representative because of nepotism (she babysat the right man’s kids), she feels entitled to represent us. Shes not the best candidate. My resume is ten times better than her; I’m more qualified then her, I have more connections than her; she just has more money than me. Nepotism shouldn’t be right in a democracy. Dick Durbin is not a lord, he’s a senator; he represents us. We don’t represent him. She is one of the most powerful position because she is beholden to him. The DCCC ban on backing progressive causes is not right. She is supporting candidates who support overturning Roe v. Wade: that’s not right. She is refusing to support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Who even is she supporting for president? She is a moral coward. She is doing everything that is politically and financially expedient to her. Shes going to sell us out every chance she gets. To her its just money and whatever the powerful people tell her to do. I’m not that type of person. I can’t be sold I cant be bought. You can hold me accountable. I’m connected with NAACP, Women voters, ACLU, many churches in Peoria. I was the president of the ACLU but I stepped down to run for office. I work with Jehan Gordon, I was one of her first volunteers. I’ve worked for PPS, I’m a Moorehouse candidate, I’m an ICC graduate so I have that experience along with private school, I’m more diverse, I’m a professional dancer, I own my own business, I’m a referee by trade, I do conflict resolution so my thinking is completely different than Bustos. I’m a better candidate than her and my republican opponent. For poor people, I have better solutions than Bustos.
The Illinois primary is Tuesday, March 17th, 2020. Those in the 17th district wishing to vote for Spanky Edwards must select the write-in option and correctly spell his name: S-P-A-N-K-Y E-D-W-A-R-D-S. You can reach out to Edward’s campaign on Facebook.
This article was originally published on Strangecornersofthought.com.
