Interview with Ken Cuccinelli

Recently, I had the chance to talk with Ken Cuccinelli about the race and the issues facing the Attorney General’s office.  Cuccinelli is a small business owner and partner in the law firm, Cuccinelli & Day, PLLC in Fairfax.  Additionally, Cuccinelli is a State Senator representing the 37^th District, a seat that he has held since 2002.  As State Senator, Cuccinelli serves on the following committees: Courts of Justice, Transportation Committee, Local Government Committee, and the Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee.

During the interview, Cuccinelli highlighted some of the differences between both him and his opponent, Democrat Steve Shannon.   Below is the interview.

CCC: When you have been door-to-door and talking with voters on the phone, what do you believe is the number one issue that they have been focused on? How do you think the campaign is going thus far?

Ken Cuccinelli: Well, the campaign has been going really well.  So far, I expect to be outspent, and I hope that a solid foundation can help carry me forward.

As for the top issues, I have been hearing a lot of people voicing concerns about crime and the economy.  Criminal justice is one of the most popular issues, and in previous attorney general races, nothing matched criminal justice.  My opponent [Steve Shannon] does not want to talk about the economic issues.  He [Shannon] has been funded by the unions and has supported tax increases, while serving as Delegate.

CCC: Have you heard much from voters about illegal immigration?

KC: I hear about the illegal immigration issue a lot.  My opponent has been afraid to talk about the subject, especially since he has voted on a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to attend public universities.  In fact, I have had more bills in the Senate that addressed illegal immigration than any other Senator since I’ve been there – these have addressed stopping human trafficking, and clearing the voter rolls of illegal immigrants.

CCC: During the summer, you called for a special session, in regards to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court with Melendez vs. Diaz, could you explain a little about the case and the implications that it would have on Virginians? Why do you believe your opponent decided not to call on Governor Kaine to have a special session?

KC: First, I’ll give a little background on Melendez vs. Diaz.  Melendez vs. Diaz was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and basically, it defends a person’s right to call witnesses.  While this is great, it also creates a problem with Virginia law.  After talking with several prosecutors, many drunk drivers and drug dealers were being released.  In fact, Fairfax County lost five cases due to Melendez vs. Diaz.

So, after reading the case and talking with prosecutors, I decided to petition Governor Kaine for a special session of the General Assembly to address this issue and fix Virginia law.  I also sent a letter to my opponent urging him to call the special session.  My opponent called this a “political stunt,” and asked me why I did not support his bill to stop the Melendez bill.  This bill (HB 3086) would have no impact on the Melendez problem in DUI cases. I sent my opponent’s bill off to six prosecutors and asked if this bill would solve the issues posed by Melendez in Virginia.  Five of the six prosecutors said it would make things worse, and the other one said it would be a disaster.

Governor Kaine called a special session on August 19^th to address this problem and we fixed it.  We haven’t lost a case since passing legislation to solve the problem.  We rewrote a bill, while my opponent just wrote a bill and put his name on it.  This is the stuff that the Attorney General deals with, and he totally got it wrong.  We focused on this in an ad.

Meanwhile, my opponent got the law wrong and played politics with it.  His immediate reaction was to call this a political stunt.  He got burned by this.

CCC: As State Senator, I know you were quite active with property rights legislation. Could you perhaps discuss what you will do as Attorney General to protect the property rights of Virginians and what you might do if there is a challenge to the Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London? Also, do you think that your opponent, Steve Shannon, has any solid issue stance on this important issue?

KC: If there is a challenge to Kelo, I will make sure to continue fighting for property rights.  As Attorney General, I will fight to get property rights protected in the Virginia Constitution.  My opponent has been against this all along.  Another thing is that Creigh Deeds was the tie breaking vote to kill property rights in the Constitution.  The vote was 8-7.

Property rights is a great dividing line between those who care more about special interests and those who care about property rights.  My opponent cares more about special interests, and I still have more work to do to protect property rights.

CCC: With the Defense of Marriage Act being challenged at the Federal level, how will this impact Virginia and the marriage amendment that was passed by the voters in 2006?

KC: The office of Attorney General is the only office that matters in this debate.  My opponent is against the marriage amendment.  I am certain that this will come up within the next four years, and it will be fought by the AGs.  I have been a strong advocate for protecting the marriage amendment.

CCC: Your opponent, in your debate on WTOP, shows that he is in favor of the harmful and economically devastating climate change legislation. What is your position on this legislation and what will you do as Attorney General to prevent the after effects of this legislation?

KC: This was important enough to be my opponent’s first question during this debate.  I oppose climate change legislation.  It will be economically destructive to Southside and southwestern Virginia.  Currently, unemployment rates are at 20% in Southside.  If this legislation is passed, the Attorney General could be involved with regulatory aspects.  I would be deeply involved in the fight for Virginia to regulate itself, and I would do the same thing with other Congressional legislation, such as Card Check.  As Attorney General, I would be very aggressive in using the 10^th Amendment.

In fact, with card check, this would be a 10^th Amendment issue, as Virginia is a right-to-work state.

CCC: Your opponent also attended a seminar in Baltimore recently that gave lessons on how to attack private employers on environmental grounds. Could you talk about your business record and what you will do as Attorney General to protect business?

KC: I am a small business owner, who was endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)-Virginia Chapter and the Virginia Farm Bureau.  Agribusiness comprises about 10% of Virginia’s workforce.

I would bring a free market approach to the economic side of the Attorney General’s office.  I would reduce regulations, instead of increasing them.  Additionally, I would put in place a methodical way to deal with regulations to ensure a cost-benefit analysis.  If there is something that takes away from benefits, then I would take a closer look at the costs involved.

CCC: What challenges do you anticipate will be waiting for the next Attorney General? Why do you think that you will be the best candidate to face these challenges?

KC: I feel that the biggest challenge will be the right to work legislation from Congress.  I am the only one who will do anything about it.  Democrats might say that they are against card check and for right to work, but they will not do anything about it.  I will fight with anybody, if I think they are wrong.  I think my strongest trait is that I have the independent willingness to stand on my own.

In terms of criminal justice, I have been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, and it is the only grassroots endorsement in this race. The 71 lodges and their members all voted, and I won that vote.  On the day that this announcement took place, my opponent announced his endorsement by the Virginia Police Benevolent Association and six Commonwealth Attorneys.  I have received the endorsement of 79 Commonwealth’s Attorneys and Sheriffs combined.

For more about Cuccinelli, click here.