Rohl Sets a High Campaign Finance Standard for the 16th District Race


    Today the Wanda Rohl for Congress campaign made an announcement that will draw a stark difference between her and her opponent. Wanda Rohl announced that she will not be seeking national financial campaign contributions.

    “I would love to see a fair and equal playing field for campaigns and we will work towards that; but for right now my campaign will be seeking contributions from individuals who believe in my campaign.” Rohl said making the announcement. “Most importantly however, we are asking the individuals’ of the district for their support.”

    The Ottawa social worker, who is also a wife and mother, considers herself a citizen candidate. “I am passionate about having a real common sense citizen in Washington, speaking for the working people of the 16th District instead of a hired and paid for politician.” Wanda said.

    Paralyzed from the ribs down after a 2003 ATV accident, she has used the social safety nets to work her way through college and into the position she has now.

    “It is time to give people a say in this election and in their government.” Rohl continued, “My opponent is bought and paid for. And I hope they get a receipt because they just might need it.”

    “Someone has to be able to say this money madness has to stop. And it stops if candidates stop participating in it” Rohl points out that her opponent accepted over $20,000 from Eric Cantor, Republican Whip of the U.S. House in his primary race against long time representative Don Manzzulo this past spring. According to FEC records he has also taken in thousands of dollars from multi-national corporations and wealthy donors such as the Koch brothers from all across the nation. According to FEC records Rep. Kinzinger’s financial support has come overwhelmingly from out side his district and the state of Illinois.

    “I wish to extend a challenge to Mr. Kinzinger to join me in an effort to take money out of our race here in the 16th District.” Wanda Rohl said, “Let’s not have money be the issue, let’s make our race be about the issues, concerns, and needs of the people who live in the 16th district.”

    The Rohl campaign said they would accept volunteers if offered by a national organization but not money.

    Rohl’s campaign also points out that Rep. Kinzinger does not just spend campaign donation money but also tax payer money to get his name out to his constituents.

    “My opponent spent nearly $80,000 of tax payer money on mass mailings and communications, just under $900 for every day of his first three months in office.” Wanda Rohl added. “I was born in the 16th district and I have lived here all my life. I will be seeking the support of my neighbors and friends not the help of corporate executives on Wall Street. My people are on the country roads and the small town streets of this district. I am going to represent them, not millionaires who have never spent a day walking our streets.”

    Wanda will be seeking support of local citizens in DeKalb this weekend. She will be holding a “Speak Out to Rohl for Congress” event from 2pm to 4pm Saturday July 21st in the Terrace room of the DeKalb Hopkins Park Community Center.


    1. Mac,

      I am pro-choice first and pro-life later.

      The time for choice is when deciding whether to have “unprotected” sex. Except in cases of rape, both the man and woman exercise individual choice as creatures of volition (created and granted volition by God in my view). At conception, there is no special grant reserving choice only to the woman. She cannot create life without the willful choice of man. Intercourse is an individual choice for each partner, but a joint decision. Should a pregnancy result (science has made the issue of when life begins no longer a question), there is now a third person also with a new inherent and legally enforceable right to a life including volition. While both adult partners are actually capable of exercising individual choice, the new life created is not yet capable, but retains inherent rights granted by God to everyone and is protected under our laws as a person yet unborn. The mother, or father, or any other can choose to destroy the the unborn with its inherent rights by various means and sorts of violence against that new person up to and including death, lawfully or unlawfully, but ultimately that physical ability to override the unborn’s rights does not change the intrinsic status of its rights. The choice to decide whether the baby lives or dies cannot logically or ethically be vested solely in the woman subsequent to her original choice to proceed with the biological mechanism which may result in a new life.

      Therefore, I believe your notion that “the woman should have the ultimate say so in such personal circumstances” is an untenable and illogical assignment if you believe life begins at conception and that unborn babies have a God granted right to life and the pursuit of happiness like the rest of us.

      As to throwing stones in personal judgment, I, too would like to leave that to God. However, God has instituted governments and their collective judgment as a tool for His use and a protection against willful destruction of one person’s rights by another. I believe in the case of abortion, the government has the right to intercede on behalf of the living child, yet unborn, for its protection until such time the new life can protect itself. Of course by extension, we accept all sorts of government protections for living persons of all ages.

      So, the only real question is what sort of response, penalty, or action of any kind should be taken against a person who exercises their “choice” to take the life of an unborn. This is a very hard question. But to me, it is logical to condemn the action, yet love the actor.

      Which brings me back to Wanda Rohl. I find it incredibly hard to understand how one so apparently compassionate for people down on their luck, promoting all sorts of government and private help to reestablish those unfortunate souls in this life, could somehow see abortion, a woman’s right to terminate the life within her, as a thing to be defended. It goes entirely against what Wanda otherwise seems to stand for.

      I agree with you, she seems to be too beholden to the “die-hard democrats”. If she would listen only to her heart, she may have a change of mind and political position.

      So I, too, am undecided in this race. May God grant her grace and wisdom in choosing her stance.

      • Too serious

        Not to appear to be too Higher Than Thou (or serious), Kerry, but we will have our religious differences and that’s a good thing. God didn’t institute human governments they evolved. Unfortunately they haven’t evolved far enough to outlive their usefulness but someday will come. The horrendous actions undertaken by some of the human institutions of government are always attributed to God. The Great Scapegoat?

        I don’t use terms like pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion will not be my determining factor when I vote.

        • Maharishi Mac! Love the new image! Takes me back to Beach Boys and Beatles sitar/meditation days. Maybe if you ever run for office, this photo can be your campaign regular.

          I hope you don’t sweat the holier than thou stuff. I sure don’t. Humor and humility is an essential trait in this world, along with logic leading to faith. No room for worries about any (wo)man higher than another for me.

          And yes, governments are often horrendous and God is made scapegoat. That, the Bible tells me, is one function of the sacrifice of Christ.

      • The problem with the anti-choice agenda, Kerry, is that women who want abortions are going to get them regardless of how you feel about it. The choices you are left with, then are to 1) support a level of government intrusion that no real conservative would; 2) support the risk of death to the born; or 3) support policies that make abortion legal, safe and rare.

        It is repugnant to me, by the way, to think that a pro-choice stance can be regarded as automatically qualifying a person as non-compassionate. But perhaps I should be more understanding; not everyone is privy to what happens to unwanted children.

        • Lynn, Of course you are right, some women will choose abortions regardless of my views or any laws. We are all created by God as volitional beings. But I am quite sure if it were once again illegal, there would be many fewer abortions. In my view, saving life is a good thing and one of the few times government should be allowed to intercede in private affairs.

          You probably know I consider myself fiscally and socially conservative. I even considered a libertarian stance. But I can’t swallow the amoral view of a full libertarian, nor can I buy the “predestined” view of a hard line conservative Calvinist. Plus I kind of agree with some social programs of liberal thought. I guess I’m just a political mess! But then I don’t like labels anyway.

          Finally, I’m sure there are compassionate pro-choice people as well as unloving pro-lifers. We all have blinders on in some area or another.

    2. Its really too bad Wanda Rohl is pro-choice. I like her compassion for the poor, the down and out. But what happened in her thinking to make her pro-choice? Why does she not feel and promote the same help and compassion for unborn children as she does for those of us outside the womb?

      Her campaign is going to make many of us realize what a good congressman we had in Don Manzullo. Can Kinzinger fill Manzullo’s shoes? I don’t know. I have to admit I’m worried.

      Like Wanda, I don’t like the big money aspect of today’s politics.

      But to get my vote, Wanda would have to start with a bold respect for ALL life. Including the unborn.

      • On this we will disagree and agree, Kerry.

        My position on abortion is complex but in the end I believe it is the best solution available for some circumstances. And I think the woman should have the ultimate say so in such personal circumstances, not a man nor a government. I know there are deep religious beliefs on this issue and I believe each and every man and woman is ultimately held accountable for their actions. To those who presume God’s authority in the judgement of others I say pick up that stone and be the first to throw it.

        All that said I am undecided in this race.

        Generally, I am voting against all incumbents and I do not like Kinsinger’s campaign style so Rohl has an advantage but she is playing too hard to the choir of the diehard Democrats. Don’t raise taxes one cent until there are clear paths and policies to government and program accountability and the will and authority is there to enforce it.

        64% of all government entitlements are paid to the middle class and the rich. That number is much higher when corporate welfare and crony capitalism are considered.

        The poor are trapped into dependency because the price of entitlements is too expensive for them to enter the lower middle class. Until we have candidates and politicians with the courage to take that challenge on we will not have states(wo)men.

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.