Most political observers are satisfied in defining gubernatorial candidate, and former finance director, Tom Campbell, as a center-right fiscal conservative who operates as a strict libertarian socially. 

Should they be curious about his political views toward the legalization of marijuana?

For a politician who supports government funded abortion and same-sex marriage – referencing his strict libertarian perspective – is it a stretch to believe that Tom Campbell might adopt the same perspective about weed?

Would ’Governor’ Tom Campbell mean the eventual legalization of marijuana for California?

Could Campbell, an early supporter of medicinal marijuana, agree to the alleged revenue stream that would come from the state’s new smoke-commodity?

It sure would play much better than a statewide 32-cent a gallon gas tax.

Thursday afternoon on the Capitol Hour, I welcomed Tom Campbell as he addressed a long list of questions that I had on the budget, and as many social issues that I could put in front of him during the half-hour interview on 1380 KTKZ.

Campbell is brilliant, and his performance was stellar.

Most politicians get frustrated with the restraining and tight ‘answer windows’ that the talk radio format affords a candidate, but not Campbell – it was never an issue. The faster I threw questions on the wall, the more energized he became.

The half-hour breezed by, and it afforded thousands of listeners a clearer perspective of this polished gubernatorial hopeful. Some of them shocked to hear Campbell represent his very Libertarian positions on their radio.

Tom is not just pro-choice; He also supports government funding a woman’s right to choose.

Campbell was up-front when I asked him about same-sex marriage, saying that government should stay out of it and that he, as a social libertarian, would support such as Governor.

After we detailed the budget, Campbell addressed his previous proposal of a 32-cent ‘gas tax’ to help bridge the gap of the California budget deficit. He explained that is was his proposal for last year’s budget, but something he is no longer representing as a Sacramento fiscal fix for the current deficit.

He addressed his refusal to sign a ‘no tax pledge’ before entering office, saying that he doesn’t want to put himself in a position where he might have to break his pledge by supporting a tax for a ‘legitimate’ cause.

Campbell stands against a part-time legislature, he believes that there is a real concern with global warming and he agreed with Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to release non-violent prisoners from their sentences early, in order to reduce the strain upon the state’s budget mess.

After we agreed on government regulations causing a strain on the private sector’s ability to produce profits, he did a quick ‘about-face’ and expressed his endorsement of Governor Schwarzenegger’s carbon omissions bill, AB32. While Campbell’s opponents are attacking AB32, he is singing its praises by excusing its costs with a ‘revenue neutral’ tax reduction for small businesses in California.

As I have stated in an earlier HOGUE NEWS piece, Tom Campbell is a brilliant, intelligent and a very ethical man. He knew that some of his answers were going to ‘rock my listener’s world’, as they would mine as the host – but he didn’t flinch. This type of performance earns him major points with the declined-to-state voters of the state.

Even the ‘Gray Davis-famed’ and current Gavin Newsome Campaign manager, Garry South, loves Tom Campbell.

South recently said he thinks Campbell would make a great governor for California. But then again, getting a compliment like this from Garry South is like borrowing lunch money from Harry Potter. (Word of counsel to the Campbell website team, ignore the temptation of placing South’s quote on the endorsement page, He’s a man who says nothing without a political strategy attached to it.)

There is much to like about Tom Campbell; He’s intelligent, but not an elitist.

He is professionally nice, but not patronizing.

He is honestly clear, but not judgmental, or condemning.

If only more conservative Republican could take their lessons from Tom Campbell, we might have a chance in this state, but I digress. But there is a growing concern that Tom Campbell’s libertarian views could lead him to embrace the legalization marijuana.

As a sitting Bay Area Congressman, Tom Campbell has been a long-standing supporter of medical marijuana and has campaigned on ending the ‘war on drugs’ as far back as his US Senate race against Senator Dianne Feinstein.

In a 2000 KRON-TV debate with Senator Feinstein, then Republican Congressman Tom Campbell stated;

“The drug war has failed, America’s approach to drugs right now has spent – since 1980 – $270 billion and what do we have to show for it?”

“We have eleven times the number of people in jail; we have five and one-half the number of people dead from drug overdose and the abuse of drugs. You can’t say do more of the same thing. So, I’ve made this the centerpiece of my campaign.”

“What makes sense is to take the $1.3 billion that we plan to put into third world jungles (fighting drug dealers in Columbia at the time) war and use it for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is the essential part, education for those not addicted to drugs and rehab for those who are.”

Campbell is immediate when he is asked about California legalizing marijuana, “I am all for medical marijuana, but I am not supportive of legalizing it for California.”

It seems to be another clear answer, but could Campbell be convinced – at a future date – that legalizing marijuana makes sense, and even cents?

That ia a concerning issue; if he sees the fight being too costly, would he adjust his position as it relates to legalizing marijuana?

You don’t have to look far to notice Campbell’s past adjustment with the ‘war on drugs’. What were his reasons for ending the war on drug again? He adjusted his position to ending the war on drug, changing the tactic because it was too expensive, not because it is the morally right thing to do.

For a social libertarian, there is no moral reasoning for social laws. Whether its drugs, sex or even marriage, the government should stay out of it. And when it comes to our laws, if they are too expensive to maintain them we adjust to a different perspective.

There is a current example inside of Tom Campbell resume, He stated his support of Schwarzenegger’s ‘early release proposal, for reasons that conclude it is no longer economical to keep law-breakers behind cars. Campbell believes we should release them in order to save money and the state’s budget.

Could the same ‘adjustment’ happen with marijuana with Tom Campbell as governor?

It’s a question you should answer before you consider Campbell as a possible candidate to face the Democrats Jerry Brown in November of 2010. If Campbell were able to make it to the general election, would he sng the same tune on abortion, same-sex marriage and marijuana as his opponent Jerry Brown?

If you’re out of the GOP Primary and facing the Democrat’s Moonbeam, the temptation to be even more libertarian will be great.

You can listen to the Tom Campbell interview here:

Part One

Part Two