By Emelie Rutherford
The two main candidates battling for California’s 52nd congressional district seat are no strangers to Congress, the Pentagon, the Global War on Terror, and defense spending.
The Republican and fundraising frontrunner is Duncan D. Hunter, 31, a Marine Corps Reserve captain, former home builder, and son of the retiring Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)– ranking member and former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).
Candidate Hunter says his views are in sync with his father’s on defense matters–including supporting stricter Buy America provisions requiring more domestic content in U.S. weapon systems.
Democratic candidate Michael Lumpkin, 44, is a former Navy SEAL who retired from the service in 2007, after serving as the liaison to Congress on policy and appropriation matters for Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
Lumpkin wants to leverage lessons learned from rapid acquisition processes used to field systems to theater quickly and is concerned about what he sees as the excessive use of earmarks in Congress.
The San Diego-area race, while geographically far from Washington, D.C., has garnered interest from defense industry denizens around the nation’s capital curious about what the departure of the elder Hunter from the HASC will mean, and whether his son, if elected, would mirror his father in the Republican-dominated district. Lumpkin, a familiar face on Capitol Hill who is in regular contact with the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), also is drawing strong interest from state and national press as he battles to represent the Navy-focused district with strong defense-industry ties.
Hunter and Lumpkin both have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, and if elected both would like to sit on the HASC. They support investing in both systems suited for irregular conflicts like those of today as well as potential conventional battles of tomorrow.
“We have to look at modernization programs within the Department of Defense as a whole, because what we have done is take a healthy toll on our equipment with our extremely strained military,” Lumpkin said in an interview. “And there is going to be significant modernization that’s going to be required in order to prepare ourselves for the next conflict, which history has proven is just a matter of time.”
Lumpkin said while working as the congressional liaison for SOCOM he “had to tell Congress that there were things–earmarks–that we didn’t want.”
“I’ve seen taxpayers’ money used on things that were not to the benefit of the military, or the country as a whole, and frankly I think it’s time to clean house in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
The Washington Times reported last week on $30,000 worth of campaign donations Hunter received through June directly and indirectly from defense firms that received millions of dollars worth of earmarks his father help secure.
Lumpkin pointed to earmarks–also cited in the article–for Dupont Aerospace in the San Diego area, for developing the DP-2 vertical-take-off-and-landing aircraft for transporting special operations forces. The aircraft reportedly has been rejected by the Navy, Army, and Air Force.
“I think there’s little doubt that earmarks are excessive in the process and they’ve been institutionalized,” Lumpkin said, adding that the budgeting process sometimes requires earmarks, such as when requirements emerge after the president’s budget gels. “I think there’s merit, but they should be used judiciously.”
Candidate Hunter in an interview dismissed criticism of his donations from companies that benefited from his father’s earmarks, saying “each of those earmarks stands up to scrutiny.”
“Those earmarks all went through committee, they all got looked at by Congress and that’s how Congress appropriates money for the military,” Hunter said. Donations he received from employees of defense contractors, he said, show “people who work for defense companies are pro-America and pro-defense and they believe in what I stand for.”
Hunter said earmarks “ought to be curtailed, they ought to be used as the last resort….But when you get a budget from the president, when he sends down his defense spending bill, the fact that Congress can’t cut back or add to it is ridiculous.”
He said Pentagon planners can be wrong and thus “it’s up to Congress to get the men and women what they need.”
Hunter called for an increase in defense spending, saying Pentagon leaders and Congress at times have been shortsighted in focusing on investing for the current conflict.
“That’s one reason that we saw we were way behind when we got into the Iraq war on R&D….We had to get IED jammers, we had to play catch-up on UAVs, on body armor, on up- armored vehicles. And you don’t want to see us playing catch-up if we had to get into…a protracted ground battle where we do need Big Army, and we need tanks, and we need the big, long supply chains.”
The elder Hunter in Congress tried to increase the required domestic content levels of U.S. military systems during the last major congressional debate on the issue in 2003.
Candidate Hunter said he also would push in Congress for boosting the required U.S. content of defense systems.
“It’s taxpayers’ dollars, it’s paid for by Americans, and it ought to be made by America,” he said, adding, “You don’t want countries that you don’t know if they’re going to be friends or not in the next conflict making important gear for us, that they might not make if they disagree with us on whatever conflict that is.” Lumpkin said he supports the current Buy America law that way it is now, saying it “lives up to the intent of what we’re trying to do.” Some in Congress have called for loosening it.
“I think we should do the most that’s reasonably possible to make sure that we maintain the provisions of the Buy America in order to keep jobs in this country,” Lumpkin said. “Understanding that we live in a global economy…it’s OK to put American workers first, especially when we’re supplying the equipment for U.S. military.”
On the Iraq war, Lumpkin calls for bringing half of the troops home, and moving those remaining out of urban centers. Hunter said troops need to remain in Iraq and a “win a total and complete victory there,” and that “Congress shouldn’t be involved in deciding tactics in warfare in combat.”
Hunter and Lumpkin will face off at the polls Nov. 4. Hunter is the clear frontrunner when it comes to donations–with $1,139,000 compared to Lumpkin’s $400,000 as of Sept. 30, according to the Federal Election Commission. The Republican has also outspent his opponent, tapping $818,000 from his war chest, compared to the $363,000 Lumpkin spent through last month.
A recent analysis showed Hunter raised far more from the defense sector, with $26,600 compared to Lumpkin’s $5,350 in contributions from defense industry employees, according to data through June 30 compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Hunter’s top contributors include employees of defense shops with San Diego presences including General Atomics ($20,700), Trex Enterprises ($7,100), and Honeywell International [HON] ($5,000), the data shows.
Lumpkin’s list of top donors, according to the June 30 information compiled by CRP, hailed from places including: the Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union ($5,000), boat builder United States Marine, Inc. ($4,600), and the Department of Veterans Affairs ($2,300).
The incumbent Hunter maintained strong ties to the defense industry in southern California–and advocated for projects for area contractors, beyond just Dupont Aerospace. For example, he repeatedly called on the Navy to enhance its use of the Sea Fighter catamaran built by L-3 Communications‘ [LLL] Advanced Systems division in San Diego.
Military bases in the San Diego area–though not necessarily completely within the House district–include the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Base Coronado, and the Marine Corps’ Camp Pendleton, Air Station Miramar, and Point Loma bases.