The manner in which a candidate runs his or her campaign is clearly indicative of how he or she will perform if elected.

Presently the campaign is the House of Representatives seat to represent California’s 25th District. It’s between Steve Knight, a 25th District resident, and Tony Strickland, who lives elsewhere. Running in a nonresident district isn’t illegal, but it inherently establishes antipodal interests.

For example: Strickland needs to stick a smelly garbage dump somewhere. Is he going to vote to put it in his home district where he lives and faces his neighbors every day? Or will he vote to stick the dump in the 25th he “represents”?

Strickland would brush off that question as a “hypothetical” just like he did a real-life question I asked him.

Among about a dozen people, I was invited to ask a question, in a forum, of both candidates. I asked (and it’s published): “If a candidate campaigns for an office where he actually lives, and collects a large amount of campaign funds from that district while staunchly denying the loud rumors that the candidate is going to switch to running in a different district where he or she does not reside, should that candidate fully and publicly explain the switch and return all the money to the original donors who are left behind?”

Strickland replied: “This is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with this race. I am focused on the issues and providing bipartisan solutions to the most critical problems facing our community.”

That response is absolutely false. The question is reality and has everything to do with this race.

The proof is that Strickland started his campaign months ago in his home district – the 26th. Irrespective of his asserted denials of switching, he did exactly that. He collected $400,000 in donations from 26th District donors, switched, and kept the money.

Tony Strickland has no compunction to switching personal or professional allegiances.

Strickland supporters brag about the money pile he’s collected and that he won the primary election by 700 votes. He was and may still be the recipient of big bucks from big guys – out-of-towners, to boot – gratis sitting U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon. Reportedly Strickland garnered about $1 million more than Knight; that calculates to $1,428.57 per vote. I wonder if the funders feel they got the bang for their buck (no pun intended). Big donors expect big returns.

Amassing a lot of money isn’t a mystery when a candidate campaigns in two districts.

Presently, Strickland is running a sleazy television ad saying Knight voted for millions in increased California spending and also voted a pay-raise for himself. Unsurprisingly, truthful details are absent.

First, anyone who thinks Steve Knight is anything other than a fiscal conservative is in the world of lunacy. Second, the subject pay-raise dates back nearly a decade when Knight was on the Palmdale City Council.

For one, the League of Cities addresses population thresholds of growing cities. With growth, council members may need to advance from part-time to full-time members. Parameters allow minimal pay increases prudently at milestone times to avoid future giant leaps as cities continue to grow. Not only could the nominal “raise” amount be counted by a 5-year-old, but Knight never realized the increase because it was effective the next election cycle and he didn’t run.

The allegation is slime, and Strickland knows it. Knight explained it to Strickland and to an audience at a dual appearance. I witnessed it.

Strickland has been fined twice by the FEC for campaign irregularities including $116,140 in late contributions – $6,000 in 1999 and $3,000 in 2010. Knight is clean.

Strickland repeatedly proves he is incapable of “leading” and “protecting” the citizens of the 25th.

The Santa Clarita Valley has fought the filth and dangers, locally and in Washington, D.C., of the Mexican mining company Cemex for more than decade. The battle is ongoing. Strickland has accepted donations from Cemex. That renders him impotent to fight for the SCV against Cemex.

R. Rex Parris, attorney and mayor of Lancaster, along with Malibu attorney Larry Shenkman, have sued the city of Santa Clarita and multiple local school districts, with more being threatened, to institute the Voting Rights Act farce. The act divides districts and causes in-fighting where leaders have made great strides to unite. District voting cuts each voters voting power by 80 percent.

Parris and Shenkman have collected millions of dollars for themselves. “Plaintiffs” lend their names and never have the burden of proving damages. By the way, Parris’ and Shenkman’s home territories do not have district voting.

Parris openly supports Strickland, publicly and financially. Strickland is boastful of that backing. A “representative” of the people is unfit for duty when he cozies up to those who repeatedly sue taxpayers. These lawsuits force taxpayers to finance the school districts, the cities and the coffers of attorneys – Strickland’s friends – who sue us.

Strickland wants to be in the U.S. Congress, yet he doesn’t know the history of the various Confederate flags. His banter on the topic offers no intellect.

Citizens deserve a representative who lives in the district and who will live every day with his votes’ aftermath; a person who knows poignant America’s history; and a person who does not have allegiances to anti-forces of the community and its taxpayers. Do you think Tony Strickland will represent you and your family’s interests? Vote smart.

Betty Arenson has lived in the SCV since 1968 and describes herself as a conservative who’s concerned about progressives’ politics and their impacts on the country, her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She says she is unashamed to own a gun or a Bible, couldn’t care less about the color of the president’s skin, and demands that he uphold his oath to protect and follow the Constitution of the United States in its entirety.