Candidate Q&A
Why are you running?
I am running for Congress because I want to restore the American Dream for future generations. Like all Americans, I want a better future for my children, but I am incredibly concerned about our current economic and political trajectory. Our political system has failed working people for generations, and now it’s sliding toward strongman politics and an authoritarian style of government. My opponent, the incumbent, has a long track record of supporting this administration without question, no matter the consequences for our district or the future of our kids.
I believe the people of our district deserve a Representative with an independent spirit who has a finger on the pulse of the average working person. I come from working-class people, have served my community through faith-based and other civic organizations, and have a deep understanding of the common struggles of everyday working Americans.
I truly believe that if regular people like me do not stand up, get involved, and fight back against the forces of authoritarianism and concentrated economic power, our children will not have the same opportunities or privileges we had. I feel I must act while I can to prevent this from happening.
What do you think is the most pressing issue facing your constituents and how do you plan on addressing it?
Just like the rest of America, people in Illinois’ 16th District are struggling to get ahead financially. I’ve met with many people throughout this district in Northern and Central Illinois, and while they have many concerns, the rising cost of living has risen to the top. Everyday costs—from healthcare to housing to childcare—continue to rise, especially for those just starting off. These rising costs are also pervasive. Input costs for farmers and small businesses are going through the roof, while consumers struggle to afford the goods they produce.
The current government has failed to address these concerns and is instead focused on foreign entanglements and creating chaos on American streets. As the next representative of this district, I will be a full-time fighter for working people, children, seniors, farmers, and small businesses.
I am unafraid to push back against leaders from either party when it’s in my constituents’ best interests. I will fight against industry consolidation that has allowed large corporations to reduce consumer choice and drive up prices. I will work aggressively to ensure we are building new, quality homes for both first-time buyers and seniors who are looking to downsize but stay in their communities. I will fight to bring our industrial base and energy sector into the 21st century, which will create good-paying jobs, reduce costs, and allow us to compete with a rising China.
What is one unique challenge your district faces and how do you plan to address it?
Many parts of this district were once industrial powerhouses, but the decades-long process of deindustrialization has left many people with fewer opportunities to build meaningful careers with good wages and benefits. It is an issue that carries bipartisan responsibility, but my opponent’s support of the current administration’s policies has led to continued declines in manufacturing jobs in communities like Rockford and Peoria.
I believe we need the federal government to take a new approach to industrial policy — one that requires massive investments in rural and Rust Belt communities to incentivize modern American manufacturing and other blue-collar industries so that workers have the ability to earn good wages and benefits while supporting the reindustrialization of our nation. This should include strengthening domestic supply chains, expanding apprenticeship programs, supporting small and medium-sized manufacturers, and ensuring taxpayer investments are tied to workplace standards like prevailing wages and the right to organize. It’s not enough to build things in America; workers should be able to afford the products they produce.
What do you think federal immigration reform should look like?
Our immigration system needs a full overhaul, one that can gain bipartisan support and meets the needs of our local economies while ensuring immigrants are treated fairly and bad-faith employers are held accountable. Immigration has been a foundational part of our nation’s success since its founding, but it is now in complete chaos, with leaders of both parties responsible for where we are. We cannot have open borders, but we also cannot accept a paramilitary-style force of masked federal agents terrorizing immigrant communities throughout the country.
We need to create structured, lawful, and fair pathways for immigrants to seek legal status. This should include strict background checks, appropriate fees or taxes, time-in-country thresholds, and other criteria to ensure those operating within this new legal framework will be productive members of our communities. We also need to make sure we have the lawyers, judges, and other public servants required to make this system work. In addition, we must review worker protections and visa programs for immigrants to ensure they are not taken advantage of by employers or used to undermine union organizing or pit groups of workers against one another.
How should Congress address the rising costs of health care?
America spends far more on healthcare, faces significantly worse outcomes, and has fewer providers than other wealthy nations—and our costs continue to rise with no end in sight. In order to decrease costs and increase flexibility, access, and freedom, we need to move to a Medicare for All system. This would allow providers to receive fair and consistent payment levels for medical visits and procedures without the added costs of the industry’s middlemen, who siphon off billions of dollars in healthcare spending every year.
On top of that, small businesses and entrepreneurs would gain significantly more flexibility to run their businesses, hire and retain talent, and focus on what they do best instead of balancing the ever-changing costs and requirements of providing healthcare coverage to their employees. This would also allow Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices, which are a major driver of medical expenses.
What approach would you take on tax policy and what is your top priority?
I believe that income tax rates for working-class and middle-class people should be reduced, while tax rates for the ultra-rich and large corporations should be increased. Income inequality is at its highest point, and the number of billionaires in the country has increased sixtyfold over the last 50 years. Meanwhile, more than half of Americans still live paycheck to paycheck, families’ disposable income continues to decline, prices are way up, and people are losing faith that the system works for them. Federal tax policy is one of the few ways that we, as everyday Americans, have the ability to reverse these trends.
We also need to ensure that our tax code is simplified and that loopholes used by the ultra-rich and powerful are eliminated. Most people understand that if you can afford expensive lawyers and accountants, you are able to alter your tax obligation in a way that ensures you pay much less in taxes as a percentage of your income than an everyday worker does. Congress should create tax policy that is simple, fair, and progressive–one that achieves the goal of empowering workers and small businesses while dramatically reducing income inequality.
Is the House currently using its oversight powers in the way it should be? What areas of government need more or less oversight?
The Republican-controlled House has completely given up its oversight authority and become a subservient arm of the executive branch. We are in one of the most corrupt periods of American history, yet the political party in control of the House has done nothing to shine a light on it, let alone hold those responsible accountable. This current government deserves greater levels of oversight in practically every area, not only because of its radical approach, but because Republicans in the House have fully abdicated their oversight responsibilities.
What is the most pressing foreign policy issue facing the country and what role should the House play in dealing with it?
The most pressing foreign policy issue that America faces is the way in which the executive branch has usurped so much power from the legislative branch and is able to unilaterally enact policies that create significant risk for our nation. Recent examples include the reckless decision to threaten close allies while creating a global trade war. This has caused many countries to begin establishing alternative plans, trade deals, and alliances based on their belief that America can no longer be trusted or relied upon as a stable partner in global affairs.
On top of that, the executive branch has engaged in acts of war without the constitutionally required approval from Congress. The House must collectively regrow its spine, take back its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and push back against the executive branch’s power grabs.
How do you view AI and the role the government should play in its regulation?
At this point in time, it can be hard to determine whether AI poses a real long-term threat to humanity or will remain simply a more advanced version of an online search engine. However, when people like Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI,” state that there is up to a one-in-five chance that this technology could take control from humans, our leaders should be working to develop smart, responsive regulations and safeguards to ensure that never happens. The companies that are rapidly advancing AI are not out to make the world better — they are seeking to make massive profits and increase shareholder value, much like the tech giants that wield so much economic, political, and social power today. And the technology every company is pursuing—artificial general intelligence—if achieved, would make the power wielded by a company like Meta look like child’s play.
The government must use the expertise of impartial researchers, scholars, technologists, ethicists, and policymakers to develop policies that establish safeguards and accountability measures in an effort to, at minimum, avoid the worst-case scenarios described by people like Mr. Hinton. The ultimate goal of these policy proposals should be to ensure citizens, our democracy, and our economy are not only able to withstand future advancements, but also to harness this new technology for social benefit, such as advancing medical research. We should not allow the fate of society to rest in the hands of AI CEOs and their investors—the stakes are too high.
How would you describe the current state of your party and what changes or new approaches would you like to see your party adopt?
I have never strongly identified with either of the two major political parties because they both share responsibility for policies that have led to deindustrialization and offshoring, the weakening of organized labor, and the elevation of issues in the political system that create division within the working class — preventing our country from enacting fundamental reforms and policies that would dramatically improve the lives of everyday people and rebuild trust in our political and economic systems.
That said, it’s clear to me that the Republican Party has, particularly at the national level, become a political organ of one man and has abandoned many of the values and policy ideas it proclaimed to believe in for so many years in exchange for staying in power. So, I have committed not only to running as a Democrat, but also to working to dramatically revitalize and reform a Democratic Party that has drifted away from the ideas and vision of FDR that made it so successful, both in policy and political accomplishments.
I believe that the Democratic Party needs to once again become the party of the working person. It needs to shed the influence of the forces that have helped bring us to the economic, social, and political decline our country now faces. I believe a revitalized and reformed Democratic Party may be the only hope for restoring faith that the system can work for the everyday person.