Candidate Q&A
Why are you running?
I’m running because our current representative has not effectively served this district. For years, she refused to use federal tax dollars for local projects, even though people here pay into the system just like everyone else. As a result, many communities, and their residents, were forced to cover the cost of infrastructure and public investments that should have been federally supported. That position only changed recently, and only after a primary challenge appeared. Too many communities were left behind because of those choices. My goal is to make sure that stops. I want to bring our fair share of federal resources back to the district and put them to work strengthening infrastructure, schools, and healthcare. I want to support family farmers and help create real opportunities so young people can build a future here instead of feeling like they have to leave. I’m also running for my grandchildren and for future generations. I’m worried about the kind of future they’re inheriting, and I believe we have a responsibility to leave them a district and a country that is more stable, more affordable, and full of opportunity. If people can’t earn a living where they live, nothing else works.
What do you think is the most pressing issue facing your constituents and how do you plan on addressing it?
Farmers tell me the biggest hurdle they face today is the suffocating grip of "Big Ag." Right now, a handful of massive corporations are calling the shots on their land—dictating what they plant, which patented seeds they're forced to buy, and exactly where they have to sell their harvest. Between seed patents that kill the tradition of saving grain and iron-clad livestock contracts, independent farmers are being backed into a corner. When there’s only one buyer in town, they don't get a fair price; they get an ultimatum. By forcing farmers into buying specific chemicals and proprietary equipment, these companies are squeezing every cent of profit out of farmer's pockets. Enough is enough. There are several antitrust cases pending to address corporate consolidation and restore some degree of competition. The Sherman Act should be used to separate "input" businesses (seeds & fertilizers) from "output business (processing) preventing them from controlling the entire process. Loyalty programs should be outlawed, data sharing by meatpackers should be broken up and seed giants should be required to license their traits to smaller, independent regional seed companies to increase market variety. Using USDA Rural Cooperative Development Grants and the America First Trade Promotion Program, we can fund new, independent processing plants and co-ops giving farmers leverage to set their own terms. I’ll push for a Farm Bill that treats farmers like business owners, not contract laborers. It’s time to level the playing field so our farm families can finally thrive, not just survive.
What is one unique challenge your district faces and how do you plan to address it?
The district’s biggest challenge is that its problems are deeply connected. Economic pressures, aging infrastructure, agricultural stress, limited healthcare access, and the loss of young people all reinforce one another. When jobs disappear or wages stagnate, communities struggle to support schools, hospitals, and local businesses. When roads, broadband, and public facilities fall behind, it becomes harder to attract employers or keep workers. Agriculture—central to much of the district—faces rising costs, volatile markets, and consolidation, and those pressures ripple through local economies. Healthcare access is another critical piece. When rural hospitals or clinics struggle or close, people must travel farther for care, hurting quality of life and making it harder to draw families and employers. This, in turn, pushes more young people to leave, shrinking the workforce and tax base and worsening every other challenge. The first step is recognizing that these issues are connected. You can’t strengthen the economy without addressing infrastructure, agriculture, and healthcare at the same time. My focus is on restoring federal investment to rebuild roads, expand broadband, and modernize public facilities. Strong infrastructure helps businesses operate, workers commute, and students learn locally, while making the region more competitive for new opportunities. Supporting agriculture is essential as well. When family farmers have reliable infrastructure, broadband, and fair markets, entire communities benefit. Healthcare must be part of the solution. Keeping rural hospitals and clinics open and staffed supports workers, families, and local employers. When communities have good jobs, strong infrastructure, accessible healthcare, and stability, young people are far more likely to stay. Addressing these challenges together is how we move from decline to real, durable growth.
What do you think federal immigration reform should look like?
The Dream Act has failed multiple times framed as an "amnesty" bill. I believe the approach for passage should include an earned path to citizenship, stipulating the number of years the Dreamer has been in the country, including work (sustained employment) and education parameters (minimum high school/GED), or military service. The Dreamer bill and any other pathway to citizenship will need to be paired with mandatory E-verify, identity fraud penalties and worksite verification, with penalties for employers who violate the law. It will need to include a hard cutoff date along with prohibitions for executive discretion; only providing expansion with the approval of Congress. Any bill should require continuous presence with limited exceptions, exclusion of anyone with unresolved identity issues, and exclusion of recent DACA arrivals. Currently, the immigration court judge staffing has been reduced from 700 to approximately 600 judges leading to even more backlogs. Immigration courts will need to be increased substantially to process the pending claims. Every applicant is entitled to due process. Any bill proposed must not encourage continued immigration in order to obtain bi-partisan support.
How should Congress address the rising costs of health care?
When I talk with people across our district, one thing is painfully clear: our healthcare system is no longer working for the people it’s supposed to serve. Costs keep rising, wages don’t keep up, and government reductions in healthcare funding and recent legislative decisions have forced families and individuals to shoulder a larger share of the cost. I’ve heard from parents skipping their own care to pay for their children’s medicine, seniors splitting pills to make them last, and rural families driving hours because their local hospital closed. None of this is acceptable. For years, we’ve allowed a for‑profit system to decide what healthcare looks like in this country. That system rewards high‑margin procedures while starving the services our communities rely on most—primary care, mental health, and rural hospitals. It buries patients and providers under mountains of paperwork and creates so much administrative complexity that fraud can slip through the cracks unnoticed. I believe we need a different approach—one built around people, not profit. A single‑payer system would simplify the entire process, cut waste, and make it far easier to track claims, verify eligibility, and stop fraud before it starts. It would provide stable, predictable funding for rural hospitals instead of leaving them at the mercy of market forces. And it would use national bargaining power to lower drug prices and rein in inflation across the healthcare industry. At its core, this is about dignity and fairness. Healthcare should be accessible, affordable, and focused on keeping people healthy—not keeping corporations profitable.
What approach would you take on tax policy and what is your top priority?
When I talk with people across the district — families, farmers, small‑business owners — I hear the same thing: folks are doing everything they can, but the tax system just isn’t keeping up. Working people feel like they’re carrying the load while those at the very top have carved out advantages that ordinary families could never access. My approach to tax policy starts with a simple principle: fairness for workers, and responsibility from those who benefit most from our economy. That’s why I support a progressive FICA structure. Under my proposal, employers would pay 5% on the first $50,000 of wages and 9% on wages above $250,000. This modernizes how we fund Social Security, strengthens the program for future generations, and even creates room to increase payments for current retirees. And because small businesses are the backbone of our communities, those with fewer than 25 employees would get an additional tax credit to help them grow and hire. But strengthening Social Security is just one part of the larger picture. My top priority is building a tax system that is fair, sustainable, and fiscally honest — one that helps reduce our national debt without squeezing working families. To get there, we need to: • Close corporate and high‑end tax loopholes • Ensure big companies pay a minimum tax • Restore IRS enforcement so everyone plays by the same rules • End tax breaks that don’t help workers or the economy At the end of the day, I want a tax code that rewards hard work, supports small businesses, and puts our country on a stable financial path — without putting more pressure on the families who are already doing their part.
Is the House currently using its oversight powers in the way it should be? What areas of government need more or less oversight?
We all know there are places where oversight just isn’t working the way it should. Congress doesn’t always follow through when agencies ignore requests for information, and too often oversight turns into political drama instead of real accountability. Watchdogs flag problems all the time, but their warnings don’t always lead to action. And with fewer expert staff than federal agencies, Congress can get outmatched on the details. That’s a big reason people are worried about the executive branch. When decisions feel hidden, or when conflicts of interest aren’t fully checked, trust breaks down. No branch of government should get a pass on transparency. We also need stronger oversight of DHS. It’s a massive agency with huge authority, and people deserve to know how it’s using its resources, data, and enforcement power. The same is true for military contracting. Taxpayers should feel confident defense dollars aren’t being wasted—and service members shouldn’t be left short while contractors profit. And in the financial world—hedge funds, private credit funds, crypto—there are real risks building up with too little supervision. Those gaps can hit regular families hardest when things go wrong. But oversight shouldn’t weigh down the people who can least afford it. Small businesses, farmers, and local employers often get stuck in endless red tape that slows them down for no good reason. So the goal is pretty simple: strong oversight where the risks are high, and straightforward, common‑sense rules where everyday people carry the burden.
What is the most pressing foreign policy issue facing the country and what role should the House play in dealing with it?
Look, our foreign policy is basically a mess right now—from Venezuela and Iran to the chaos surrounding NATO, Ukraine, and China. Everything is on the line. With an armada now off Iran's coast, Democrats are playing hardball to stop a total spiral. By using the "Schumer Strategy" to leverage must-pass spending bills against a tiny GOP majority, they’ve triggered a partial shutdown to force guardrails on immigration and foreign policy. In the House, Leader Hakeem Jeffries is blocking procedural rules to force bipartisan votes, giving Democrats a huge say in final laws. They’re also disabling "fast-track" cuts and empowering the GAO to sue over illegal impoundments, keeping the "power of the purse" in Congress. On the defense side, 2026 amendments require explicit approval for action in Mexico and "fence" SOUTHCOM funding until the Pentagon releases unedited strike videos from Venezuela. To specifically stop a war with Iran, Democrats are utilizing bipartisan War Powers Resolutions to force floor votes on removing troops from unauthorized hostilities, while simultaneously pushing the "No War Against Iran Act" to explicitly ban federal funding for an attack and close "forever war" loopholes. They are further leveraging the current government shutdown by withholding budget votes to demand strict limits on unilateral Middle East action, bolstered by intense public pressure from oversight hearings and constitutional challenges. While awaiting the 2026 midterms to potentially flip the House or gain Senate majority, they are effectively creating real checks and balances where they matter most.
How do you view AI and the role the government should play in its regulation?
AI has massive potential, but we’ve moved past asking if we should regulate to exactly how we do it without killing innovation. While the administration wants a "minimally burdensome" framework, Congress has to step up with real guardrails. Democrats are pushing the AI Overwatch Act to force companies to "stress test" models for bias and safety before they’re ever released. States like Colorado, California, and Florida aren't waiting around, either—they’re already passing their own AI Bills of Rights to protect their people. It’s not just about the software; it’s about the massive physical footprint. These huge data centers are a double whammy for local towns, gulping millions of gallons of water and pushing electrical grids to the breaking point. Right now, residential customers are footing the bill for 55% of the power upgrades—including lines that only serve those data centers. We can't let the tech of the future bankrupt our communities today. The risks are personal, too. From workforce displacement and deepfakes to cybersecurity threats, everything is on the line. We’re even seeing cognitive decline in students who over-rely on these tools and a rise in social isolation. AI is only as good as the data it’s built on, and without legislation to tackle bias and oversight, the downsides could easily outweigh the benefits.
How would you describe the current state of your party and what changes or new approaches would you like to see your party adopt?
Mark Twain once joked, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Honestly, not much has changed. Our party is a loud, messy mix of opinions, and unlike the GOP, we don’t always walk in lockstep. But let’s be real: the public is losing faith. It’s not just about age; it’s that too many in Congress are out of touch with the technological and daily struggles people face. Voters feel like we’ve caved to the right—and to corporate lobbyists—just for the sake of "governing." As Robin Williams suggested, maybe we should wear sponsor patches like NASCAR drivers so people know who actually owns the seat. Governing requires compromise, but "compromise for the sake of compromise" is just a slow-motion surrender of our values. We’ve lost trust because people think we work for the donor class, not them. We need to flip the script. Helping with a passport or a local issue isn't enough; we have to educate. I recently talked to a mom worried her son would never afford a home. When I showed her the Illinois and federal grants for first-time buyers, she was floored—she had no idea they existed. To regain trust, we need transparency. Passing the No Stock Trades Act would be a massive first step. We can’t claim to serve the public when net-worth reports are vague and contribution data isn’t updated in real time. It’s time to stop cashing in and start showing up.