Telepeer

Mitch Clemmons, CA-41 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

May 5, 2026

Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.

Name: Mitch Clemmons

Current job title: Businessowner / Plumbing contractor

Age: 53

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Republican Ex-officio Senate District 30

City where you reside: Santa Monica

Campaign website or social media: electmitchclemmons.com

From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)

Having open, honest, and transparent elections is my top priority. Everything else in our society is affected by those we elect and the laws we create. It is imperative that every U.S. citizen has faith in our elections. This requires transparency in all areas of our elections, a guarantee that all eligible voters are able to vote, and the assurance that partisan politics and special interests do not tilt the scales or subvert the will of the people. I support the Save America Act, and I believe it is a good step forward in renewing the trust of We the People in our election systems and government.

Secondly, I want to protect our families. I will support legislation that strengthens the traditional family, protects parents’ rights, and aims to educate, not indoctrinate, our children.

And lastly, I think our government is bloated. We need to reduce government intrusion into people’s lives, reduce government spending, and crack down on fraudulent uses of our taxpayer dollars.

Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is common sense and essential for election integrity. I fully support the president’s call for Congress to pass legislation mandating it. Only American citizens should decide American elections.

The U.S. Constitution grants states primary authority over conducting elections, but the federal government has a legitimate role in establishing minimum national standards to protect the integrity of federal elections. Ensuring that only eligible citizens can vote is not federal overreach — it is a fundamental safeguard to maintain public trust. Transparency, accuracy, and fairness demand that we prevent non-citizens from voting, just as we prevent fraud, double voting, or other abuses.

As someone who believes open, honest, and transparent elections must be our top priority, I see proof-of-citizenship requirements as a critical step toward renewing faith in our democracy. We, the People, deserve confidence that our votes are not diluted or subverted by partisan interests or ineligible voters. States should administer elections, but uniform federal standards on citizenship verification help ensure the system works for all Americans, not special interests.

What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

The federal government’s top priority on immigration must be securing the border and enforcing our existing laws.

Illegal immigration harms everyone involved. It puts desperate people in danger as they attempt dangerous crossings, while enriching violent cartels that profit from human trafficking. In Southern California, it also drives up housing costs, undercuts American wages in sectors like construction and trades, strains public services, and threatens election integrity by distorting the census and inviting fraud.

We need to finish the wall, deploy technology and personnel, end catch-and-release, and prioritize deportations of criminals and recent arrivals. At the same time, I have friends who have lived here illegally for over 20 or 30 years. They work hard, contribute, and want to fix their status — but both political parties have failed them. Instead of solving the problem, politicians use immigration as a wedge issue to divide us and rally their bases.

Legal immigration should be reformed to serve America first: prioritize high-skilled workers who truly contribute, enforce strict vetting, and set realistic limits. Asylum claims must be processed rigorously — not exploited as a loophole.

We must secure our borders, enforce the rule of law, and finally address the broken system so good people can come out of the shadows legally. America First means protecting citizens while creating a fair, orderly process — not perpetuating chaos for political gain.

It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

As a Santa Monica resident and SoCal native, I’ve seen the devastation from the Palisades and Eaton wildfires up close. Families lost homes, lives were upended, and rebuilding has been painfully slow.

The real issue isn’t just delayed federal aid, it’s the toxic mix of incompetence, overregulation, and political gamesmanship in Sacramento and Washington. Governor Newsom and local leaders failed for years on forest management, water systems, and basic preparedness, then turned the disaster into a partisan fundraising and blame-shifting exercise. Now they demand nearly $34 billion in supplemental aid while California’s own bloated bureaucracy, excessive permitting, environmental red tape, and high costs continue to block victims from rebuilding quickly.

If elected, I would push for funding by demanding accountability first: independent audits of how previous disaster dollars were spent, aggressive cuts to duplicative regulations and DEI-driven waste, and fast-track permitting reforms so families can actually rebuild without endless delays or mandates for low-income housing.

I’d work with Congress and the Trump administration to deliver targeted, efficient aid… not blank checks… while prioritizing American taxpayers over political theater. Disaster relief should help real people recover, not grow government or reward failed leadership. Secure, transparent processes that cut bureaucracy and get Californians back in homes… that’s what We the People deserve.

Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I strongly support a complete ban on congressional lawmakers, their spouses, and dependent children from buying or selling individual stocks, options, or derivatives while in office.

Why? Because public service should serve We The People — not become a pathway for personal enrichment through insider information. Far too many members of Congress have suspiciously successful stock trades that beat the market by huge margins. This is legalized insider trading, and it erodes public trust in our government. It’s exactly the kind of special interest influence and self-dealing that tilts the scales against everyday Americans.

Even broad transparency has limits. Lawmakers could still leak tips to distant relatives, friends, or associates who trade and quietly return favors later. That kind of corruption is difficult to prove.

To fix this, I propose:

– A strict ban on trading individual stocks and derivatives for members of Congress, their immediate family, and any controlled entities. They should be limited to broad index funds, ETFs, or fully blind trusts.

– Real-time public disclosure of all financial holdings and transactions.

– Automatic independent audits with severe penalties — including expulsion from Congress, fines, and full clawback of profits — for any violations.

– Closing all loopholes involving family, friends, or indirect benefits.

Leaders in Washington should focus on securing our elections, protecting our borders and families, and reducing bloated government — not gaming the stock market with non-public knowledge. Banning it outright is the clearest way to restore integrity and public confidence.

Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I support stronger regulations on actual pollution — clean air, clean water, and protecting our environment for future generations. Southern Californians deserve breathable air and safe communities free from toxic dumping or industrial waste. However, I do not support the climate change agenda or heavy-handed carbon emissions regulations pushed as a solution. These policies often serve as expensive virtue-signaling that punish American families and businesses while doing little for the global environment.

Carbon taxes, strict emissions caps, and green mandates drive up energy and fuel costs, hitting lower-income families hardest through higher grocery, utility, and gas bills. They also crush small businesses with compliance costs that big corporations can absorb but local shops and contractors cannot.

To protect the environment without overburdening working families or small businesses, I propose:

– Targeted, science-based rules focused on real pollutants (particulates, chemicals, waste) rather than vague carbon targets.

– Regulatory relief and exemptions for small businesses, including streamlined permitting and cost-benefit analysis that prioritizes economic impact.

– Incentives for innovation — tax credits for cleaner technologies, conservation, and voluntary improvements — instead of one-size-fits-all mandates.

– Enforcement against actual polluters while cutting bureaucratic red tape and wasteful spending.

We can steward our natural resources responsibly without turning government into another bloated tool for special interests or raising costs on We The People. Practical stewardship, not climate alarmism, is the right path.

President Donald Trump has significantly increased spending for the U.S. Department of Defense. Would you, as a member of Congress, approve additional dollars for the military if the president were to ask for more funding? How would you ensure that any military spending does not end up putting the American people or national security in harm’s way? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I would support additional funding for the U.S. military if President Trump requested it, provided the dollars are spent wisely and tied to clear national security needs.

America must maintain the strongest military in the world. As the old saying goes, “If you want peace, carry a big stick.” A powerful, well-equipped military is the best deterrent against aggression and the surest way to prevent wars — not start them. Weakness invites conflict; strength brings peace.

I support President Trump’s approach in Iran and the Middle East. His strategy is delivering long-term peace through strength, not another endless foreign war. We should not be nation-building or putting American troops in unnecessary ground conflicts.

To ensure military spending does not harm the American people or national security, I would demand:

– Strict oversight and regular audits to eliminate waste, fraud, and bloated bureaucracy in the Department of Defense.

– Clear priorities: rebuilding our industrial base, modernizing our forces (especially naval power and advanced technology), and securing our own borders first.

– No blank checks. Every dollar must directly strengthen America’s defense posture and support “peace through strength,” not endless overseas entanglements.

– Full transparency so taxpayers know exactly where their money is going.

As a member of Congress, my focus will always be protecting American families, securing our elections and borders, and keeping government spending in check — even in defense. A strong military protects our sovereignty and keeps us out of unnecessary wars.

Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

The United States should only engage in war under the most extreme and necessary circumstances. I am deeply skeptical of foreign wars and believe we should avoid them whenever possible. American lives and treasure are too precious to waste on nation-building, regime change, or endless conflicts that do not directly serve our national interest.

In my view, military force should be used only when:

1. America is directly attacked or faces an imminent, credible threat to our homeland, our citizens, or our vital national security interests (such as major trade routes or critical infrastructure).

2. All diplomatic and economic options have been genuinely exhausted.

3. There is a clear, achievable objective and a defined exit strategy… never open-ended commitments.

4. The mission has strong congressional authorization and broad public support.

I support President Trump’s “peace through strength” approach. A powerful military acts as the best deterrent to prevent wars from starting in the first place. His recent actions in Iran show how projecting strength can bring long-term stability.

We must never send our sons and daughters to fight unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the American people. My priority as a member of Congress will always be securing our own borders, protecting our families here at home, and ensuring our military remains the strongest in the world… so we can stay out of unnecessary wars.

Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, the President should generally seek congressional approval for major, sustained military actions overseas — but in our current dangerous world, requiring approval for every single action is unrealistic and dangerous.

The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief and gives Congress the power to declare war. That balance is important. However, expecting Congress to vote on every airstrike, special forces operation, or rapid response in real time would tie the hands of the executive branch and put American lives at risk. In today’s fast-moving world of terrorism, rogue states, and immediate threats, the President must have the flexibility to act decisively and quickly when necessary.

I support a clear distinction:

– For limited, targeted actions (such as strikes against imminent threats or responses to direct attacks on U.S. interests), the President should have broad authority to act first and then promptly notify and brief Congress.

– For large-scale, prolonged military engagements or invasions, the President must seek congressional authorization.

President Trump has shown that “peace through strength” works. His approach in Iran demonstrates how decisive leadership can deter enemies and promote long-term stability.

As a member of Congress, I will insist on proper oversight, regular briefings, and accountability for all military actions — while making sure we never weaken the President’s ability to protect America. Our focus must remain on securing our own borders, protecting our people at home, and maintaining the strongest military in the world so that war is deterred, not invited.

Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

No, Congress has largely failed in its primary constitutional duty: to create laws that protect the life, liberty, and property of We The People.

The Founders designed Congress as the branch closest to the American people — the one responsible for writing clear, limited laws that safeguard our rights, secure our borders, maintain a stable economy, and defend our freedoms. Instead of focusing on these core responsibilities, Congress during both the Biden and Trump administrations has repeatedly prioritized partisan power plays, bloated spending bills, and special interest favors over the public good.

Under the Biden years, we saw massive spending packages that fueled inflation, weak border policies that endangered communities, and laws that expanded government control rather than protecting individual liberty. During Trump’s term, even with Republican majorities at times, Congress passed continuing resolutions loaded with pork, failed to deliver meaningful reforms, and allowed divisive issues like election integrity and immigration to fester instead of solving them.

Both parties have treated Congress as an arena for political warfare and self-preservation rather than a body dedicated to securing the blessings of liberty. They’ve grown government bigger, increased intrusion into people’s lives, and undermined trust in our elections and institutions.

If elected, I will work to refocus Congress on its true purpose: passing laws that strengthen election integrity, secure our borders, protect traditional families, reduce bloated government overreach, and put the life, liberty, and prosperity of We The People first — regardless of which party holds the White House.

Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Should Congress adopt such restrictions? If so, what specific restrictions do you propose? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Congress should not impose broad federal age bans or heavy-handed restrictions on social media use for young people. While I share deep concerns about the serious damage social media is doing to our children’s mental health — increased anxiety, depression, loneliness, and exposure to harmful content — the solution is not more government control over families.

Parents, not the federal government, should decide what is best for their own kids. Government has already failed too many times by allowing schools to indoctrinate rather than educate and by intruding into family life. Adding Washington bureaucrats to police smartphones would only create another bloated, ineffective bureaucracy that undermines parental rights.

Instead, I propose:

– Strong protection of parental rights, including tools that make it easier for parents to monitor and restrict their children’s accounts.

– Full transparency from social media companies: clear age verification, default private settings for minors, and easy parental controls.

– Holding Big Tech accountable for knowingly pushing addictive algorithms and harmful content to children without interference in lawful speech.

– Encouraging states and local communities to support parental education and family-based solutions rather than top-down federal mandates.

We must protect our children, but the answer lies in strengthening families and enforcing existing laws against exploitation — not in expanding government power. Congress should focus on securing our borders and elections, reducing bloated government, and restoring trust so parents can raise their kids without constant federal overreach.

Statistically, violent crime rates in California are on the decline, yet residents still don’t feel safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in Congress in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Official statistics may show some decline in reported violent crime in California, but that misses the real story. Many Californians in Southern California don’t feel safe because progressive policies have deliberately weakened law enforcement and prosecution. Decriminalizing theft under $950, district attorneys refusing to prosecute repeat offenders, and police de-prioritizing arrests have created a culture where criminals face few consequences. This leads to underreporting — why bother calling the police if nothing will happen?

Smash-and-grabs, car break-ins, open drug use, and retail theft have made neighborhoods feel lawless, even if some numbers look better on paper. Failed “judicial reform” experiments have harmed working families, small businesses, and honest residents the most.

In Congress, my role is to support federal solutions that reinforce what works: backing law enforcement funding, opposing soft-on-crime mandates, and pushing for accountability at every level. I will advocate for policies that restore real consequences for criminals, protect victims’ rights, and stop the revolving-door justice system.

We need to secure our borders to stop the flow of drugs and gangs, strengthen election integrity so policies actually reflect the will of the people, and reduce bloated government interference that ties the hands of local police and prosecutors. Families across SoCal deserve to feel safe in their own neighborhoods again. That starts with rejecting failed experiments and returning to common-sense enforcement that puts We The People first.

There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I strongly support term limits for members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Career politicians are one of the biggest reasons our republic has been damaged. When politics becomes a lifelong career instead of temporary public service, members become more focused on staying in power, raising money from special interests, and protecting the Washington establishment than serving We The People. This leads to bloated government, weakened election integrity, and policies that hurt working families while enriching insiders.

Term limits would bring fresh voices, new ideas, and representatives who are closer to the real problems facing Southern California — like securing our borders, protecting families, and reducing government overreach.

I believe we should go even further than just House term limits. There should be a reasonable maximum number of years anyone can serve in politics at any level — local, state, or federal — combined. No one should make a lifelong career out of elected office.

For the U.S. House specifically, I support a maximum of six terms (12 years). This gives members enough time to gain experience and get things done, while preventing them from becoming permanent fixtures in Washington.

If elected, I will actively advocate for a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congress. Public service should be a temporary duty, not a lifetime profession. We The People deserve representatives who serve for a season and then return to the communities they came from.

What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

One hidden talent I have is a real ability to pay close attention to what’s actually happening in our world… not what politicians or the media want us to believe, but the ground-level reality.

I notice how policies affect real families in Southern California: the impact of open borders on housing and wages, the erosion of trust in our elections, the way bloated government and failed “reforms” make neighborhoods feel less safe. I’m good at connecting the dots between Washington decisions and daily life here in SoCal.

That awareness keeps me grounded. If elected to Congress, I’ll bring that same clear-eyed focus to fighting for secure elections, strong borders, protected families, and reducing government overreach… always putting We The People first.

Orange County Register

News Details

Mitch Clemmons, CA-41 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS